Beornings

[Yodaman]

I have a question about Beorings. In the Silmarilion Beren changed into and Orc and a Wolf (think- it's been a couple of years since I've read it), but in the Hobbit Beorn changed into a bear and nothing else. Can Beorings only change into one being, or can they turn into many?

[Earniel]

Beren wore the disguise of an orc only through the magic of Finrod Felagund, if I'm not mistaken. He took the skin of a wolf to enter Morgoth's lair and if he truly changed in a wolf too then I suppose that was Lúthien's doing and not his own.

Whereas Beorn's power to become a bear was his own. And if his people, the Beornings, share that shape-changing gift than I reckon they only can take the shape of a bear and none other.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Yeah, I always got the picture that Beorn could only change into a bear. I don't think Tolkien really would have done anything outlandish like a shape-shifter who can change into anything. Almost anything in excess quickly turns to fantasy, something that Tolkien never quite resorts to- it's always a history, never fantasy. I think Tolkien would have kept it simple with just two forms.

[Ñólendil]

Rosie, I don't agree with your terminology, distinguishing between fantasy and feigned history. Fantasy can be history, and that's what the Lord of the Rings is--a fantasy set in our world, thousands of years ago.

But Tolkien never rejected to the term "fantasy"--in fact he preferred it and suggested its use in place of "faery tales", in his essay on fairy stories (which was published along with "Leaf by Niggle", a story serving as an example of a fairy story that meets all the criteria of the conditions set out in the essay). This essay was written when the Lord of the Rings was finished, but its publication in doubt (I think, at least "Leaf By Niggle" was written then).

I do agree that the magic in Tolkkien's world was used sparingly, and was ultimately subtle, and that Beorn definitely did not change into anything other than a bear. However, a man changing into a bear in the first place belongs to the genre of fantasy, as do Hobbits, and Elves, and Dwarves, and Orcs, and Dragons, and all the rest. Tolkien's style of fantasy is very different from most modern works of fantasy, but the Paendragon Cycle, Memory Sorrow and Thorn, and The Lord of the Rings all belong to the same genre.

Now if you were to distinguish between the Forgotten Realms and Middle-earth, I would completely understand, but is not Tolkien one of the forefathers of modern fantasy?

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

First of all in the origional post Beren Erchamion is mentioned to have changed into an Orc and a Wolf, and as it was pointed out by Eärniel, he did not transform into these things as a Beorning would. It is infact that Beren was no relation to Beorn of the skinchangers. So even if somehow it was Berens power alone that alowed him to shape shift it has no bearing on Beorn and the Beornings ability to shape shift. The name of Beorn losely means bear and warrior, so it would kind of fall in line that the they would only be able to transform into bears. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. Also as stated above I just don't think Tolkien would create a character like that. A Maia or Vala could shap shift into anything or nothing but not a man, elf, ent, dwarf, hobbit, etc.

[Ñólendil]

Well-stated. Just for the fun of it though I'll point out that Beren's people (the people of Marach and Beor) were indeed related to Beorn's people. Beorn's people were of the same host of Men that Beren's people came from, if you go back far enough--it's just that Beorn's seemed to have stopped in the Misty Mountains, and Beren's made it all the way to Beleriand. 'Course, if you want to go that far you might as well go further and say all Men are related, because they are all, well, Men, who began in the East, were corrupted by Melkor, and then either repented, or didn't, and either left for the West, or stayed. But ... by now I've really wasted my time, because I have effectively negated everything I just said, except for "well-stated." So I'll stick with "well-stated".

Well-stated, Halbarad!

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

Haha, I think I may have been well stated... Well thanks Ñólendil. As for the distant relations, it is because of the "All men are realated" issue that causes me to say that they are not exactlly, if you were to say they were then the same could be said of all men ever! I draw the line as I think Tolkien did to at the Three houses of the Edain. Because Beorn syoped at the Misty Mountains he inevitably became a different type of "man" Yet I understand and even track his kinship to Beren... seeing is how like... 80% of Middle earth is related closely to Beren, Elrond, Elros, and all that!*

(*note that 80% and the entire final comment alltogether may just be an over reactment, please do not flame me for it )

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Halbarad of the Dunedain

The name of Beorn losely means bear and warrior, so it would kind of fall in line that the they would only be able to transform into bears.

Of course along that analogy one can say that Beren's name is the Dutch word for, well,... bears. I always wondered if Tolkien knew that.

[Haradrim]

I think it was pretty much understood that Beorn could only change into a bear. If he could change into anything then why at the battle of the 5 armies did he choose to shape as a bear. I can think of a million more powerful things.

Also I agree with Rosie. I believe that Tolkiens work is fantasy but is not meant to be thought of in that way. Therefore magic is used vary spareingly and usually amounts to the power of a match or a maglite. I also would assume that he would never put anything ridiculous in the books.

[Ñólendil]

It's fantasy but is not meant to be thought of as fantasy? Was Tolkien some sort of deceiver, then? I think it was meant to be thought of in a variety of ways, and that it "fantasy" is a great word for what The Hobbit and Tolkien's other books are. Fantasy is what faery tales of the nursury used to be, and ought to be, fantasy is what Tolkien was yearning for, and is what he produced. He himself preferred the word to "faery tales", which was the inadequate term used for his sort of writing before he came along. Just because fantasy has changed over the years does not mean, to me, that the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit cannot be called one. The Lord of the Rings was a heroic romance, and The Hobbit is an epic for children, but both are fantasy stories.

If The Hobbit is not meant to be thought of as a fantasy (but is a fantasy), what is it meant to be thought of? Shall we go back to faery tales, and put Tolkien with the brothers Grimm? Shall we concoct a new term, because the genre Tolkien pioneered is not up to scratch? I don't think so. The Hobbit is a fantasy, and is meant to be thought of as a fantasy. It just happens to be better than a lot of modern "fantastic" works.

[azalea]

I think they're just saying (I may be wrong) that within the context of the books (since we are given both notes from the author and explanations outside the text of the story proper that are still part of the story), we are meant to look at it as a history, not fantasy. They seem not to be using the term "fantasy" to mean genre, as you are. Then again, they could just be confused!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I've heard the books referred to as mythical. They said it had to much detail for a fantasy and it's history was full so it was a British myth.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I've heard the books referred to as mythical. They said it had to much detail for a fantasy and it's history was full so it was a British myth.

People are just trying to express their feelings about Tolkien's work. The stories are fantasy stories and there is no need to try to distinguish them from the fantasy genre.

[Rían]

by MM
The stories are fantasy stories and there is no need to try to distinguish them from the fantasy genre.

You're right that there's no need to distinguish them - they distinguish themselves



Earniel - reading your note about "Beren" being a Dutch word for "bear" reminds me of that long-ago conversation that lead to my composing the Lay of Beren and Luncheon ... what started it? Some word in that story meant "lunchmeats" in Dutch, IIRC...

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

It was Beorn that translated into that not Beren

[Rían]

Ah, here it is *is thankful for the search function*

here


(whoops - you're right, TD!)

[Michael Martinez]

Beorn may be a Dutch word, but it is also an Old English word, and Tolkien intended the Old English association. The Norse version of the name would be Bjarn, I think.

[Earniel]

Um, I need to clear this up. I did mean that Beren is also the Dutch word for 'bears'. I was just adding that in my last post as a side-thought. Beorn is not a specific Dutch word. (I was always under the impression that Beorn was derived from Björn which, I was once told, was a scandinavian word for 'bear'. But I should probably leave that some of our Scandinavian mooters who will have more knowlegde of that)

PS: RÃ*an it was the Beleg-Baloney conversation that sparked that food-related lay of yours. Ah, I see you've found it already.

[Nurvingiel]

Björn is a Swedish name meaning bear. It's pronounced pretty much like "Beorn". I wonder if Tolkien knew that.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

... I wonder if Tolkien knew that.

I thought Tolkien knew EVERYTHING!?!?!??