When I started the reading "The Hobbit" some characteristics about J.R.R. Tolkien's works, given by criticists and specialists, came to my mind, that is, before reading the book, the idea of a fantastic tale addressed to a children's audience was going around my head, and, therefore, my mind was conditionated by the text I had in front of my eyes. But just a question emerged in my mind as chapters went ahead and the reading of the novel progressed: Why? Why do people say this novel is for children? Why does the author use descriptions in such a way, they are not aimed to an infantile audience? Why does the novel seem an oral fact rather than a written text?...
Without a doubt, all these questions were given as non valid the idea of Tolkien's novels were fantastics and for children and, moreover, they demanded for an answer in which I could explain why they have emerged, that is, if the question was in my mind, there should have been an answer and I had to find it. It is very difficult to find and to draw conclusions, but in this webpage, I have given expression to the possible answers for these questions which for me are the clues of this author's novels, consequently, I'm trying to express under the fantastic appearance which Tolkien's novels have, an absolute hidden version of reality which can be identified with our actual surrounding, introducing us in what he calls the Middle-Earth.
If we follow the order in which I have structurized
the page, we must start with the characters and, more concretely, with
their analysis and their possible updating in our times, because describing
them would be a real stupidity owing to the fact that no one is better
than the author for depicting them. From my viewpoint, all characters in
"The Hobbit" maintain a relation among them and, therefore, some of them
have common characteristics we have to clarify. As we all know, Tolkien
sets his characters in the Middle-Earth which we can alocate in our Middle
Age and as everybody knows feudal societies were estructured hierarchically
as a pyramid: the king was sat at the top of the pyramid and, under him,
the different social strata distributed in well hierarchized levels were
set. Consequently, the existing society in "The Hobbit" or, in other words,
the characters of the
story are structured as a pyramid, although all levels do not follow
a hierarchical order. What I'm trying to say will be better explained through
the following picture:
© Juan José Pérez Saura
(B = Bilbo; S = Smaug; M = Men; W = Wolvess; EA = Eagles;
SP = Spiders; GA = Gandalf; GO = Gollum; E = Elves; G = Goblins)
As you can appreciate, I have set Bilbo outside of the pyramid and this is because, in such a way, he represents the author. J.R.R. Tolkien is a respectable person inside society in which he lives and, suddenly, is involved in a war he has not asked for but which will be determinant for his life. And the same thing should happen to Bilbo, a respectable person inside the hobbit society he lives who is introduced in a dangerous voyage which will change his way of living and thinking.
We will follow the analysis from the base to the
top, logically, the house must be built from its foundations. Subsequently,
we find ourselves in front of Trolls figure in the lowest pyramid-society
level, who are despicable and stupid beings who are present and who are
also always situated in the lowest part of every society. They are creatures
who are not loved by anyone, not even by themselves because if they have
to fight among them for any reason, they won't hesitate to do so any time.
Dwarves also share the base of the pyramid, although they are above them
of Good over Evil providing a better opinion on behalf of society. Dwarves
aren't very appreciated by some social strata because they are considered
miserable and mean creatures by those who don't share their interests and
ambitions. Dwarves and trolls are not important but essential people, owing
to they constitute the base which maintains the social balance and, especially,
Tolkien's one, because, as we can observe, the pyramid
is vertically divided limiting Good and Evil and, for these reason,
their presence in trolls and dwarves embodies respectively its necessity,
because if we eliminate any of them the social balance will be broken.
I set Elves and Goblins above trolls and dwarves because they are not so bad considered by the others below, owing that these creatures inspire more respect and they are more productive for society, although they belong to the lowest part of the social pyramid. Both elves and goblins live their own life in their own world, but they don't take care of making the most out of the rest of people on their own benefit, rather let it be by force and torture (goblins), rather let it be by dissuassion and slavery (elves). Both social strata represent the possible bohemes in the Middle Age, that is, both of them behave as superior beings against everyone who tries to disturb them in their useless and daily exercises as in their repetitive parties, their never ending songs and more non productive things commonly found in an out worried world fixed to luxurious life.
Men and Wolves are not main characters in the novel although they hold a high level in the social pyramid I have classified characters and this is because they achieve a supporting and helping function to other characters, in this case to elves and goblins respectively. They are creatures harnessed by the supposed upper classes to make their objectives and to help them to settle easily any kind of problem in case of danger and necessity. Men work and trade with elves because of the fearing to a glorious and powerfull nation which have fallen down. While wolves are called to help goblins when they are lesser or they can have difficulties towin in a battle or a war. Therefore, it seems Tolkien has divided the human and animal essence creating two separated folks, which the single difference one of them walk erect and the others walk with the four legs, because as we know "homo homini lupus est".
Eagles and Spiders are antagonistic creatures but interrelating, that is, eagles seem society guardians controling and guarding tranquility and peace in the area where they life from the altitude. While spiders are exactly the opposite, they are darkness and inhospitable beasts who take advantage of those who have turn away from their way by any reason. I say they are opposite and complementaries for this reason because one of them can not exist withot the other one, that is, if eagles don't help main characters they will gobble up them. The idea of eagles as guardians makes acceptable when everything is losed in favour of antiheros and eagles appear again to safe and to help heros to fulfil their aim at the end of the novel.
Smaug is set at the top of the pyramid because he represents a predominant power or, in this words, one of these mithological kings nobody have never seen but everyone scares. His strength is more based in the power granted by his own legend than his own physical and destroyer strength. Smaug lies down in his golden bed without worrying about what happens outside and without bothering about in working his life, because he will expropiate everything he needs against those who shape their future with the fear of losing everything they have earned from the moment the great king and lord named by fear wakes up of his lethargy. "Mind is stronger than sword", that is, if we think in famous and great warriors swords, such us Excalibur or Tizona, they have a higher power than they really have because they have earned thanks to legend and people's mind.
I have left out the analysis of Gandalf and Gollum at the end despite of they hold an intermediary level in the pyramid because they are two very complex characters to introduce in a social hierarchy. They are lonely beings not included in any concrete community but they belong to different and existent cultures. They represent knowledge and they can not be fit in a determined society because they are over it. A Good and Evil knowledge because the uses of this erudition it will be alocated on one or other line which separates every society. In this sense, Gandalf represents well use of this knowledge to overthrow Evil, while Gollum characterize bad use of knowledge in himself and his own benefits which only cause the solitud where those who are interested in themselves live.
Why are Tolkien's works considered as chlidish and
fantastic tales is one of the questions I have proposed when having to
elaborate this essay. Without any doubt, the explanation to this question
is answered in the character analysis and this is because names and features
present in the novel are attributed not only to the characters but also
to the landscapes, situations and whatever. In other words, when we are
reading a novel full of names such as Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf or Smaug and
characters such as Elves, Goblins and Trolls, we immediately prepare our
minds to an infantile and unreal tale. But sometimes, the author uses this
kind of features with a different finality. As well all know, every tale
main proposal is to teach whoever may read it. These examples will better
explain this idea: in a second reading of great novels such as "Robinson
Crusoe" or "Gulliver's Travels" there is an underlined meaning to run away
from censoship, but they really criticised their society and
those who have the power. Tolkien applies this method to treat one
of the most present topics in his works: power.
In this way, the author criticises everyone who has any kind of power, rather let it be a politic, economic, religious or military one, under a more typical appearance of child's imagination than the real aspect which Tolkien hide in his descriptions. After answering the initial question whether it is an infantile tale, consequently, we must add that Tolkien's style of writting is extensive and profound because it seems an oral text told by him more than a written one. All these tools, that is, the orally the written text shows, the lineality not only present in "The Hobbit" but also in the whole work and the fantastic and tender appreciation and fulfilment, show us the narrative power which Tolkien has, that power which he has criticised although his style of writting has and, in this way, Bilbo is his representation in the novel.
Once we have left clear all the points in this essay, we have to define the relationship between characters nad Tolkien's style of writting, that is, the author has developed randomly features and they have some sense inside his narrative production or if, otherwise, we extract them and verufy their reality in other novels or, even, in other cultures. There is no reason for thinking this is an ambitious project but I am going to try to give a reasonaded answer about what I am trying to say.
It is well known anglosaxon world is much better writting than mediterranean one which is better speaking for example. As the author's biography shows, Tolkien was a great teacher despite of his pupils had many difficulties to understand what he said because he spoke quickly and, sometimes, without any sense. However, as we have seen up to now, Tolkien shows as a resource when having to write a good skill in speech which he didn't have when having to speak or lecture an that is a common English men's characteristic. In that sense, characters maintain a narrow relation with the narrative style because they are characterized by an English man and their features were included in a concrete social cultural context because if we introduce them in arabian culture for example, they will have different interpretations because every analysis and criticism is conditioned by a concrete culture and society.
Take another example to clarify this question: Bilbo Baggins is a fixed habit character, as having tea or smoking his pipe while he is listening to old adventure tales, and these habits are typical of British culture and, in general, of anglosaxon world. In this sense, if we situate Bilbo in a different culture as our one, these characteristics won't have the same interpretations because we are conditioned by our own history and traditions. What I am trying to say is a Spanish, Chinese or Arabian writer had probably told this tale in other manner and Tolkien have done like that because he is conditioned by inescapable habits if it was not for Gandalf and the thirteen dwarves help who have made him forget comfort and pre-stablished rules, therefore I carry on Tolkien and Bilbo are both the same, "The Hobbit".
The inescapable conclusion which emerges from what I have said is Tolkien as an expert storyteller and a great writter uses serie of narrative resources conditioned by an exclusive culture and tradition, that is, the author has a particular style of writting where detailed descriptions and character sketchs were mixed and a particular lineality narrating stories and events, all this closed to the infantile and fantastic appearance and conditioned by a concrete society influence him when having to write the novel. Without any doubt, these features depend on society's reader, but the final sense has the same meaning because possible updatings to different societies maintain the same direction with the same aim although with different names and surnames.
To conclude, I have to say J.R.R. Tolkien has no
differences with the classical figure of a storyteller, rather let it be
orally rather let it be written. What he is trying to achieve is not only
to maintain but also to pass typical traditions of a concrete culture on,
but this always underlined with an infantile and fantastic appearance which
seems to remove every society blights: power, money and greed, in other
words, great topics always present in Tolkien's novels.
© Copyright Juan Pérez Moreno
Created 23/04/99 Updated 23/04/99
[Next] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
Página creada
y actualizada por grupo "mmm".
Para cualquier cambio,
sugerencia,etc. contactar con: fores@uv.es
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente
Forés López
Universitat de València
Press
Creada: 22/02/2000
Última Actualización: 27/03/2000