Beorn

Is Beorn man or more? He just doesn't seem to fit neatly into the Tolkienverse. Tolkien refers to him as a man in a note from unfinished tales but that doesn't seem relate to his portrayal in the Hobbit. In his Man form he is possibly 10-12 feet tall. Beorn was wearing a tunic below his knees and Bilbo could have walked under it without ducking his head. If Bilbo was 3'6", that would make Beorn about 12 feet tall. What man is 12 feet tall? In his bear form at the battle of 5 armies he was "giant in size". He single handedly turned the title of the battle and was tossing ors and wargs like straw. No weapon seemed to hurt him. That would suggest power of a super natural nature. Gandalf seemed wary of him as well which is unusual considering Gandalf's power. Beorn speaks of returning to the mountains before the goblins which seems a period of time much longer than a human lifespan. All of this suggests an individual that is more than Human.

[Raynor]

Hm, I wasn't aware that there was such a referrence in UT, can you give a more exact quote? As to the initial question, Tolkien said he is a Man in the letters, too:

Originally Posted by Letter #144

Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Hm, I wasn't aware that there was such a referrence in UT, can you give a more exact quote? As to the initial question, Tolkien said he is a Man in the letters, too:

Ahh, that is what I was referring to. I couldn't remember where I read it. That would indicate Beorn to be a man but everything about him indicates something else.

[Boromir88]

Beorn doesn't seem to fit nicely with most men, but I echo Raynor's thoughts in that he was a man.

The quoted Letter 144 goes to say also that Beorn would not have lived greater than the lifespan of a man. He would have died roughly the same age as Men did. It was in respondance I assume to somebody who had asked why Beorn wasn't in The Lord of the Rings, hence why Tolkien replied with: 'Beorn is dead, see vol1 pg241. He appeared in the Hobbit. It was then the year Third Age 2940 (Shire -reckoning 1340). We are now in the years 3018 -19 (1418-19). Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a man.' I doubt Beorn would have lived very long past the T.A. 3000.

Tolkien leaves a reference to vol1 pg241, where Tolkien is always referring to the 1966 Allen and Unwin edition:

’Frodo learned that Grimbeorn the Old, son of Beorn, was now the lord of many sturdy men, and to their land between the Mountains and Mirkwood neither orc nor wolf dared to go.

’Indeed,’ said Gloin, ’if it were not for the Beornings, the passage from Dale to Rivendell would long ago have become impossible. They are valiant men and keep open the High Pass and the Ford of Carrock. But their tolls are high,’ he added with a shake of his head; ’and like Beorn of old they are not over fond of dwarves.'~Many Meetings

I don't know if much more is known on Beorn (as to why he was considered a man), but not only did Tolkien refer to him as a Man in Letter 144, the dwarves thought of Beorn, and the Beornings, as Men too.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Etymology of Beorn. The Old English word first meant 'bear,' but over time it evolved to mean 'warrior.' I think this is Tolkien cleverly using the evolution of the Etymology of Beorn to show Beorn's ability to change from a man (a warrior) to a bear.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

That is interesting, Boro.

If ever there was a case of Tolkien saying "Right! Enough! I've had it; I'm away for my supper and I don't think I shall come back!" it is with Beorn. He'd obviously been at pains to fit the worlds of The Hobbit and the legendarium together. Imagine the stramash when he realised how difficult the Bombadil question was. By the time he'd remembered Beorn he'd grown quite exasperated and curt, hence: "Yeah, Beorn's a man. He's a giant, and he's a bear, but yeah, he's a man. Get over it."

[Raynor]

I would also note that in the appendices that the beornings are related to the first age Edain, giving them a rather good standing. Hammond and Scull offer in their LotR Reader Companion an etimology very similar to that given by Boromir88:

Grimbeorn the Old, son of Beorn, Many Meetings, page 207:... Beorn is an Old English word meaning 'prince, nobleman, warrior' or poetic 'man'.

I would also note that Beorn has a son; I would consider it very naturally that a leader's family should be of the same race with that of the ones who are ruled - otherwise, esspecially in the case of someone apparently related to animals, he wouldn't have a higher status, but a lower one.

[Aiwendil]

Eomer wrote:

If ever there was a case of Tolkien saying "Right! Enough! I've had it; I'm away for my supper and I don't think I shall come back!" it is with Beorn. He'd obviously been at pains to fit the worlds of The Hobbit and the legendarium together. Imagine the stramash when he realised how difficult the Bombadil question was. By the time he'd remembered Beorn he'd grown quite exasperated and curt, hence: "Yeah, Beorn's a man. He's a giant, and he's a bear, but yeah, he's a man. Get over it."

Does Beorn 'not fit' with the Legendarium? I don't see any obvious reason that he shouldn't. The only real contradiction that I can think of would be with the letter stating that Men could not use magic - but seeing as this was a draft that Tolkien apparently rejected, I don't think it's a real problem. Beorn is a human with some magical powers - it's no stranger than Luthien turning into a bat or Glamdring glowing when it senses Orcs.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Eomer wrote:


Does Beorn 'not fit' with the Legendarium? I don't see any obvious reason that he shouldn't. The only real contradiction that I can think of would be with the letter stating that Men could not use magic - but seeing as this was a draft that Tolkien apparently rejected, I don't think it's a real problem. Beorn is a human with some magical powers - it's no stranger than Luthien turning into a bat or Glamdring glowing when it senses Orcs.

Luthien was the daughter of a Maia and Thingol and Glamdring was imbued with Elven magic. It would appear that Magic is an inherent quality and not a learned one.

("But even with the Eagles they were still outnumbered. In that last hour Beorn himself had appeared......he seemed to have grown almost giant-size in his wrath"..."The roar of his voice was like drums and guns; and he tossed wolves and goblins from his path like straw and feathers. He fell upon their rear and broke like a clap of thunder thorugh the ring." He also kills Bolg himself ("crushed him") which finally caused the goblins to be dismayed and flee the battle)...


When one considers that Dain, Thorin, and many powerful dwarven individuals and a seasoned dwarven host along with Thrandruil and an elven host, Bard, the great Eagles and Gandalf(a maia) himself were losing and it took a lone individual(Beorn) and the power he posessed turned the tide, he would almost have to be more than a man.

If Tolkien used Beowulf as the template for Beorn, I could see the reasoning. Beowulf was human but a beserker warrior that posessed the strength of thirty men. Maybe Tolkien was thinking something akin to Beowulf when he created a Beorn. A savage hero who posessed such immense strength he would seem more monster than man but in the end be only a man.

[Aiwendil]

Luthien was the daughter of a Maia and Thingol and Glamdring was imbued with Elven magic.

And Beorn has human magic. Why is this any more troublesome?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Hammond and Scull offer in their LotR Reader Companion an etimology very similar to that given by Boromir88:

Beorn is an Old English word meaning 'prince, nobleman, warrior' or poetic 'man'.

Well, sort of...

In later use the word came simply to mean "warrior" or "valiant man" but it was only used poetically and never in everyday discouse. What's more, it was originally used in compound with other words as "valiant or brave..." someone.

And it's closely associated to the Old Norse world "bjorn" which means bear.

The connection to Beowulf is also compelling. Beowulf means, literally, "bee-wolf" which is (obviously) a poetic word for a bear. The feeling around the literary historian campfire is that the epic of Beowulf was composed from a body of tales about a popular folk hero who was in actuality a shape-shifter or skin changer himself. So Beowulf could very well have started out as a bear/man creature himself before getting all literary and Christian on us and settling into simple human form.

So was Beorn "just" a man....I'm not sure. His name did come to mean "valiant warrior" but only after some etymological twists and turns; and it echoes the ON word for "bear" and the close modelling on Beowulf points toward a much less 'human' ancestry than it may at first appear...

[Farael]

Originally Posted by BeorningBeserker

("But even with the Eagles they were still outnumbered. In that last hour Beorn himself had appeared......he seemed to have grown almost giant-size in his wrath"..."The roar of his voice was like drums and guns; and he tossed wolves and goblins from his path like straw and feathers. He fell upon their rear and broke like a clap of thunder thorugh the ring." He also kills Bolg himself ("crushed him") which finally caused the goblins to be dismayed and flee the battle)...


When one considers that Dain, Thorin, and many powerful dwarven individuals and a seasoned dwarven host along with Thrandruil and an elven host, Bard, the great Eagles and Gandalf(a maia) himself were losing and it took a lone individual(Beorn) and the power he posessed turned the tide, he would almost have to be more than a man.

Well, he was a 'special' man, I think that much we can all agree on. But he does not need to be much more than a very strong, shape-shifting man. I'm not sure we are told fully of how the armies were sationed with regards to each other and the terrain they were on, but it's rather safe to assume that whichever were the weakest units would be at the rear. If so, a really powerful man (let's say Aragorn instead, just to work with a man that does not turn into a bear) could cause quite a bit of mayhem. On top of that, and while I am no war-psychologist, being attacked from the rear seems to cause quite some panic.... and panic by their foes seems to hearten the other band.

What am I trying to say here? perhaps Beorn's effect was more psychological than physical. Granted, he killed quite a few goblins, and Bolg among them, but maybe that was the last straw for the goblin forces, which caused them to dismay and give up.

But to tie in with the main topic, since Beorn's effect did not need to be as important in a military way as it was in a psychological way. He demoralized the enemy to their breaking point. That does not mean he was anything but a shape-shifting human. Granted, shape-shifting humans were rather unusual, but Tolkien says he's human, and I tend to believe him.

Not even the largest Kodiak could toss wargs and goblins like straws and feathers. Maybe one the size of an elephant could and that is no ordinary bear. A "very" large man would be 7', maybe 8'. A 12' man is the size of a giant. If Boern is a man, then he is at least part giant and part gigantic bear and that would make him an anomaly.

[Boromir88]

The connection to Beowulf is also compelling. Beowulf means, literally, "bee-wolf" which is (obviously) a poetic word for a bear.~Fordim

To expand upon your reference to Beowulf and 'bee-wolf.' The 'bee' connections go to explain the description of Beorn's pastures and 'huge bees' in The Hobbit:

'The drones were bigger than your thumb, a good deal, and the bands of yellow on their deep black bodies shone like fiery gold'~Queer Lodgings

If Tolkien used Beowulf as the template for Beorn, I could see the reasoning. Beowulf was human but a beserker warrior that posessed the strength of thirty men.~Beornings

That's a good connection to make with Beorn. The 'berserkergang' was a practice of the berserkers...or elite fighting Viking warriors. The meaning of berserker tends to vary from place to place, but the two common meanings were:

1) 'bare a sark' - referring to the berserkers fighting without any armor.

Or 2) Perhaps the one more applicable to Beorn - 'bear-shirt' - referring to berserkers who wore bear-skins, making the belief that berserkers would somehow turn into bears.

(Also, 'ulfhednar' means 'wolf-coats' which would be like the same sense in 'bear-shirt.' For an example Kveldulfr was described as a berserker in Egin's Saga who could change into a wolf.)

While Tolkien (to my knowledge) never actually uses the term 'berserker' anywhere in his books. It is important to note that Beorn's fighting at the Battle of Five Armies seems to be playing off the myths of 'the frenzy/fury' berserkers had and their invulnerability to weapons:

’Swiftly he returned and his wrath was redoubled, so that nothing could withstand him, and no weapon seemed to bite upon him."

[Kuruharan]

I've always thought that Beorn danced on the margins of Tom Bombadilism in that he was there but he was just slightly inexplicable and mysterious.

It adds depth and color to the stories, etc.

Hmm...I wonder if LMP has ever pondered Beorn in the context of what components add to a story's wonder...

[davem]

Just a few thoughts. As Boro states, Tolkien doesn't use the word 'Berserker' in reference to Beorn. Its clear, though, that Tolkien has the traditional 'berserker' in mind. Yet, the power of the berserker, & his imperviousness to weapons, is attributed (by Snorri in Heimskringla at least) to a blessing by Odin. Perhaps Tolkien's problem was the desire to have such a major 'type' in his story - berserkers play a pretty prominent part in the Saga tradition he was drawing on - but being effectively unable too account for them. They're unexplained simply because Tolkien couldn't use the traditional explanation.

Of course Tolkien is effectively going back to the 'archetype' - Beorn isn't simply a human warrior who goes into a frenzy, but a shapeshifter (either a bear who takes on human form during the day or a man who takes on bear form at night). From that point of view, Beorn is both a shape-shifter (probably shape-shifter first) & a 'berserker' second.

Of course, by the time of the Sagas 'berserkers' were often simply vicious thugs, easily dispatched by the hero:

The berserk thought that Grettir & the Farmer were stalling. He started to howl loudly & bite the edge of his shield. He put his shield in his mouth, spread his lips over the corner of it & acted like a savage. Grettir strode over to him & when he came alongside the berserk's horse he kicked the bottom of the shield up into his mouth so hard that his face ripped open & his jaws fell down to his chest. In a single action he grabbed the berserks helmet with his left hand & dashed him from his horse, & with his right hand he drew the short sword he was wearing & struck him on the neck, chopping off his head. When Snaekoll's companions saw this they fled in all directions. Grettir could not be bothered to chase them, for he could tell they were not at all brave. (The Saga of Grettir thee Strong)

Now, while Snaekoll's fury (esp. biting his shield-rim) is classical berserker behaviour, Grettir's easy dispatching of him is unusual if he is a genuine berserker - for all Grettir's exceptional strength. Grettir kills Snaekoll too easily, & we can only assume that Snaekoll & his followers are not true berserkers, but thugs pretending to be. Tolkien has gone back almost to the 'sacred' warrior tradition & combined it with traditions of shape-shifters in order to create a unique character.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course Tolkien is effectively going back to the 'archetype' - Beorn isn't simply a human warrior who goes into a frenzy, but a shapeshifter (either a bear who takes on human form during the day or a man who takes on bear form at night). From that point of view, Beorn is both a shape-shifter (probably shape-shifter first) & a 'berserker' second.

But is the Shape-shifter not just Tolkiens own version of a Berserker, a version that is easier to fit into the story?

If I remember correctly the Besrkers where often described wearing bear skins and in general being a bit "bestial"

For me Beorn could be an addaption. . .Berserker 2.0
Of course he could not be a copy that would just be weird and it is no fun when an author just copy other sources.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

But is the Shape-shifter not just Tolkiens own version of a Berserker, a version that is easier to fit into the story?

If I remember correctly the Besrkers where often described wearing bear skins and in general being a bit "bestial".

Possibly. Of course Norse tradition does include children of bears & maidens - creatures that are not exactly 'shape-shifters' but who are 'bear' at one time & 'human' at others (cf Hrolf Kraki's Saga - a work translated by CT incidentally, containing Elves, berserkers & a highly significant ring......)

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by davem

Possibly. Of course Norse tradition does include children of bears & maidens - creatures that are not exactly 'shape-shifters' but who are 'bear' at one time & 'human' at others (cf Hrolf Kraki's Saga - a work translated by CT incidentally, containing Elves, berserkers & a highly significant ring......)

Interesting. . .

I did not know that Rolf Krage had his own Saga. . . I of course know the legends from Gesta Danorum and other sources as he is one of the most famouse legendary Danish kings, in fact the Danish monarchs still view them self as Scyldingas (Skjoldunger) just as he did, being a decendant of Skjold and all.

In this Saga. . .what kind of creatures are the elfs?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

In this Saga. . .what kind of creatures are the elfs?

Not quite like Tolkien's Elves - less 'spiritual'. There is a scene where an Elf woman appears & stays the night with one of the heroes & has a child by him, so the Elves are human sized & close enough to human kind to interbreed with them. However, they are proud & not forgiving of slights. Skuld (the child of the elf-woman is the force behind Hrolf's fall - even though he's her brother. She raises an army of 'Elves, Norns & other foul creatures' which prove difficult to kill - it seems that the fallen dead come back to life. Bodvar Bjarki is fairly close to Beorn, in that during the battle he sends out his fetch in the form of a great bear, impervious to weapons & blows who protects the king. Bodvar himself remains in the king's chamber, apparently in a trance - so, not quite like Beorn - Bodvar the man sits in the chamber, while Bodvar the bear - both equally physically present - fights on the battlefield. It is only when Bodvar is aroused by one of the other champions that the bear disappears & Bodvar has to take to the field himself, bringing disaster on Hrolf's forces, & ultimately leading to their death.

[Elmo]

Not quite like Tolkien's Elves - less 'spiritual'. There is a scene where an Elf woman appears & stays the night with one of the heroes & has a child by him, so the Elves are human sized & close enough to human kind to interbreed with them. However, they are proud & not forgiving of slights.

Unlike the Elves of the First Age, no?

[davem]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Unlike the Elves of the First Age, no?

Read the Saga & you'll see what I mean. There is an essential difference between the Icelandic Elves & Tolkien's which would take us a long way off topic.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Does Beorn 'not fit' with the Legendarium? I don't see any obvious reason that he shouldn't.

His height alone keeps him from fitting within the legendarium.

Good Mr BB has used textual evidence to peg Beorn at 12 feet. But according to the legendarium Tuor was the tallest man. No way was Tuor a dozen feet tall.

Kuru said it right-

I've always thought that Beorn danced on the margins of Tom Bombadilism

Beorn, like Bombadil, is difficult to make sense of.

How can he be just a man? When in Middle Earth do men turn into bears? If it's some sort of magic, wouldn't the men of Numenor, the most advanced men, be able to do it? Wouldn't Gondor have an army of giant bear-men? Or more likely, wouldn't Sauron?

Beorn doesn't make sense as a man within the legendarium. No way. The only way I can fit him into the legendarium is to theorize that he is descended from a human who wedded an Ainu who specialized in all things bear related.

[Lalwendë]

Been having a look into this and apparently berserkers were alleged to take on board the spirit forms of wolves or bears during battle - this is an aspect shared between Northern Scandinavian people and others of the Arctic, e.g. Siberian shamen. If Tolkien was making use of this concept he would not be the first - not only is it obviously found in the sagas but Pullman makes use of it too, plus it may the basis of Werewolf myths...

However there is something else to consider. Beorn after all is not a vicious man like a berserker. He reminds me of Gunnar in Njal's Saga - a gentle man who does not want to fight, but when roused is something of the Ultimate Fighter. Such figures take on almost mythical status in battle and the image of a ten/twelve foot tall Beorn is powerful. It is as though his height is a metaphor for his innate strength, rather like I see the 'wings' of the Balrog being metaphorical of its diabolical nature, or less controversially, Smith figures in mythology and folklore (such as Wayland) being seen as incredible magicians - to our eyes all they do is forge steel but to someone who does not understand what they do, they are magicians...

well it is quite clear that the hobbit was not originally intended to be a part of the legendarium so that is why beorn does not quite fit. Beorn is obviously not a man by the standards we know, he is probably some offshoot of men related to the giants of the mountains maybe. possibly even a maia.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

However there is something else to consider. Beorn after all is not a vicious man like a berserker. He reminds me of Gunnar in Njal's Saga - a gentle man who does not want to fight, but when roused is something of the Ultimate Fighter.

I'm not sure if the berserkers were vicious in the first place... just soldiers that got themself into a trance with some aids (mushrooms, alcohol or stuff like that) or just with some rituals. But anyhow Gunnar from Njall's saga is the very person that came into my mind as I hastily read through this thread. And knowing the prof's familiarity with the scandinavian legends it might have been a starting point - among the general idea of the berserkers.

But how does Beorn fit in with the Tolkien universe? That's a harder nut to crack. I kind of like this idea of "tombombadilism" (or him being a Maia or whatever) but that is arguable. Surely he would have had notes on that in his later years if that would have been the case. So maybe an earlier creation he didn't wish to include in his later world but couldn't undo him as the Hobbit had been published already?

In any case the silence about the beornings in general in the later works I find a bit troubling. Why did Tolkien bypass them if not for the reason that he disliked the ideas he had formed on them initially in his "children's book"?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm not sure if the berserkers were vicious in the first place... just soldiers that got themself into a trance with some aids (mushrooms, alcohol or stuff like that) or just with some rituals. But anyhow Gunnar from Njall's saga is the very person that came into my mind as I hastily read through this thread. And knowing the prof's familiarity with the scandinavian legends it might have been a starting point - among the general idea of the berserkers.

I think that the Berserkers like Vikings are unjustly branded as evil. They where not much more war like than the rest of Europe at this time. . .they where just slightly better and traveled.

Other sources tell that they made their thrails eat these mushrooms and stuff and that they would then drink their urin in order to "Gå Berserker-gang" (walk berserker-walk). That is gross and therefor I like the stories about them doing it in a more spiritual way better. . .

But back to the topic. . .the problem with Beorn for me is that he has decendant who seem to get share of his powers and all that jazz, he seems to human like. He might have been a decndant of a Maia-Human thing or something of the sort, but I think that very thing that he dies before the war of the ring speaks for the argument that he him self was no maia.

May be a bit off topic, but berserkers used the fly agaric mushroom, amanitas muscaria as did many other cultures.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I think that the Berserkers like Vikings are unjustly branded as evil. They where not much more war like than the rest of Europe at this time. . .they where just slightly better and traveled.

And much of this negative press comes from the Icelandic Sagas - written after Iceland bacame Christian. Its probably their strong connection with the cult of Odin that caused the reputation as thugs & troublemakers. Certainly if you look at the way Grettir dispatches the berserker:

The berserk thought that Grettir & the Farmer were stalling. He started to howl loudly & bite the edge of his shield. He put his shield in his mouth, spread his lips over the corner of it & acted like a savage. Grettir strode over to him & when he came alongside the berserk's horse he kicked the bottom of the shield up into his mouth so hard that his face ripped open & his jaws fell down to his chest. In a single action he grabbed the berserks helmet with his left hand & dashed him from his horse, & with his right hand he drew the short sword he was wearing & struck him on the neck, chopping off his head. When Snaekoll's companions saw this they fled in all directions. Grettir could not be bothered to chase them, for he could tell they were not at all brave.

or the swaggering but easily dispatched Berserkers in Hrolf Kraki's saga for instance, its clear that by the time of the Sagas they are simply thugs & trouble makers whose main role is to give the hero a bunch of bad guys to beat up.

That said, its possible that if the 'cult' did survive into Christian times they would have quite likely been an absolute bloody nuisance in peacetime - look at the problems caused by Grettir himself (or Turin). The last thing folk need when they're trying to live peacfully, or (in the case of Beleriand to keep heir heads down so as not to be noticed) is to have 'heroic warriors' swaggering around trying to start fights.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

That said, its possible that if the 'cult' did survive into Christian times they would have quite likely been an absolute bloody nuisance in peacetime - look at the problems caused by Grettir himself (or Turin). The last thing folk need when they're trying to live peacfully, or (in the case of Beleriand to keep heir heads down so as not to be noticed) is to have 'heroic warriors' swaggering around trying to start fights.

Hmm... that said indeed. Think of Robin Hood or George W. Bush in relation with this! People get along under a bad government but they get along... and then someone comes and says "Hey, I'm going to make you free with fighting the oppressors and thence putting you yourselves on to harms way as well as I make you active parties to this struggle I, the hero, have raised up!" and what follows? More hardship for everyone...

I admit that piling Robin Hood and Mr. Bush together isn't the smartest move (or the most politically correct - or morally the most maintainable ... or the most in-topic move either) but there is a structure of similarity there anyway. And I just couldn't resist this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Hmm... that said indeed. Think of Robin Hood or George W. Bush in relation with this! People get along under a bad government but they get along... and then someone comes and says "Hey, I'm going to make you free with fighting the oppressors and thence putting you yourselves on to harms way as well as I make you active parties to this struggle I, the hero, have raised up!" and what follows? More hardship for everyone...

There're few things more difficult to deal with than a warrior in peace-time. Grettir is a classic example of a man who slays monsters & trouble-makers & is in many ways an agent of civilisation. The problem comes when there are no monsters to be fought, because a warrior is still a warrior. Beorn may fit into the world of TH, but would he fit into the Fourth Age - what role for an Orc-slayer when there are no more Orcs? The Berserkers outlived their time & became a nuisance. I wonder if Beorn lived alone out of choice, or simply because he knew he was a man out of his time & place. Turin was in the same position, but simply couldn't accept it. The more I think about him the sadder Beorn seems.

[Nogrod]

Thanks davem for getting us back to the track... I was a bit unsure whether my point was reasonable in the first place but what is posted is posted.

But to follow your lead. Why do we speculate this much of a character Tolkien himself clearly abandoned in his later years? It's easy to me to see that he was not happy with Beorn (and his capabilities) and thence intentionally forgot him - left him with no mention or not building up anything with the shape-changer-beornings... Had he lived two hundred years he might have come back to Beorn again and tried to solve the problem of his generation or origins which he had brought to life in the Hobbit but it seems he never did it.

Someone more savvy might correct me on this one but that's my impression.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But to follow your lead. Why do we speculate this much of a character Tolkien himself clearly abandoned in his later years? It's easy to me to see that he was not happy with Beorn (and his capabilities) and thence intentionally forgot him - left him with no mention or not building up anything with the shape-changer-beornings... Had he lived two hundred years he might have come back to Beorn again and tried to solve the problem of his generation or origins which he had brought to life in the Hobbit but it seems he never did it..

I think Tolkien found himself stuck with a lot of things once he decided to link the sequel to TH into The Silmarillion. Some things he could work with, others he couldn't. He obviously had a free hand with TH, as it was written as entertainment for his children (& for himself of course). Once the sequel became part of the Legendarium the problems arose. It would have been interesting to see how the 'adult' re-write of TH would have dealt with Beorn, but apparently Tolkien only got a couple of chapters in (Part two of Rateliff's History of the Hobbit has been put back to the end of July/beginning of August apparently). Perhaps one reason he gave up on that project was the difficulty of assimilating characters like Beorn into the Legendarium proper. The thing that makes Tolkien's works so affecting & believable is that he could offer an explanation for the things in his secondary world, but I don't think there is an explanation for Beorn - like Tom he simply 'is'. We simply have to accept his existence in TH, just as we have to accept Tom in LotR. My feeling is that even if he'd lived to be five hundred Beorn would have remained inexplicable in terms of the laws of M-e.

Beorn is necessary in terms of TH, & couldn't be written out - neither could the three 'cockerney' Trolls, but the idea that they could ever have been made to work in a rewrite of TH in the style of LotR is laughable. Its odd how TH is actually closer to Norse myth than LotR - even the Trolls being turned to stone can be traced back to Grettir's Saga, where a Troll actually suffers that very fate:

According to Grettir the trollwoman plunged into the chasm when she received her wound but the people of Bardardal claim she turned to stone at daybreak while they were wrestling & died when he chopped off her arm - & is still standing there on the cliff, as a rock in the shape of a woman.

.

Another interesting point brought up in an essay on the similarities between Gandalf & Odin (by Marjorie Burns???) is the presence of ravens in TH at The Lonely Mountain, & their complete absence anywhere else in the Legendarium - ravens being the bird most strongly associated with Odin. And Gandalf (to my mind) is far more of the Odinic wanderer in TH than he is in LotR. TH is more purely 'northern' in mood & atmosphere - not to mention in the characters that appear - than LotR or The Sil.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by davem

And much of this negative press comes from the Icelandic Sagas - written after Iceland bacame Christian. Its probably their strong connection with the cult of Odin that caused the reputation as thugs & troublemakers. Certainly if you look at the way Grettir dispatches the berserker:

A bit off topic: I suppose this is why there is tales of Harold's army being stoped at Stamford Bridge by a Besrker in Harald (III) Sigurdsson's army. . . .to connect this heathen king with thugs and so on.

sorry I shall stop now, it is just so darn interesting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

When in Middle Earth do men turn into bears? If it's some sort of magic, wouldn't the men of Numenor, the most advanced men, be able to do it? Wouldn't Gondor have an army of giant bear-men? Or more likely, wouldn't Sauron?

Beorn doesn't make sense as a man within the legendarium. No way. The only way I can fit him into the legendarium is to theorize that he is descended from a human who wedded an Ainu who specialized in all things bear related.

Why does he have to fit? Why this obsessive need to systematize everything? Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world), not an RPG system.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Why does he have to fit? Why this obsessive need to systematize everything? Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world), not an RPG system.

I think you'd really need to address that question to Tolkien himself. It seems to me that was his problem, & the reason we didn't get a completed Silmarillion (but see Rateliff: http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2007/06...marillion.html) - he was too concerned with explaining everything & providing a logical explanation - the whole 'Myths Transformed' farrago is confirmation of that. I think your point stands as far as TH is concerned. Beorn doesn't require explanation in the world of TH (Rateliff suggests he was in there as much because the young Tolkien's all loved bears as much as because Tolkien himself wanted to introduce an 'echo' of the Berserkers into his tale) but he does require an explanation in terms of the greater world of LotR & The Sil - simply because in that world things are explained - or Tolkien drives himself crazy trying to explain them: look at the knots he tied himself (& his readers) in in his attempts to account for Orcs.

In TH things pop up, whether cockerney Trolls, tra-la-la-lallying Elves, skin changers, 'gollums' with magic rings or maiden eating dragons. Its a fairy tale world & pretty much anything is thrown in without need of explanation - & we accept it all without question. LotR/The Sil doesn't work that way, & we approach it differently. Personally, I tend to exclude TH from the Legendarium & read it as a stand alone work, & I find I only have any difficulties when I try & make it fit with the the other works.

[the phantom]

Why does he have to fit?

Davem gave a great answer to this, but I'd like to say a bit more.

It is human nature to try and make sense of things. When you are presented with something new, you examine all the facts surrounding it and attempt to give it a place in your mind.

Don't you? (if not, then I'm worried about you)

When you try a new pie, you ask what is in it and how it was baked. And if the person tells you that they don't know, and that they merely placed the pan in the oven and the pie magically appeared, would you honestly be satisfied with that answer? Would you just stupidly say, "Oh, okay, I guess it's an enigma", or would you insist on a better explanation?

Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world)

Well, as D already detailed, Tolkien wasn't creating that kind of world. He liked to explain everything. And with good reason! Humans prefer things to be known. You are right that there exist mysteries and enigmas in this world, but surely you understand that existence does not equal acceptance. Mysteries and enigmas are not accepted in this world. When something unexplainable happens, teams of scientists are assigned to reveal the mystery, and experts everywhere come up with logic based theories to explain the mystery.

It is the same with Beorn. He doesn't make sense in Middle Earth with what we know about Middle Earth, and so he is a mystery. And so now we, the experts, need to come up with logic based theories to explain Beorn.

As I've said on other threads, just because a book can be found in the fantasy section does not mean any old silly thing can happen in it and that we must accept it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, as D already detailed, Tolkien wasn't creating that kind of world. He liked to explain everything.

Not at all. Vide his comments on Bombadil: he's an Enigma, and deliberately so. Tolkien never bothered to explain, even in a note-to-self, in what the One Ring's power actually consisted. He was unconcerned with the mechanics of Sauron bringing It back from Numenor, or Orome carrying weapons for the entire Elvenhost on Nahar. Nowhere did he explain the Great Eagles, except in Manwe's words to Yavanna which confuse as much as they illumine. He never explained (and perhaps didn't know) whether it was Sauron or Caradhras itself which defeated the attempt on the Redhorn Gate. Are the Ents in origin trees with spirits indwelling, or tree-like beings of independent creation? The origin and story of the old man Brego encountered at the Dark Door is a permanent mystery. As he once commented, compared to real-world (medieval) history, the one he produced was somewhat too consistent and thorough.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Not at all. Vide his comments on Bombadil: he's an Enigma, and deliberately so. Tolkien never bothered to explain, even in a note-to-self, in what the One Ring's power actually consisted. He was unconcerned with the mechanics of Sauron bringing It back from Numenor, or Orome carrying weapons for the entire Elvenhost on Nahar. Nowhere did he explain the Great Eagles, except in Manwe's words to Yavanna which confuse as much as they illumine. He never explained (and perhaps didn't know) whether it was Sauron or Caradhras itself which defeated the attempt on the Redhorn Gate. Are the Ents in origin trees with spirits indwelling, or tree-like beings of independent creation? The origin and story of the old man Brego encountered at the Dark Door is a permanent mystery. As he once commented, compared to real-world (medieval) history, the one he produced was somewhat too consistent and thorough.

\

Well, Bombadil is an enigma because he was dragged in from outside M-e & already existed - ie he wasn't invented for LotR. He can't be explained in terms of M-e rules. Its not simply that Tolkien didn't account for Tom - he couldn't. I'm not sure that the other 'mysteries' you cite are the same - they were always part of the Legendarium - Tolkien just didn't get around to explaining them. They don't feel 'out of place', they simply aren't accounted for.

Now, Beorn, the Trolls & the rest in TH are simply 'there' in the world of TH - Bilbo wanders along with Gandalf & the Dwarves & bumps into these beings & we (because of the kind of story TH is) simply accept them without requiring an explanation.

The examples you cite are only mysteries because Tolkien didn't explain them, but I don't think he would have had a problem doing so if challenged - reading the letters he seemed perfectly happy, & more than capable, to account for origins of characters & objects. Only Tom seems to defeat him. Tolkien can't (rather than won't - it seems to me at least) account for Tom. I suspect Beorn would have left him just as stumped. Beorn appears out of Northern legend & there is nothing like him in Arda.

[the phantom]

I never said he did answer everything- I just said he liked to give answers.

There was no way he was going to produce a flawless world and story. There's too much of it. So he explored further the things that bothered him, the things that he thought were important, and left the rest alone. Who knows? If we lived as long as Elves, maybe Tolkien would have answered all those questions. But as our span of years is limited, and he was obviously aware of that, he couldn't and would certainly not set out to find a solution to every problem.

In addition, all of those examples you gave, besides Tom, are not at all like our Beorn dilemma. None of those things are out of place, or utterly baffling. Beorn is a problem because Tolkien's words conflict with themselves so violently. According to Tolkien's writing, Beorn could not be just a man. And yet, according to Tolkien, Beorn was a man.

Say what?

This has nothing in common with your examples. For instance, let's look at your Caradhras/Sauron situation. That is simply a mystery within the story where multiple sensible explanations could be given, and thus there is no certain right answer. Nothing about the event conflicts directly with Tolkien's world as defined by his words. He never said "Sauron can't make it snow" or "A spirit cannot take up residence in a mountain and have some sway over the local weather". Either would work. So naturally I have no problem with it.

But I do have a problem with Beorn, because he does not make sense within Middle Earth. By trying to find an explanation for him, I am essentially trying to stave off another Tom Bombadil, who is in an annoying league of his own. I can put up with one Tom Bombadil, but a book full of TBs....