Minor Works -- 1 - Farmer Giles of Ham

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Yes, this confused me too. Certainly one of the humorous elements of the story that reveal it's tongue-in-cheek, but again, I feel like I lack the context to fully appreciate it. To be honest, sometimes reading Farmer Giles feels a little like reading someone else's inside joke. But I guess that's what it is, to a degree. (Even though, I guess you could say all writing is the author's "inside joke", but here it is perhaps more evident than usual.)

I love the blunderbuss. I've always felt that Tolkien was poking fun at the likes of the King Arthur stories, which always seem to depict Arthur in full late-medieval plate armour, as if he had ridden out of Camelot and straight into the Hundred Years' War! St. George is depicted the same way (WW1 example), despite living at least a thousand years before it was invented.

So, says Tolkien, what's another half-millennium between friends? Give 'em all firearms too! I love it. XD

Originally Posted by Legate

Another side-remark: what is the deal with there being specific effort to remark that Giles has a ginger beard when he is being introduced?

Thank you for asking, because now I've looked this up. ^_^

Originally Posted by Farmer Giles of Ham

In full his name was Ægidius Ahenobarbus Julius Agricola de Hammo... I will in what follows give the man his name shortly, and in the vulgar form: he was Farmer Giles of Ham, and he had a red beard.

• Ægidius - Late Latin name and origin of the English 'Giles'.
• Ahenobarbus - Latin cognomen meaning 'red-beard' or 'copper-beard'.
• Agricola - Latin for 'farmer'.
• de Hammo - 'of Ham', I assume in Latin.

So Tolkien is here being 100% literal: 'farmer', 'Giles', 'of Ham', and 'he had a red beard' are all parts of the good farmer's name!

(I don't know what happened to the Julius. Perhaps a dragon ate it.)

hS

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

A few observations about the first adventure...


There is definitely the same archetypal setup. Giles definitely takes on a bit of "Bilbo Baggins character development", even though I agree with Kuru that as person, he is more similar to somebody else; I'm not sure if Gaffer Gamgee (absolutely see that dimension too), I am actually thinking Farmer Maggot. There is the same dichotomy of somebody who is both very much set in his own comfortable isolated spot but at the same time very sharp when it comes to analysing problems at hand. And of course, the most strikingly, there is the element of "get off of my field, you supernatural intruder!" Stand not between the farmer and his property (or, on his property).

I don't get that vibe at all, but possibly that is because we don't know why Farmer Maggot developed into the character we meet in The Fellowship. Maggot is one of my favorite characters and seems exceedingly knowledgeable, which is not something I can say about Giles. Giles develops though, and to the better...

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I have one more remark about the first adventure. So we have painstakingly analysed the "real historical period" of when this takes place, figured out that it goes maybe into around 7th century or somesuch, and then we have Giles using a muskette. Um...? Talk about "suspending disbelief", Mr. Tolkien!

Yup, exactly... I was stairing out into thin air for half a minute after reading that.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

As for the characters - so far Farmer Giles reminds me of Farmer Maggot, the same archetype of a no-nonsense, steadfast farmer who doesn't back down in the face of danger, being either very brave or very stupid - or perhaps a bit of both - in standing up to a magnificient foe. (I see Legate made this same point, so we are in agreement!)

But where do you get the notion that Farmer Maggot is anything else than intelligent. Him standing his ground in the face of a hooded stranger? He seems a magnificent specimen of a hobbit to me.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

It certainly gives his work a lot more depth and a unique flair. And unlike with so many others of his ideas, not many later fantasy authors have tried to mimic it (or if yes, then rather lazily). The only other truly scholarly fantasy author I've come across is Susanna Clarke, whose novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell has footnotes throughout, referencing an imaginary history of magic in England in a wonderfully dry, academic manner. I would certainly recommend the book to anyone who loves the scholarly side of Tolkien's writing, even though it's certainly not even trying to be of equal depth as Tolkien's Middle-Earth Legendarium. I think it is rather comparable to Farmer Giles indeed - it blends actual English history and mythology with made up stories, but it doesn't create a whole new world with its own history and historiography.

Recommendation noted, and book added to my wish-list.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I love the blunderbuss. I've always felt that Tolkien was poking fun at the likes of the King Arthur stories, which always seem to depict Arthur in full late-medieval plate armour, as if he had ridden out of Camelot and straight into the Hundred Years' War! St. George is depicted the same way (WW1 example), despite living at least a thousand years before it was invented.

So, says Tolkien, what's another half-millennium between friends? Give 'em all firearms too! I love it. XD

It is funny the way vast differences in time can totally disappear in popular culture. I often wonder why people think it makes human-dinosaur interaction more realistic if the humans are from the stone-age. In the grand scheme of things they are not much closer in time to dinosaurs than us.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Let's move on to the main adventure - enter Chrysophylax Dives! The thing that I noticed right away upon rereading this is the difference between expectation and reality of adventures. The idea of real (meaty) Dragon's Tail vs. (sweet) Mock Dragon's Tail - which one do they actually want?!

I have always thought that the Mock Dragon's Tail sounded like something I'd like to try. The real one, not so much.

Originally Posted by Esty

Shades of the Hobbit again - "...adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!"

Yes! And I can't help but again noticing a million similarities with Hobbit/LotR in general.

There is also the part, when Garm informs Giles about the dragon, and Giles asks where did he see him, and Garm describes the area, Giles's reaction is the classic Hobbit reaction, in the vein of either Gaffer Gamgee about Bucklanders or Farmer Maggot about Bagenders (see, we again have the two people Giles was compared to before on this thread), "oh there? Well that explains, there have always been strange folk over there, nevermind". Despite it being only a couple of miles in reality, the "queer folk" argument, this is beyond our familiar village, is enough to convince Giles that it is normal to have a dragon prowling there. Or in other words: it hasn't breached our comfort zone yet; once it starts running across the places we all know, then it will become a problem.

You can clearly see from this that Giles sees (much like the Hobbits) the world divided into the "safe world" around his home and the "Outside". And no matter the actual geographical distances and/or other parameters, the "Outside" is the Outside and you could dump anything into it from Giants to Dragons to people who eat different type of things for breakfast.

***

Other similarities? I don't think I ever realised it before, but the parson actually bears some similarities to Gandalf. He is the one who recognises the magical item (sword) with an inscription and suspects that it is something long before everyone else, just like Gandalf can recognise not only the Troll-swords, but also The One Ring. He overall knows much more and seems to be somewhat manipulative, not unlike Gandalf in TH, in nudging Giles into the quest (but also in calculatingly letting the dragon run free so that the rest of the story can unfold).

The similarity between the dragons' respective dialogues and cunning eloquence in TH and Giles does not need to be even mentioned.

More recurring themes: what is it with Tolkien and swords with runes on them anyway? Is just the influence of the generic cultural background (Excalibur etc being such an important part of English mythology)?

And more interestingly, what is it with Tolkien and millers? He clearly has some beef with them. Sandymans in LotR, and the local miller here, clearly people of questionable motives and morality. If someone in the future stumbles upon an unpublished detective story by Tolkien, I guarantee you that the culprit is the miller. Can anyone more familiar with Tolkien's personal life confirm some real-life parallels? Did the Tolkiens have at some point an annoying miller for a neighbour?

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

• Ægidius - Late Latin name and origin of the English 'Giles'.
• Ahenobarbus - Latin cognomen meaning 'red-beard' or 'copper-beard'.
• Agricola - Latin for 'farmer'.
• de Hammo - 'of Ham', I assume in Latin.

So Tolkien is here being 100% literal: 'farmer', 'Giles', 'of Ham', and 'he had a red beard' are all parts of the good farmer's name!

(I don't know what happened to the Julius. Perhaps a dragon ate it.)

Okay! But of course! It never occured to me to seek the answer in his name. Well done, now it makes perfect sense!

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

It is funny the way vast differences in time can totally disappear in popular culture. I often wonder why people think it makes human-dinosaur interaction more realistic if the humans are from the stone-age. In the grand scheme of things they are not much closer in time to dinosaurs than us.

Indeed, it's exactly the same thing! Or the other famous examples like Cleopatra living closer to current time than to the building of the pyramids, or - since you mentioned dinosaurs - my favourite, tyrannosaurus being actually closer in time to humans than to... stegosaurus. (Yes, the popular illustrations have been lying to us.)

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And more interestingly, what is it with Tolkien and millers? He clearly has some beef with them. Sandymans in LotR, and the local miller here, clearly people of questionable motives and morality. If someone in the future stumbles upon an unpublished detective story by Tolkien, I guarantee you that the culprit is the miller. Can anyone more familiar with Tolkien's personal life confirm some real-life parallels? Did the Tolkiens have at some point an annoying miller for a neighbour?

Tolkien is playing into a common medieval stereotype against millers. The miller was one of the most prosperous members of the average medieval community. He had a monopoly from the local lord to grind the grain and was a much resented figure. Millers in medieval popular culture were regarded as the epitome of dishonesty.

[Findegil]

In addition to that medieval stereotype we know that JRR Tolkien and his brother Hilary were afraid of the Miller and his son in Sarehole were they lived in their earlier childhood. And probably with some right, because we can imagine that they were catched trespassing on the property of the millers and any how a pond of a mill is fascinating and dangours for kids, so they seldom accept that. I think I have seen a picture of that Miller and his son standing in the yard of the mill in a book, probably the Tolkien Family Album or The Black and the Withe Ogre Country. And to be sure the named Withe Ogre is that Miller seen in the crocked mirror of a fantastic story written by jung Hilary Tolkien (sad I don't remember clearly who was suggested as being the Black Ogre, but he had the most beautiful flowers in his fields, so he might be a farmer).

And again we find a connection to The Hobbit: If you search for pictures of the Sarehole mill in Birmingham (yes its still there!) guess what it looks like => right: the mill in Hobbingen across the Water as painted by JRR Tolkien. Of course, not exactly but still: the red brick building with roof ridge parallel to the water, its sparse windows, and the high chimney.

Coming back for a moment to the red beard of Giles: Yes, it is part of his name, but that doesn't make it any less interesting, maybe even to the contrary since only exceptional characteristics will become part of your name. Tolkien does often speak about beards (the Dwarves and their wives, the Wizards, Theoden and even Círdan just to mention a view out of my head). But he does not often mention red hair, I don't think one of Dwarves in The Hobbit had red hair, so they come out with some strange colures like blue. And the 1 figure out of the legendarium I remember having a red beard is really exceptional in both having red hair and growing a beard early in his life: The father of Nerdanel, Feanor's wife.

Respectfully
Findegil

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You think Tolkien is hard on millers, read Chaucer!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Anyway, to move on:

What do folks think about another structural parallel to The Hobbit, the everyman hero obtaining a Great Equalizer? In Bilbo's case, it's a Ring of Invisibility; in Giles' case it's Tailbiter. Giles has pluck, common sense and a sort of well-there's-no-help-for-it courage, but most of all he has a sword which practically by itself can terrify a dragon of ancient and imperial lineage.

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure which minor works thread to post this, but I figure I'll start here.

The Preamble: I heard an intriguing paper this morning on "Pardoning Saruman". It used medieval definitions and original research using Tolkien's drafts and manuscripts. It examined the nature of "queer". It was a very well argued, intelligent paper. So that led me off to look for more work from the presenter, Christopher Vacarro.

He has edited a book called "Tolkien and Alterity" which examines Tolkien's treatment of the "Other", with a positive conclusion for Tolkien's acceptance of the Other. I haven't read it, but I noted a chapter which hit on all the minor works. Maybe someone has read it?

The point to my post: Stephen Yandell, "Cruising Fairy: Queer Desire in Giles, Niggles and Smith". I have no idea how good it is, but if Vacarro edited it, I suspect it is worth at least a look-see.

[Bêthberry]

I"ve found a review of "Tolkien and Alterity" which provides some explanation of the paper on Tolkien's minor characters, Giles, Niggle, and Smith. I'll provide a quotation here for those interested in examining these characters from an outsider or "Other" perspective.

The third essay in this Part, Stephen Yandell’s “Cruising Faery: Queer Desire in Giles, Niggle, and Smith”(149-79) argues that Giles, Niggle and Smith, heroes of Tolkien’s shorterworks, “embody a range of non-straight positions while negotiating theiroutsider status within society”(152). The themes of marginalized individuals, mainstream conformity, and hidden lives recur in theseworks; the autobiographical aspect of Farmer Giles and Smith also becomes relevant in that professionally Tolkien explored “the margins of his already marginalized fields of medieval literature and language”(153), while the Middle-earth works were “a queer project, consistently challenging ‘segregation of the Other’”(154). Yandell points to the queering device of the manuscript in Farmer Gilesand Giles’s “negotiat[ing of]a range of shifting boundaries”(157); how Niggle’s “queerness is brandished as a strength”(163) and the male companionship (reminiscent of the Inklings) that he needs for his creative work; Smith’s “closeted class of faeries”(166) and how “narrativizing the desires of Faery [is] ‘faerying’ the text” (a wonderful term; 164). All this,he argues, show these characters’ trips to their respective Otherworlds as a form of “cruising”: “pursu[ing] forms of pleasure tied to non-straight character traits, follow[ing] desires that grow from internal conflicts, and respond[ing] actively to the ways in which their desires place them at odds with mainstream society”(169). Yandell’s paper is another type of exploration in how the symbolically sexualized aspects of characters and narratives can be used to detect the queerness, the alterity of the fantastic, and is a very welcome addition to the corpus of works dealing with Tolkien’s shorter fiction.

Some very interesting things to say about the protagonists of the minor works!

I might also point out that for many of these papers, "queer" is not necessarily a sexual status.

Kisor’s survey on “Queer Tolkien”emphasizes that queer need not be understood in terms of sexuality (although it can), but can also cover any kind of emphatic “difference.”The articles she includes provide various examples of these usages, but perhaps the most important point is the mention of Tison Pugh’s Queering Medieval Genres(26-7): Pugh’s contention that the queer has a “propensity . . . to subvert genre expectations” and “to destabilize narrative”(26) seem particularly applicable to Tolkien’s fictitious genres, which mix and interact with each other, thus not only “queering” the text by their “medievalness,”but even within that, by their use of difference to include in the fiction the interactions of those genres as themselves frustrating expectations.

The collection of essays is a celebration of Jane Chance's contributions to Tolkien Studies.

If anyone is interested in the review, it can be found here: https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewco...olkienresearch

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I have always thought that the Mock Dragon's Tail sounded like something I'd like to try. The real one, not so much.

Actually funny as it is, Moc Dragon's tale is an element that adds a bit of historicity to the tale. I grew up eating Moch Hare (Danish meatloaf) and Mock Turtle Soup, so there is also an air of familiarity to it.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Indeed, it's exactly the same thing! Or the other famous examples like Cleopatra living closer to current time than to the building of the pyramids, or - since you mentioned dinosaurs - my favourite, tyrannosaurus being actually closer in time to humans than to... stegosaurus. (Yes, the popular illustrations have been lying to us.)

I had forgotten the stegosaurus, but that is a brilliant example.