Talk:Hobbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Assessment B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Trademark 2 Hobbit origins 3 "Hobbit" not "hobbit" 4 Ears? 5 Feet 6 Hobbit's disapearance? 7 Hobbit Origin 8 We need a better picture 9 Meals 10 Could someone clarify this sentence? 11 =Citations 12 Hobbit: Public domain now?

[edit] Trademark

Can anyone confirm the stuff from the last edit? Ausir 19:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If that's the rant about trademarks - no. Much of it is nonsense. In particular, Tolkien thought he coined the word 'Hobbit', but wasn't sure. He spent much of his life trying to find a source for it but failed to track it down. This is evidenced by 'letters'. Morwen - Talk 08:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit origins

Hobbits are obscure creatures from Western European folklore. The only known reference comes from the “Denham Tracts (Volume 2)” in 1895 by Michael Denham, re-edited by James Hardy.This term appeared in a long list of creatures, from the mythology and folklore of the Celtic and Scandinavian areas of Europe. Although no description is given, it can be inferred by the meaning of the Old English word "hob" (or the Old English prefix "hob-") that these were small creatures, probably related to elves.

Tolkien was not the original creator of hobbits. This is an historical fact. At least one reference to a "hobbit" exists in folklore before Tolkien ever began to imagine his created world. It is not a "rant", it is simply an historical, irrefutable truth. Just because Tolkien himself failed to track it down before his death in the 1970's (three decades ago) doesn't invalidate the fact that at least one earlier mention of this creature exists. Any Tolkien-worshippers who would rather ignore this fact are free to do so, but to omit the fact from an encyclopedic resource simply because of some romanticized notion of Tolkien's infallible originality is not only abhorrently ignorant, but shows a complete lack of intellectual integrity.

It's a cliche, I know, but honesty really is the best policy. --user:209.206.169.229

Claiming Tolkien's Hobbits have anything to do with the "spirits" called Hobbits by Denham is extremely ignorant. There is absolutely no relation between Denham's "Hobbits" and Tolkien's halfings. 'Hobbits' appear in Denham's Volume 2 (1895). They come 154th in a list of 197 kinds of "supernatural creatures" which includes several repetitions, and no futher mention is made of hobbits. The index says of them, as of almost all the items in the list, only 'A class of spirits'. Tolkien's hobbits, of course, are anything but 'spirits'. Hobbits do not appear in any European folklore. It is possible JRRT had once read the work and remembered the name, but in view of other evidence this is unlikely. Denham's Hobbits were certainly not described as 'small Elves'. Check your sources please! Anárion 09:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Denham's Hobbits (which are unlikely his own invention) are not described as "small Elves", but, as stated, small stature is implicit in the name itself. As far as "a class of spirits" is concerned -- what do you think elves, dwarves, faeries, and even orcs originally were? I'm not doubting that Tolkien's hobbits bear little if any resemblance (other than small stature) to the creature listed in Denham's book, nor do Tolkien's orcs resemble, in any way, earlier references to the same creatures.

Tolkein's hobbits may have been a great departure from the original, and Tolkien himself may not have even been aware of the existence of the original, but the fact remains that Tolkein's hobbits were most decidedly not the original.

I at least have a shred of evidence backing up my position, from several decades before the publication of "The Hobbit". You have nothing other than Tolkien's own words in some published "letters". And judging by the Tolkien Estate's treatment of TSR's homage to Tolkien's works, I am left to assume that a party with obvious interest in financial gain over such matters can hardly be considered an objective source. After all, if at some point before his death, JRRT had conceded that he was not the inventor of hobbits, this would not necessarily have appeared in a public compilation of his letters -- for if it did, Christopher Tolkien might stand to lose a bit of those movie, cartoon, and merchandising royalties. --user:209.206.169.229

Small stature is not implied by Hobbit per sè: it may as likely be a coinage from 'rabbit'. In any case as there is no proof Tolkien's Hobbits were inspired by Denham's (and this is in fact very unlikely) or are related to the Denham Hobbit at all in any way more than the name (which, if derived from 'hob'=small can be proven as being hardly original), the Tolkien Hobbit can not be described as 'a great departure from the original' as there is no original. Denham's Hobbit does not appear anywhere else, and like most other 'spirits' from his list Denham is the only source of the names. Anárion 10:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is wrong for us to say that the trademark should be regarded invalid. If you want to argue your case in a courtroom please find one. If you want to stick a small note at the bottom saying 'the name 'hobbit' appeared in a "list of spirists" by Michael Denham, but there no evidence to suggest Tolkien was aware of this" that would be fine. 80.229.39.194 09:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The "should" remark was out of place. As for the small note, I doubt this Morwen character would even allow that much. --user:209.206.169.229

Note On Hobbits In Folklore:

I have personally never seen the term "Hobbit" used in any Celtic legend - and I have collected a great many of them. This does not mean I doubt it was used - if people say they have found such stories, I'll accept that at face value. Hobbits don't seem to have many Celtic traits or those traits they placed on mythological beings. (Eowyn, on the other hand, is Boudicca to the hilt. Literally to the hilt. Which is interesting, as the Rohirrim are based on Anglosaxon traditions, not Celtic ones.)

What I -have- found is a repeated reference in North Wales to a race of small people who were barefoot, lived near bridges and who stole babies and children. Most of this is the usual changeling mythology, but what caught my eye was a reference in the legend to smoke coming out of their mouths. Very likely the legend is a merging of the changeling stories with the weirdness in Elizabethan times of tobacco smoking. This goes nicely with Tolkein's mythology soup theory.

I have NO basis for believing Tolkein was aware of this myth - it seems extremely obscure - and this is most likely a simple but fascinating coincidence. However, I have encountered many such "coincidences" in his stories and therefore believe his sources were more extensive than often described. Without something definite, though, it's supposition and speculation rather than verifiable and source-able.

[edit] "Hobbit" not "hobbit"

Looking through an assortment of articles, I have found a great deal of confusion regaring the proper capitalization of the word Hobbit.

In thie Prologue to Fellowship, Tolkien always uses Hobbit (the same as Dwarves, Elves, Men). I recommend that we do likewise, at least when we are referring to Tolkien's Hobbits.

Yes, I know I'm setting myself up for a lot of editing to make this standard. I'll give folks a chance to disagree before I start the mass edit... --Aranel 18:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't he also always capitalize Men and Elves? Ausir 18:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point (maybe it wasn't clear). Actually, it would occasionally be proper to say men, as in "the men of Rohan went to war and the women stayed behind". "Men" is a stand-in for a Westron word that means "human beings". One could technically refer to male Elves as men. Quenya has Atan "Man, human being" and nér "man, adult male". But Men is a special case here, since English does not make the distinction (seeing as we have only one sentient species). Tolkien today would probably write Human for Atan. --Aranel 20:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe Hobbit is capitalized as a proper noun. If you are using it as a pronoun, it isn't. Such as "The hobbit watched as his tea boiled," or, "They are called Hobbits." Signed- an anonymous Hobbit.

I agree, i would capitalise "Hobbit" when using it in the context of the name of the race, but use hobbit (uncapitalized) when talking about it as a subject/object in a scentence. Some however choose to use the original Westrôn capitalisation pattern, (first syllable stressed = proper noun), in that case all determinate-singular uses of hobit are proper nouns. this I would not correct. (correct any spelling mistakes please!)

"Hobbit" would make good analogous sense to other terms. Consider it like Canadian or American. I know we don't capitalize human, but that's because we're the only sapient beings we know of. So the analogy is closer to country than to race. Just off the top of my head though. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ears?

Did Tolkien himself ever mention that Hobbits have pointed ears? If so, where? I myself couldn’t find any references. TowerDragon 01:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

IIRC there's one suggestion in the Letters: it's a description of hobbits, in which he says, "ears slightly pointed and 'elf-like'." I'll find the reference tomorrow. I also think that this reference is the closest we have to a confirmation that Tolkien's elves had pointed ears, a topic of some debate among Tolkien scholars! —Josiah Rowe 07:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be letter #27. As for Elf ears, another reference that they were pointed is that in Sindarin "ear" (lhaw) comes from the same base as "leaf" (lhas): LAS. It is likely that the dual meaning of LAS as "leaf-shaped" and "ear" is meaningful, and that Elf ears were more pointed than human. (Etymologies). Jordi·✆ 10:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Thank you for finding that for me. And I didn't mean to suggest that I thought that Tolkien's elves didn't have pointed ears, only to "point out" that it's a subject on which not all Tolkien fans and scholars agree. (Apologies for the dreadful pun.) —Josiah Rowe 17:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the reference. I think this should be integrated into the main article somehow. — TowerDragon 09:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feet

We need a picture of their trademark feet--130.64.153.83 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit's disapearance?

I haven't read many of Tolkiens notes, but if I recall correctly it states in "The Hobbit" that hobbits are hard to find these days because they are smaller and good at hiding from big people like us who go trampling about like a herd of elephants that hobbits can hear from a mile away, and that in "Unfinished Tales" it says that the hobbits dwindled in size, forgeting their arts and hiding away from men in holes? I see no reference that says they leave middle earth, so we can presume they are still there today, unless there is some other source, so can we remove the line saying that they disappeared after the fourth age? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.79.83 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-10 17:34:06 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit Origin

The idea of a little hole dwelling creature was introduced to Tolkien by one of his students in a story he had written.

Where is the citation for this? I've not heard this allegation before. Thu 11:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a better picture

Something from the movies. Can't we get something? Something of Elijah Wood wearing his whole costume. All the article has now is his face. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is bad enough, given that Elijah Wood had precious little in common with the description of Frodo in the books. --OliverH 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

He also has a cleft chin, but that's about it. Uthanc 02:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meals

Reference 5 mentions Jackson's meal names: breakfast, second breakfast, elevenses, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner, and supper. I count seven. Aren't there only six?

[edit] Could someone clarify this sentence?

In the Etymology section occurs the following sentence:

According to Tolkien, the word hobbit was the first element of correcting reports when he started scribbling on a piece of paper and wrote, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit", and the multitude of stories sprang from that.

My best interpretation of this is that Tolkien was in the middle of correcting some reports when he thought up the first line and the rest of the story just came from that. If this is right, the English needs to be fixed. Tocharianne 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me as if a few words got lost at some point. I've fixed it to reflect my understanding of the Hobbit's origins. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =Citations

The history section needs a lot more references i think anyone else agree/ will be able to put some in? le Dan 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit: Public domain now?

I'm sure hobbits are now public domain. Can someone confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.86.156 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC).