|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The One Ring Forums:
Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
"I think that I shall never see, a poem lovely as a tree":
Edit Log
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
May 8, 3:40am
Views: 170551
|
|
"I think that I shall never see, a poem lovely as a tree"
|
|
|
However, I always did think it was an Ent Hal saw, although someone somewhere on the boards recently said that it predated Tolkien's fully-fleshed-out ideas of Ents. But Tolkien left it in, even after he had finished the Ent chapters; and I'm sure he would not have been unaware that after encountering Treebeard, most readers would expect Hal's sighting to be something Entish. Even given the lively, academic, and well-researched debates about what Tolkien wrote and when, and HOME and Letters etc, I come back to the basic point that Treebeard specifically told the hobbits that Ent-wives would like the Shire, and most people on first read conclude Hal saw an Ent once they get to the Ent chapters, and I think that's the author-intent. But they were clearly shy and didn't mingle with other races, just as Treebeard's Ents didn't mingle with their neighbors either.
5. Did the trees deliberately hide the hobbits from the Nazgul?
6. It's convenient that the hobbits find a hollow -- but still living -- tree they can hide inside while eating lunch. Is it possible that the trees arranged for that?
7. Is there any significance to the "trees whispering"? Are they talking to each other? Are they trying to talk to the hobbits? Or is it just the wind in the leaves and nothing more?
To me, 5 and 6 assign more agency to trees than I can infer from my own readings, but as Ethel said, trees are both a comfort and a shelter to hobbits, so I think in the abstract, there is a hobbit-Shire-tree connection that somehow equals "magic" which somehow leads to the hobbits being partially hidden from the Nazgul, but only partially. I think it was just good hobbit hiding ability that kept them safe after the near encounter with the first Nazgul, and it was the Elves who rescued the hobbits the 2nd time, then the 3rd time it was Frodo's decision to leave the road and horse-worthy paths that foiled the Nazgul pursuit.
I think the hobbit-tree connection is more like a nebulous relationship where hurting one hurts the other, and likewise the renewal of one reinforced the renewal and prosperity of the other. A positive symbiotic connection. (I have to say "positive" because looking it up just now, parasites can be classified as symbiotes too, and that's definitely the wrong word here.)
9. Was Frodo's bower made by a living tree with a bed of fern and grass made by the Elves, by the tree, or both? Do the Elves talk to the trees? Can they make requests? Or are they more like human gardeners who have guided the design of the trees over the years so they have an outdoor camp in the Shire with a hall and comfortable beds? Do you have any other potential explanation? Are the Elves just good Boy Scouts?
I'm gonna leap ahead to the cloaks and rope made in Lorien with the explanation, "for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make." I don't think Elves even "manufacture" in our modern sense or make anything without there being some ethereal love connection involved, and Elves love trees, so maybe the Elves asked the trees to make the bower, or maybe the bower was part Elf doing and part tree cooperation. I think this also answers your other question: when Frodo woke with a tree root in his back, I think that was just the bad luck of camping and sleeping on the ground (as a former camper, I can attest to this), whereas sleeping in the Elves "hall," Frodo was guaranteed a good night's sleep because of the much deeper Elf-tree connection. Elves talk to trees; hobbits don't.
12. Why did Saruman / Sharkey order the trees in the Shire destroyed? There's no indication that he used all the wood. Was it just spite? Or did he consider these trees his enemies and a threat to his dominion over the Shire? Pure spite.
13. Why didn't the hobbits, over hundreds of years, cut down more trees? Why did they leave a large chunk of the Shire as a wild forest? They didn't have such a great relationship with the Old Forest. Why did they have a different relationship with Woody End?
Good question, because I recall reading somewhere that deforestation caused serious environmental harm to high-population areas as far back as 1000 BC, and with the enduring Tragedy of the Commons embedded in human behavior (such as chopping down trees until none are left, but you need the wood, right? and it's up to Nature or someone else to replant the trees, right?), I suspect the Shire still has forests because the population is low enough that trees grow back on their own.
But it is possible that the hobbits have an innate sense of stewardship of the land (minus Ted Sandyman and Lotho), so they may protect certain woods and also undertake replanting when needed. At least, replantings wouldn't surprise me as a hobbity thing to do. They are close to the land and seem to sense its needs. I just don't see hobbits deforesting the Shire the way Numenor did Eriador when it wanted lumber for ships and building.
(This post was edited by CuriousG on May 8, 3:41am)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by CuriousG
(Half-elven) on May 8, 3:41am
|
|
|
|
