Talk:Hobbit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stealing Like a Hobbit

the great Luke Ski's song "Stealing Like a Hobbit" actually refers to Bilbo's stealing of the One Ring from Gollum. The chorus goes: "I'm sorry Gollum I never meant to hurt you But you can kiss that ring bye-bye 'Cuz tonight I'm stealing like a Hobbit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.201.144 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

-JohnnyLurg

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)

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.

And how pray tell is Eowyn Boudicca? She is a warrior and a women but that is it (she is referred to as a Shield maiden...which is in it's self Germanic, fitting with her Anglo-Saxon nature). And why would Hobbit even be Celtic, the Hob (creature and element) is English and likely derived from a Germanic tradition if anything.

I do not doubt there were Hobbits in folklore (albeit probably far removed from Tolkien) however I am not sure that he borrowed the name consciously (I find it unlikely). It should probably be mentioned in this article as it is an interesting coincidence. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should at least be mentioned that the word "hobbit" existed before Tolkien and appeared in the Denham Tracts. Regardless of whether this unconsciously influenced Tolkien, it's historically significant to the word's development in the English language. Surely Prof. Tolkien, with his passion for linguistics, would approve of this reference. Rajah1 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"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)

I've studied this quite a bit. In The Hobbit it is mostly not capitalized. In The Lord of the Rings, it is sometimes and not others, as are "elf" and "man." In The Silmarillion the names of "peoples" are always capitalized; this last seems to be what true Tolkien geeks go by. Steve Dufour 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

An example quoted in this very Wikipedia article itself:

I picture a fairly human figure, not a kind of fairy rabbit as some of my British reviewers seem to fancy: fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur. Clothing: green velvet breeches; red or yellow waistcoat; brown or green jacket; gold (or brass) buttons; a dark green hood and cloak (belonging to a dwarf).
(The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #27)

Here, dwarf is not capitalised.
—6birc, 20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Feet

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

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)

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 (talk) 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)

Is there an article on book vs. movie hobbits? There should be. :-) Steve Dufour 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Translation: According to Tolkien, the professor was in 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodologist (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 August 2009

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)

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).

Category:Middle-earth races

Explain to me why this article shouldn't be listed in this category? The 'read the page, lol' excuse isn't good enough. There needs to be clearly defined reason or this will never end. -- Jelly Soup 07:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"In-universe" Hobbits think of themselves as separate from humans, but Tolkien elsewhere wrote that they were humans. So the article is at least as precise as Tolkien was... Uthanc 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of an encyclopedia that isn't trivia based, Hobbits belong in this category. -- Jelly Soup 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I notice that Human isn't included in the category, so I guess I have to agree. -- Jelly Soup 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

life spans and dog breeds?

I have to question the following parenthetical remark in the text of the article: (it is unknown why Tolkien gave hobbits this average lifespan, although it happens to correspond with the size factor in the lifespans of different dog breeds).

The corrolation may be true - and, as a factoid, it is interesting ... but it strikes me as being essentially speculation by an editor and thus Original Research. I could see including it if Tolkien had mentioned the corrolation... I could even see including it if some noted LOTR expert had published something on the corrolation. But as it stands (ie little more than an editorial comment), I don't think it belongs. Either cut it, or cite it. Blueboar 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thinking some more... I am going to be BOLD and just delete it as OR. I am willing to discuss, of course. Blueboar 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"A little known fact is that Tolkien first used the term 'hobbit' in a creative writing class he took in 1914 under Dr. Zachary Frey at Oxford." - vandalism. Contradicts info elsewhere and unsupported by Google . Thanks for removing it. Uthanc 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It struck me as vandalism when I saw it... I seriously doubt that they even had a "creative writing" class at Oxford in 1914... its not the sort of thing that would have been in the curriculum at the time. Blueboar 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Six or seven meals?

I don't have my copy of LOTR with me right now, but I seem to remember it being 6 meals a day not 7. Could someone check on this? Thanks. (p.s. it is also mentioned in Second breakfast. Steve Dufour 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the book it is indeed six (page 2 of my edition). However, a line of dialogue from the movie mentions seven meals, namely the ones listed in the article. I won't edit it since I'm just passing through, but someone should decide what to do about the book/movie inconsistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.240.149 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Angle" = Angeln

"The Hobbits took different routes in their journey westward ... they began to settle together in Bree-land, Dunland, and the Angle formed by the rivers Mitheithel and Bruinen" --
I don't have a print source handy, but as I recall, Tolkien meant this as a nod to Angeln, the source of the Angles (as in "Anglo-Saxon") and the linguistic source of both "English language" and "English people". -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In Elections do Hobbits Get A Whole Vote or a Half-Vote?

I know this is a delicate subject but lets get it out on the table and get the answer into the article. 66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image of a Hobbit hole

Would it be possible to find a picture of a Hobbit hole? Here are some images. Maybe someone would be willing to release a picture for use here. That's how I got several images for my Reindeer hunting in Greenland article. I searched for images and contacted the owners. Most people are flattered to have their images used here. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons already has some images, you might want to look there. (commons.wikimedia.org > Category:Middle-earth, Category:The Shire) ~ Winterwater (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing in a real world 'pedia about the multiple worlds of LotR

No doubt the editor who gave us

Known as "Halflings" to most and "Periannath" by the Elves, the word "Hobbit" is derived from the name "Holbytlan" which means "hole-dwellers" in the tongue of the Rohirrim (represented by Old English).

knew what they were writing about, and thus surely one of the possible meaning of the sentence is accurate. But even i, knowing that "Brandywine" is what "Baranduin" became or would have become in the evolution of Old English to Modern English, can only guess what "represented" means in that sentence.
The article is not written for those who read it hoping to be able to correct the spelling of an obscure elvin or dwarvish name, nor even for me, but most importantly for readers who read the article for the information on what a hobbit is: the reader who knows, let's say, only that LOTR had fans long before Harry Potter did.
In this case, is "Holbytlan" an attested Old English word? A tolkienian extrapolation from Old English? Is it closer to being what hobbits would have call themselves, or what hobbits would teach Brits after giving up on teaching them to pronounce anything in their own language? Is it used in the novels proper, or only in an appendix on language like the one in (IIRC) LotR? (Recall that the appendix is written in a different world from the novels: a world in which the existence of the real world is acknowledged and matters. The lead only diffidently, obscurely, admits that ME is not the real world, let alone making the distinction between its world and the one where JRRT is only a translator and not a novelist.)
I am discussing the lead 'graph not bcz i assume it is the worst part of the article (far from that, i assume) but bcz such a crucial part has survived 50 edits without attention to this, making it time to consider replacing the article with a stub and moving the entire current content to a series of talk subpages, for discussion of whether and how to salvage the various sections or 'graphs. In that case, a WP-compliant stub can be written, and when anything is added to it that shows signs of the editor being unable to type WP:WAF and grasp its substance, it can be reverted, with the rejected changes added to the sub-paged text for similar discussion of how or whether to salvage it.
LotR and its kin are a subtle, elaborate, and important oeuvre. That doesn't buy its WP articles immunity from the MoS, but on the contrary subjects it to heightened vigilance. Let's live up to the editing it deserves.
--Jerzy•t 03:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure my reworking of the sentence i quoted above sucks. But i hope someone who does get what it meant will rescue it from me.
  --Jerzy•t 03:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  

hobbits are mythicle creatures and nothing more lord of the rings is just a movie the day they find a hobbit and bring it to my house is the day i will grow wings—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.166.80 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 June 2009

Hobbit House bar in Manila

Article in the L.A. Times about the "Hobbit House" bar in Manila, which has employed hundreds of little people known locally as "hobbits" for several decades:

• "Manila's Hobbit House bar: Full of little people and a big love", John M. Glionna, L.A. Times, 2009-08-10

I'm not sure if this link is suitable or not for the "External links" section. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regression Equation

Under the section "Science", we have the following statement:

"Further analysis of the remains using a regression equation indicates that one of the creatures was approximately 106 cm tall (3 feet, 6 inches)—far smaller than the modern pygmies whose adults grow to less than 150 cm (4 feet, 11 inches)".

As far as I know, "regression equations" don't study remains in order to determine approximate heights. It seems like such an absurd part of the analysis to focus on. Perhaps those engaging in the study used carbon-14 dating, latex gloves and magnifying glasses as well. Should those be mentioned? Why does a "regression equation" get the spot light? This is a super trivial point, but the sentence was extremely uncomfortable to read.

After taking it out, my change was reverted. I added a link to the "regression equation" article in the hope that the author might read that article and perhaps add a section on how regression equations estimate height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morria (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Oh shit, I'm an asshole. I just read the "regression equation" article myself and very quickly found the section where they describe how regression equations were first used to estimate heights. My mind is blown.

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?

Actually as far as I can tell, the mention of meal names is the only part of this article that derives from Jackson's movies rather than Tolkien's writings. I'd be inclined to delete the whole sentence. Mnudelman (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A quote from the Prologue of The Fellowship of The Ring: "There faces were as a rule good-natured rather than beautiful, broad, bright-eyed, red-cheeked, with mouths apt to laughter, and to eating and drinking. And laugh they did, and eat, and drink, often and heartily, being fond of simple jests at all times, and of six meals a day (when they could get them)."

The second breakfast and elevenses are the same basic idea, in that they are a mid-morning meal. The name changes depending where you are in the world (and whether it's this world or a fictional one) but the idea is that it is a meal inserted between breakfast and lunch, which are too far apart to survive "without a little something", as a hobbit or indeed Pooh Bear might say. SimonGUK (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that hobbits ate six meals a day is canonical; the NAMES of the meals are not. The meal names were invented by Jackson or his writers. I don't understand the force of your second paragraph ("the name changes depending on where you are ..."). This does not come from any of Tolkien's writings, or even Jackson's movies as far as I know -- is it original research? It may be _plausible_ that there was a meal between breakfast and lunch, but the fact is nowhere mentioned by Tolkien, much less what the name of such a meal might be.

Mnudelman (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the sentence. It was not only dealing with the adaptation related information in the wrong place, it was crutfy information anyway. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Six meals?

They would enjoy six meals a day, if they could get them.

I've just been having a look, after seeing that elevenses is "a meal eaten by Hobbits between second breakfast and luncheon", for what the rest of their meals are called. I eventually found that they're breakfast, second breakfast (FTM what fast are they breaking?), elevenses, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner and supper. But that makes seven. Does this mean that:

• that page is wrong?
• our page is wrong?
• in practice a hobbit generally has only six of these seven meals on a given day?
• they have seven meals a day, but only enjoy six of them?
• something else?

— Smjg (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that other page is wrong, see the reference I've added. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Either way the link provided above is dubious and would not qualify as a reliable source. We struggle to get the Tolkien Gateway and Encyclopedia or Arda to pass, never mind another wiki. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. So I take it you don't know which of the meals listed on that site is wrong? — Smjg (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually missed the list on first reading. Don't know of the top of my head where that list is from. Will do a search on my kindle edition later. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On Talk:Second breakfast an IP mentioned a conversation in the films listing seven meals so that's where the WIkia page might come from. De728631 (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So maybe either:

• they have the seven, but one of them isn't considered a meal
• a few Hobbits, such as the one who gave that list, have an extra meal on top of the usual six
• the film's scriptwriter made up an extra one for effect

— Smjg (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Which Hobbit gave that list? GimliDotNet (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hobbits in popular culture

Is a pop culture trivia section really of value here? It seems even more absurd than usual given that the subject matter is a race from The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, which are still firmly within the popular culture regardless of whether or not they were published before any given editor was born. 156.34.155.40 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture is one of the most important sections. It gives notability to the subject, that and third party works on the topic. Otherwise the entire topic would have to be deleted GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 04:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Number of Hobbit meals

I was under the impression that Hobbits had at least seven meals a day - breakfast, second breakfast, elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner, and supper. However here it says only 6. IManOM (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

LotR Prologue says six meals a day. Where is your list from? -- Elphion (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was at least 7 (if not more) and the LotR Wikia page says 7 too. At the time I didn't see a reference in either wiki or wikia so wasn't sure of the facts, so thought it prudent to check -- IManOM (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Bag End

I'm not sure we really need the overlong excerpt from The Hobbit describing Bag End. The article is about Hobbits but the general description of their homes is enough, we don't need to know exactly what one not exactly typical Hobbit house looked like. 69.158.141.116 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word "hobbit/Hobbit"

This was addressed earlier but not plainly solved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hobbit/Archive_1#.22Hobbit.22_not_.22hobbit.22

• The word appears to be treated as an improper noun in The Hobbit, and thus not capitalized (such as we would "human" or "canine," "man" or "dog"): http://books.google.com/books?id=hFfhrCWiLSMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+hobbit&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rgfwUtfkG9jeoASXpYDwDw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hobbit&f=false
• In the first volume of the later-written Lord of the Rings, the word appears to be treated less consistently (or more subtly, depending): http://books.google.com/books?id=aWZzLPhY4o0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+fellowship+of+the+ring&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5gjwUs7WOZTFoASU0IHADg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hobbit&f=false
• Interesting, a section within the immediately above printing entitled "Note on the 50th Anniversary Edition" (http://books.google.com/books?id=aWZzLPhY4o0C&q=hobbit#v=snippet&q=capitalization&f=false) states:

Many of the emendations in the present text are to marks of punctuation, either to correct recent typographical errors or to repair surviving alterations introduced in the second printing…The result, nonetheless, still includes many variations in capitalization, punctuation, and other points of style. Not all of these are erroneous: they include words such as Sun, Moon, Hobbit, and Man (or sun, moon, hobbit, man), which may change form according to meaning or application, in relation to adjacent adjectives, or whether Tolkien intended personification, poetry, or emphasis. His intent cannot be divined with confidence in every case.

I would like to suggest that neither can we divine with confidence such intents, and that we would instead follow a simpler-to-write, and perhaps less-distracting-to-read, course of treating the noun "hobbit/Hobbit" as generally improper and therefore uncapitalized (as was done in the original Hobbit). Thoughts? startswithj (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Might be worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#Capital_letters GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Rating/Grading

Re this edit: "grading" looks wrong to me - isn't that the American term? - but "rating" doesn't feel right either. What verb is used in the Carpenter source? [Any why don't I have a copy?] -- John of Reading (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Carpenter doesn't mention school papers at all. In Letter 163 (p. 215), JRRT says he was "correcting" School Certificate papers. That's probably a better word, since "grading" and "rating" seem to reside across another Great Water divide. -- Elphion (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

re: (rather old) merge proposal

Looks to me like this article's talkpage hasn't been touched in awhile, let alone the article itself, so I don't know how many eyes are on it at this point, but I think there's merit in either deleting this or merging its content with the Hobbit article... Aside from its apparent, yet-to-be-sourced etymological origins outside of Tolkien's work, this just looks like a list of crufty uses of the term/race in various media, and I'd see more encyclopedic merit as it just being referred to in the Hobbit article for what it is-- just an alternate name for hobbits, both in Tolkien's work and other works (which I see it already does, so that makes this article a little redundant, doesn't it?) BlusterBlaster^kaboom! 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

...oops, meant to put this on the halfling talk page. Goes to show how new I am at this. BlusterBlaster^kaboom! 18:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hobbits predate Tolkien

"Hobbits" appear in a 1846-1859 list of creatures in English folklore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.118.87 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

References

(alleged) Merger discussion

The main page carries a statement that the hobbit article and the "halfling" article be merged. But there does not appear to be any discussion of it here, where the link leads. So here's my two cents (€ cents).

"Halfling" has a considerable use prior to Tolkein. Tolkein didn't invent the term, but deliberately invented his own term for his own creatures, simialr to the existing concept of "halflings", but very definitely his own word, for his own concept.

Tolkein's profession (and professorship) was in the philology of English - how the words and language developed. If he chose to invent a new word instead of re-use an existing one, I'd be inclined to accept his opinion on the matter (as expressed through his actions). Actually, I have a vague memory that he does discuss something like this in one of his essays on mythology ("Tree and Leaf"? "On Faierie"?), but it's at least 30 years since I read either, so I won't go to the gallows on the point.

I would vote against the proposed merger.

I note that the proposition has been around since April 2014, and this is the first discussion of it that I see.

OOPs, forgot to sign! Aidan Karley (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag -- it's clearly not a hot issue. -- Elphion (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. One of these days I'll maybe have to learn the arcana of wiki-admin-ing, but only when I've not got more urgent things to do.

Aidan Karley (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Puck of Pook's Hill influence?

In Kipling's Puck of Pook's Hill, the title character is described as a three-foot-tall creature with pointed ears and bare hairy feet. As for me, I immediately recognized him as a hobbit. 176.15.77.168 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Would it count as original research or not?

While Tolkien was undoubtedly familiar with Kipling, the description above is shared by many other fictional characters he would have been familiar with. So yes: OR unless you can find a RS. -- Elphion (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Distinctly earthbound

An IP is attempting to edit-war the template "Fairies" into the article, without explanation of any kind. There is no justification in the article for such an assignment, not least because scholars are clear that hobbits are an exceptionally earthbound and homely race, the closest indeed to the human reader in comparison to heroic Men like Aragorn and Boromir, let alone immortal Elves and so forth. Hobbits like parties, gardening, beer in the village pub, country walks - they couldn't be less fairy-like if they tried. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Middle-earth "Men" and modern humans

The simple equation of Tolkien's "Men" and modern humans, while enticing and partly obviously correct, as with the equation of Arda and Earth, is not quite right. There are several human-like "races" in Middle-earth — Elves, Men, Dwarves, and indeed Hobbits; and Elves and Men are able to interbreed. We therefore must call Tolkien's Men by that name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of this entry until today, and I have already answered sufficiently it in an edit reason. Briefly, this would make Alien's Ellen Ripley not be human thanks to the creationist nonsense in Prometheus; or the people in the Bible be a different species because of Genesis. These are the outlandish conclusions that this reasoning takes you to! It's just silly. They're all fictional humans ("us") in fantasy stories. It doesn't "quite fit" exactly because it's fantasy, and that's the nature of the beast - consistency with reality is impossible. It does not mean that the people in the stories are not meant to be read as human! Tolkien himself identifies "the Big People" with us in The Hobbit! And this breeding argument is beyond nonsense: Spock's mum is not human because she bred with an elf Vulcan???!!!! It's utter nonsense! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To recall Aliveness Cascade's edit summary:
Lead: Restoring relatives/branch/variety of *humans* - not Tolkien's "Men" - because what T *calls* HUMANITY is unnecessarily technical for lead, and throws the reader with its archaicness and odd maleness. What's more to quote "The Hobbit": "What is a hobbit? I suppose hobbits need some description nowaday, because they have become rare and shy of the Big People, AS THEY CALL US." And also, the people of the Bible are *humans* (fictionalised), despite having a fictional origin like in Tolkien.

A couple of points:

• I agree that Tolkien usually used "human" to refer to varieties of H. sapiens. A note on p. 158 of Letters (several pages into Letter #131) says this fairly explicitly: "The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves of Dwarves)". In other words, Hobbits are not just "related" to us, they belong to the same race/species. (Note the modifier "specifically", which allows for the possibility that "human" unmodified might have broader reference.)

• However, Tokien's "human" is always an adjective, never a noun. He uses it very rarely (I could find only a small handfull in all of LotR, Sil, and UT). It's not exactly the natural term to use in his universe for human individuals of whatever variety.

• Moreover, although "Man" is often used to distinguish Men from Hobbits, "Men" is also the term used routinely to refer to the Secondborn, the mortal Children of Eru -- and that certainly includes Hobbits. The Sindarin term is adan, edain, which is occasionally added to other descriptors to distinguish different varieties of Men (e.g., Drúadan). And as a racial term, "Men" clearly includes both sexes, as was routine in Tolkien's day.

• But even Elves were regarded as at least *human-like*. Cf. this passage from the essay on the Istari in UT (p. 394): "The Maiar were "spirits," but capable of self-incarnation, and could take 'humane' (especially Elvish) forms."

I think it's important not to get hung up on whether "Men" includes Hobbits or other varieties of H. sapiens; or whether "human" means strictly H. sapiens. When the distinction is important, we need to be explicit; otherwise, it's not worth being dogmatic about.

-- Elphion (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - that's progress, as you began this discussion by saying what we "must" do. I should acknowledge here that you did not revert the edit after I more fully explained my reasons in the edit-summary reproduced above. As I say above, I was not aware of this talk entry at the time, and am not trying to open an old argument, but felt I should respond to the talk entry on discovering its existence. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe Tolkien used "men" because in the legendarium because it's English in origin. It is Middle English, from Old English "menn", and has cognates throughout the Germanic languages, meaning men/women/children/people/humans/us. Whereas "human" comes from French and/or Latin, so not appropriate for his "English" legendarium. It's a linguistic choice! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The OED says its "hobbit" entry was written by Tolkien, and included with almost no change by the editors:
"In the tales of J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973): one of an imaginary people, a small variety of the human race, that gave themselves this name (meaning 'hole-dweller') but were called by others halflings, since they were half the height of normal men.

~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The current edit of Man (Middle-earth) begins:
"In J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth fiction, Man and Men denote humans ..."
I don't understand why this is even a debate! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tolkien intended his legendarium to be a legendarium for the English:
Tolkien first began working on the stories that would become The Silmarillion in 1914, intending them to become an English mythology that would explain the origins of English history and culture (from Tolkien's legendarium)
and the English are ... humans!  :-) ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I only wish to keep the lead as simple and clear and uncomplicated as possible. The edit retains a link to Man (Middle-earth) via "Big People" so everything is covered.~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The edit does not say "modern humans", so that is a straw argument. And it does not say "homo sapiens"! It simply uses the modern words, the explicitly-gender-neutral modern words, for clarity and simplicity: "humans", "human race", and "humanity" which are favoured today. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Elphion: for importing my edit summary, and so helping enable a fair discussion. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My problem with the current lead is that it implies that "human" excludes Hobbits, despite Tolkien's clear statement (mentioned above) to the contrary. The following changes need to be made:

• "Hobbits are a fictional human-like race" => "Hobbits are a fictional human race".

• "about half the height of humans" => "about half the height of Men" (or perhaps "ordinary people").

• "as relatives of the human race" => "as relatives of Men" (or "ordinary people").

• "between humans and hobbits" => "between Men and Hobbits" [to use Tolkiens own words when he makes the distinction].

-- Elphion (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I get you! I think the issue springs from Tolkien's inconsistency ("relatives", "branch", or "variety") and amusingly to me it reflects the difficulties faced by biologists when describing real life! Solutions? Maybe:

• Hobbits are a fictional people in the novels of J. R. R. Tolkien, who are about half the average height of real people.

~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Or:

• Hobbits are a fictional people in the novels of J. R. R. Tolkien, who are about half average human height.

~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hobbits are a fictional people in the novels of J. R. R. Tolkien, whose height is about half average human height.

~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC) ... and then maybe go directly into: "Tolkien presented hobbits as relatives of the human race, or a "variety" or separate "branch" of humanity, with key distinguishing features of ..." ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As it has gone quiet here, I have had a crack at an edit of the article which solves this issue. As it turns out, this change led to some re-ordering of other material, so it is easier to present it there (for your consideration). It begins:
Hobbits are an imaginary people in the novels of J. R. R. Tolkien. About half average human height, Tolkien presented hobbits as a variety of humanity, or close relations thereof.
~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Changed "relations" to "relatives". Tolkien is quoted as using "relatives" - not sure why I used the former! ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Current version looks reasonable, thanks. -- Elphion (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Elphion: for thanking me! I am glad this debate resulted in a positive outcome! Actually, I too had been dissatisfied with the previous opening wording, but, being stumped how to improve it, had let it go, and forgotten about it. I'm glad this discussion has allowed us to work together to a solution! The word "average" proved to be the key, as using it allows the sentence to express no opinion either way as to whether hobbits are "human" or "related to humans". ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales - in Fictional history section

I moved the mention of the "brief mention" of hobbits in The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales from the opening paragraph of the lead, down to "Fictional history" where they fit nicely, in my opinion. Rationale for moving out of lead it is not primary info, and I wished to create space in the lead for more vital and primary stuff like the appearance and character of hobbits. This change to lead seems to have stuck, but unfortunately their placement in "Fictional History" has been edited away.

So I invite discussion as to what's wrong with my edit there, which was:
Hobbits first appear in The Hobbit as the people of the hobbit town of Hobbiton, which in its sequel, The Lord of the Rings, is identified as being in the Shire. The Hobbit tells the story of the outlandish adventures of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins, who is employed as a thief by a party of Dwarves who are on a mission to recover treasure from the hoard of a dragon. In The Lord of the Rings Bilbo's cousin Frodo, along with his friends, set out from the Shire to destroy the dangerous magic ring that Bilbo found on his adventure, and which is now bringing peril to the Shire. Hobbits are briefly mentioned in The Silmarillion, where Tolkien puts the events of the Lord of the Rings in the context of the larger history of his legendarium; and in Unfinished Tales, where Tolkien recounts events that set up the story of The Hobbit.

The current edit, which it was reverted back to is:
Hobbits first appear in The Hobbit as the rural people of the Shire; the book tells of the unexpected adventure that happened to one of them, Bilbo, as a party of Dwarves seeks to recover an ancient treasure from the hoard of a dragon. They are again central to The Lord of the Rings, an altogether darker tale, where Bilbo's cousin Frodo sets out from the Shire to destroy the Ring that Bilbo had brought home.

Can we discuss?

Hobbits first appear in Hobbiton, yes? And the Shire was introduced in LOTR? And the treasure is not "ancient", it's just from two-generations ago? I don't know why this edit was reverted. The "darker tone" and "central to" bits of the revert seems out-of-tone of the "Fictional history" section to me, which is why I cut them. Generally, I tried to make my edit a good and helpful read, and I don't see a big problem with it. Happy to work on improving this paragraph together, but I don't see the benefit of the total revert.~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

How about:
The Hobbit tells the story of the adventures of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins, from the town of Hobbiton in the Shire, who is employed as a thief by a party of Dwarves who are on a mission to recover treasure from the hoard of a dragon. The Lord of the Rings tells the story of Bilbo's cousin Frodo, and his friends, who set out on a quest to destroy a dangerous magic ring that Bilbo found on his adventure, and which is bringing peril to the Shire.
Hobbits are briefly mentioned in The Silmarillion, where Tolkien puts the events of the Lord of the Rings in the context of the larger history of his legendarium; and in Unfinished Tales, where Tolkien recounts events that set up the story of The Hobbit. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that the original version looks fine to me. Details of the plot that you've added don't really address the subject of Hobbit, and are better left at the articles about the respective books. "Outlandish" is outlandish; see WP:PEACOCK. "Unexpected" works fine there, and is Tolkien's word anyway. -- Elphion (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Height

A minor point: Of the three breeds, the Prologue says quite clearly that the Harfoots were "browner of skin, smaller, and shorter", while the Fallohides were "fairer of skin, taller, and slimmer" than the others. Stoors necessarily therefore fell in between, and were "broader, heavy in build". Editor 96.246.161.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) cites Tolkien's note (reproduced in The Nature of Middle-earth, p. 194) in response to Pauline Baynes's poster map, in which he says that the Stoors were shorter than the Harfoots (and the Fallohides taller). But he never changed the text of the Prologue, which remains the definitive public description. -- Elphion (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)