From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Golf and Stone Giants (was Re: Who's side were they on.) Lines: 106 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.cs.com X-Admin: news@cs.com Date: 17 Mar 2000 05:40:29 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <20000317004029.23545.00001386@nso-fo.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:15797 In article , "Öjevind Lång" writes: >Robert Foster's treatment of the stone-giants in his "Complete Guide to >Middle-earth" is of interest in this context. He writes: "The stone-giants >are mentioned only in *The Hobbit*, and may be no more serious than >Golfimbul." Golfimbul was, of course, the leader of the orc-band that >invaded the Shire in Third Age 2747 and were vanquished in the battle of >Greenfields by Hobbits led by Bandobras Took, who smote Golfimbul's head off >his shoulders, thereby inventing the game of golf. No matter how much one >employs arguments to the effect that this is a "cultural translation" of >some supposed genuine Hobbit game, the truth of the matter is that in both >these instances, Tolkien was facetious in a way he never permtted himself to >be in "The Lord of the Rings", and that it is very hard to regard either the >stone giants or Golfimbul as "canonical". The "truth of the matter" is, as usual, a matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree. B. Took's victory at the battle of Greenfields is most certainly "canon". As for "Golfimbul's" head being knocked clean off and sent rolling down a hole, this is merely the hobbits' "tall-tale" version of events, told over two and a half centuries after the fact. As such, I consider it a very realistic touch. Under the circumstances, a dry-as-dust scholarly historical account, passed down to Bilbo's time by flippant silly hobbits, would have been far less realistic. The information may be suspect, but so is the story of the giant walking on the north moors; so is the rumor of Rohan paying tribute to Mordor; so is the poem about the "stone troll". Perhaps the part you object to is the pun associating "golf" with "Golfimbul". I hope it is not your position that puns have no place in Middle Earth, particularly when it comes to hobbit-lore. The only problem with puns is that they are language based, making it difficult to find approximate translations, which creats a slight problem where it is claimed the original was from a foreign tongue. This problem, however, is easily overcome when one of the elements of the pun is a proper name. All one need do, is alter the proper name slightly. In any event, the problem of translating puns is not much worse than the problem of translating rhymes. Perhaps your problem is with the "anachronistic" reference to "golf". However, LOTR has plenty of anachronisms, especially when dealing with the Shire sections, and he clearly uses this to give the Shire an aura of safe familiarity. This case can be very easily explained by assuming that hobbits play some game that involves knocking balls into holes in the ground (not surprising, considering how much they like holes in the ground), and that Tolkien translated this as "golf". "Golf", BTW, is a fairly ancient word, derived from the German via Middle English, originally meaning "club". The earliest written reference to the game was in 1457, when it was already so popular that the King of Scotland decreed against it. Its true origins are shrouded in time, and it may be related to the game "paganica" played in the Roman Empire. It is hardly the anachronism that "freight train" is. It must also be mentioned that Tolkien revised The Hobbit twice, in 1951 and 1966, and never saw fit to touch the "Golfimbul" joke. Evidently he had no problem with it, and I cannot for the life of me see why he would. ------- Now... on to stone giants... I'm sorry, but Robert Foster is totally all wet. Stone Giants are absolute, 100% total CANON. Everyone who thinks otherwise is an unimaginative sourpuss. We may not know much about them, but they are canon nonetheless. Can someone please give me a credible reason for doubting the existence of Stone Giants in the mountains of Middle Earth? I can see folks debating their precise *nature*, but doubting their existence is dumb. Tolkien revised the Hobbit twice, and left the Stone Giants completely alone, and why shouldn't he? How are Stone Giants out of place in Middle Earth? They are not. This is a world with talking foxes, talking ravens, talking thrushes, talking trees, walking trees, dragons, giant eagles, talking dogs, fire demons, barrow wights, ringwraiths, werewolves, goblins, trolls who turn to stone when the sun hits them, river spirits, a forest god (Bombadil), giant spiders, Balrogs, watchers in the water, oliphants. So why not mountain spirits? "Giants", usually imagined as semidivine entities with supernatural powers, have played an important role in most mythology, including classical, germanic, and celtic. If we can have a river spirits like Goldberry, (not to mention her unseen mother, the river goddess), why not have spirits/gods of storm and mountain? Furthermore, Bilbo's account of "stone giants" is somewhat confirmed in FotR, when they evidently encounter a very similar creature or creatures while trying to cross the mountain Caradhras. In both cases they or it are accompanied by a storm (snowstorm in one case, thunderstorm in the other); in both cases they send rocks crashing around and fill the air with their voices. The main difference is that Bilbo sees (or thinks he sees) his "giants" while the spirit or spirits of Caradhras do not show themselves (perhaps due to the opacity of the blizzard, and the lack of lightning flashes to illuminate them occasionally). Another is that Bilbo's "giants" are just out for fun, while those of Caradhras are definitely hostile. Of course, they could well be different types of creatures, and why not? Is there not room enough in the Misty Mountains for more than one type of supernatural being? Aragorn seems to think so: "I do call it the wind," said Aragorn. "But that does not make what you say untrue. There are many evil and unfriendly things in the world that have little love for those that go on two legs, and yet are not in league with Sauron, but have purposes of their own. Some have been in this world longer than he." "Nonsense," replied Legolas. "I read the Silmarillion, and stone giants are not mentioned anywhere. Next you'll be telling me they're playing golf." -- John Whelan -- John B. Whelan ###### Reply-To: "Conrad Dunkerson" From: "Conrad Dunkerson" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <20000317004029.23545.00001386@nso-fo.news.cs.com> Subject: Re: Golf and Stone Giants (was Re: Who's side were they on.) Lines: 41 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:09:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.25.146 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 953384941 12.79.25.146 (Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:09:01 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:09:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.uunet.ca!rockie.attcanada.net!newsfeed.attcanada.net!204.127.161.4!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster1!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:15825 "Nystulc" wrote in message news:20000317004029.23545.00001386@nso-fo.news.cs.com... > As for "Golfimbul's" head being knocked clean off and sent > rolling down a hole, this is merely the hobbits' "tall-tale" > version of events > I'm sorry, but Robert Foster is totally all wet. Stone Giants > are absolute, 100% total CANON. Everyone who thinks otherwise is > an unimaginative sourpuss. > Can someone please give me a credible reason for doubting the > existence of Stone Giants in the mountains of Middle Earth? Err... I think you did that yourself. The standard reason for doubting that they actually existed is 'hobbit tall tales' - which Bilbo was likely as prone to as anyone (if not moreso). Ditto for the troll's talking purse. You note repeatedly that things 'survived revisions'... but the bit about Golfimbul's head going down a rabbit hole survived the revisions too - yet you claim it wasn't accurate. This is precisely the mechanism by which others question the stone giants. > This is a world with talking foxes, Well, we see a 'thinking' fox, but never one which actually speaks. Overall I'd say that there probably were giants in Middle Earth because Tolkien intended to include one in LotR but it ended up changing to become Treebeard. There was mention of one at the pub which could be considered 'canonical' or another 'tall tale'. However, the strongest 'pro giant' argument might be in a name; the Ettenmoors. The term 'etten' (and 'ent' for that matter) being derived from an old (A-S?) term for 'giant'. The name was originally 'entmoors' or somesuch, but when the Ents became walking trees the name changed to Ettenmoors. Which, to me, implies that he was staying with the original idea of having giants.