Minor Works -- 1 - Farmer Giles of Ham

[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.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The acquisition of those objects is a matter of luck, isn't it? And Bilbo is said to have a good deal of luck, though it would not suffice without his courage.

I am always amused over the scholarly glossing over of lack of knowledge that the parson shows when examining the sword: "...some, ah, epigraphical signs..." "The characters are archaic and the language barbaric," said the parson, to gain time. It reminds me of the language of academia used in papers and lectures!

When Giles covers his "chain mail" with his cloak, I am reminded of Gandalf the Grey - who threatens to show himself uncloaked. Obviously there is a time for secrecy and a time for open battle!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well,

It must be admitted that Giles owed his rise in a large measure to luck, though he showed some wits in the use of it. Both the luck and the wits remained with him to the end of his days

Luck not only in Caudimordax itself, but also in the giant blundering into his fields, Chrysophylax advancing on Ham rather than some other place, that particular dragon being the first one the cavalcade of knights blundered into... a whole lotta luck. But we can't deny the wits as well. Opportunity knocked, and Giles opened.

Then again, how best to describe Bilbo's career except as "luck and wits"?

[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.