# What happened to the giants?



## Goku da Silva (Nov 27, 2021)

They're only mentioned in The Hobbit and i'm curious to know if Tolkien ever mentioned then again in his non-published writings...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 27, 2021)

I think they lost to the Eagles.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 28, 2021)

My guess is he found them too much in the conventional fairy-tale tradition that he rejected after writing "The Hobbit".


----------



## Elthir (Nov 28, 2021)

Tolkien did mention "giants" again in the posthumously published corpus. And even in the author-published corpus, the term "giants" (at least) appears (see especially the last quote in this post) . . .

. . . and leaving interpretations aside for the moment, I once wrote the following "giant" post dealing with certain draft-references to _giants, Tree-men, Treebeard_, and the Anglo-Saxon word *ent* "giant".
The Green Dragon discussion starts it off.

If I'm bored one day, I might read the following again . . .

There appears to be at least a couple of years between the writing of the Green Dragon discussion and the writing of the chapter Treebeard, and I think we should take Tolkien at his word, that he invented "Ents" when he came to the particular chapter Treebeard -- that is, in the sense that it was only here that Ents came to be fully realized -- as compared to the idea of there being any tree-like giants in the story. These came earlier, and admittedly earlier than I expected if the chronology is correct.

Anyway, I hope I have correctly gleaned the following (thanks in part to Hammond and Scull).

____________________

In probably *late Sept 1938*, or *early October 1938*, Tolkien will write the chapter _Ancient History_ (partially based on some earlier material), within what is called the "Second Phase", this will include the descriptions:



> 'Trolls of a new and most malevolent kind were abroad; giants were spoken of, a Big Folk only far bigger and stronger than Men the [?ordinary] Big Folk, and no stupider, indeed often full of cunning and wizardry.'
> 
> " . . . But what about these what do you call 'em -- giants? They do say as one nigh as big as a tower or leastways a tree was seen up away beyond the North Moors not long back." [changed at the time of writing to] "But what about these Tree-Men, these here -- giants? They do say one nigh as big as a tower was seen up away . . ."



From probably *mid October 1938 -- December 1938* the "Third Phase" is completed, meaning Tolkien returns to the beginning of the story making a new fair copy manuscript of the whole work as far as the conversation between Frodo and Gloin at Rivendell -- and this phase includes the mention of Gandalf being imprisoned by "_Giant Treebeard."_ Thus a reference to Giant Treebeard (however conceived, with his admittedly suggestive name), exists quite close on the heels of the first version of the conversation in the Green Dragon. In this Third Phase the passage concerning giants becomes:



> "Trolls and giants were abroad, of a new and more malevolent kind, no longer dull witted but full of cunning and wizardry."



So giants of some sort are still around in the same phase as the mention of Giant Treebeard. No notable revision (with respect to our purposes here) is made to the passage concerning the conversation in the Green Dragon, noting that this version would appear to still contain "_as big as a tower"_ but without "_or leastways a tree."_ Pausing to consider the final, published passages:



> "Trolls were abroad, no longer dull-witted, but cunning and armed with dreadful weapons."
> 
> " . . . Tree-men, these giants as you might call them? They do say that one bigger than a tree was seen up away . . ."
> 
> The Lord of the Rings



I don't know when _these_ final revision were made, but Tolkien will take out the reference to giants in the passage where trolls are noted (leaving a reference to giants in the final form of _Three's Company_ in any case), and revise the comparison to a tower to a comparison to a tree -- so now not "as big" as a tower, or as big as a tree -- but _bigger than a tree._

It would be interesting to know when this revision was made especially if it came after Treebeard became much smaller. Nothing of note here seems to have been altered in the Fourth Phase of this chapter, and Hammond and Scull generally explain (unless I missed something earlier) that in 1946-47 Tolkien would make further alterations to books I and II (as well as later), which would be after the chapter on Treebeard in any event.

Back to the 1930s: from Dec 1938 we jump a bit to *February 1939*, where Tolkien states in a letter: *"*_*though there is no dragon (so far) there is going to be a Giant'"*_

Jump to Summer: on a letter *dated 27-29 July 1939* Treebeard emerges: in this short text Frodo thinks Treebeard's leg is a tree-trunk and he has a _'"rootlike foot and many branching toes."_ Treebeard is in league with the Enemy here, pretending to be friendly. An outline page dated August 1939 reads: "_Adventure with Giant Tree Beard in Forest."_

Continuing with the tale, Gandalf (in the house of Elrond) will warn of the Giant Treebeard who haunts the forest between the river and the South Mts. And at about this time Tolkien will then write an outline in which he describes:



> "Fangorn is an evergreen (oak holly?) forest. Trees of _vast_ height. (…) If Treebeard comes in at all -- let him be kindly and rather good? About 50 feet high with barky skin. Hair and beard rather like _twigs._ Clothed in dark green like a mail of short shining leaves. He has a castle in the black mountains and many thanes and followers. They look like young trees [?when] they stand. (…) The tree-giants assail the besiegers and rescue Trotter &c. and raise siege."



So not relatively long after the conversation in the Dragon was written, Tree-beard is certainly more like a tree than simply being as tall as one, and he has thanes that look like young trees. Later when Tolkien is working on the chapter for Galadriel, Christopher Tolkien notes:



> "Here the name Entwash clearly implies that Treebeard is an _Ent,_ and he is specifically so called (for the first time) in the outline just given; but since Treebeard was still only waiting in the wings as a potential ingredient in the narrative this may be only a slight shift in the development of the word. The Troll-lands north of Rivendell were the Entish Lands and Entish Dales (Old English ent "giant"); and only when Treebeard and the other "Ents" had been fully realized would the Troll-lands be renamed Ettendales and Ettenmoors (see p. 65 note 32)."
> 
> CJRT, commentary, Galadriel



In "The Story Forseen from Lorien" there's an interesting note: "_it could be Merry and Pippin that had adventure in Minas Morgul if Treebeard is cut out" _[this was struck out]. We also have an description of Fangorn that now seems to indicate that Fangorn forest itself was not gigantic (along with Treebeard being so giant), as implied earlier with the huge flowers, since the description seems to say that the forest was once part of a larger forested area.

Before we get to the actual chapter Treebeard there is a page of notes about how Ents came to be, including statements like: "_Did first lord of the Elves make Tree-folk in order to or through trying to understand trees?"_, or wondering about what they are, with: "_hnau that have gone tree-like, or trees that have become hnau?'" _and other details. But by the end of *1941 -- beginning of 1942*: Tolkien finishes book II and began book III, completing the chapter Treebeard around the end of Jan 1942.

Another interesting thing is that Christopher Tolkien quotes his father's letter about Tolkien having no recollection of inventing Ents, and writing the chapter without any recollection of previous thought and so on. Christopher Tolkien comments: "_This testimony is fully borne out by the original text. "Treebeard" did indeed very largely write itself."_

And so at this point we begin to find out about Ents as Tree-shepherds, and Entwives and so on, or Ents as readers will come to know them. And as far as tallness, as noted earlier, here Treebeard was originally "only" ten feet tall, revised to twelve, and then to fourteen.

The author published tale revisits, although very briefly, the matter of astonishing news and "tales" heard in both the Ivy Bush and the Green Dragon, in the chapter _Three Is Company_:



> *"Giants and other portents on the borders of the Shire were forgotten for more important matters: Mr. Frodo . . ."*



🐾


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 28, 2021)

Elthir said:


> ... And even in the author-published corpus, the term "giants" (at least) appears ...


Yes, now delegated to rumors among the Hobbits, who are by JRRT's description certainly far from being wise in the way of the world - or to put it less benignly, myopic bumpkins. Still adherents to the "conventional fairy-tale tradition", perhaps intended according to that German saying "nobody is useless; they can still serve as off-putting examples." And while JRRT idealized some aspects of his early childhood Sarehole experience, he certainly wasn't under any illusions about the shortcomings, the "small limited imaginations" that often were part of such an existence. The Gaffer & Co.


----------



## Elthir (Nov 28, 2021)

Well, in my bookcase _The Hobbit_ is canon in any case. Interpret "giants" as you like, with Gandalf saying:
*"I must see if I can't find a more or less decent giant to block it up again, . . ."*

In a world where _Half_-lings exist, I'm not sure why giants can't too (not that anyone said they can't).


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 28, 2021)

And my answer, while wrong, has the virtue of being short. 😁


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 28, 2021)

Elthir said:


> Well, in my bookcase _The Hobbit_ is canon in any case. Interpret "giants" as you like, with Gandalf saying:
> *"I must see if I can't find a more or less decent giant to block it up again, . . ."*


Canon as in author-published. Just shows that definition has its limits, too.
Had JRRT *meant* it to be canon at the time of publication, when nothing else about Middle-earth had yet been published? I very seriously doubt that. He found Middle-earth a convenient back-drop for his still rather conventional fairy-tale. His first attempt to "canonize" it was the 1951 second edition of TH. And then all sorts of writing that never got published in his life-time.

Like "The Quest of Erebor", written 1954, published in "Unfinished Tales" in 1980. Here JRRT himself puts quite a damper on the notion of TH as "canon", speaking through Gandalf:

"The story would sound rather different, if I had written it."

I mean, who wouldn't cringe at the "tra-la-la-lally" Elves of Rivendell? 😱😂


----------



## Elthir (Nov 29, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Had JRRT *meant* it to be canon at the time of publication, when nothing else about Middle-earth had yet been published? I very seriously doubt that.



Doesn't matter to me, as Tolkien even stamped the _first edition_ of _The Hobbit_ as canon in _The Lord of the Rings_.



Olorgando said:


> Here JRRT himself puts quite a damper on the notion of TH as "canon", speaking through Gandalf:
> "The story would sound rather different, if I had written it."



To me that's rather another confirmation of _The Hobbit_ as canon (an internal text within the legendarium) from an internal character. Gandalf's version would be canon too!



Olorgando said:


> I mean, who wouldn't cringe at the "tra-la-la-lally" Elves of Rivendell? 😱😂



Are these Elves being too childlike, or too foolish? Sam describing the Elves of Rivendell: *"Some like kings, terrible and splendid; and **some as merry as children**. And the music and the singing."*

And in any case, _The Hobbit_ warns . . .

*"Dwarves don’t get on well with them. Even decent enough dwarves like Thorin and his friends think them foolish (**which is a very foolish thing to think**), or get annoyed with them."*


----------



## ZehnWaters (Nov 29, 2021)

Elthir said:


> Well, in my bookcase _The Hobbit_ is canon in any case. Interpret "giants" as you like, with Gandalf saying:
> *"I must see if I can't find a more or less decent giant to block it up again, . . ."*
> 
> In a world where _Half_-lings exist, I'm not sure why giants can't too (not that anyone said they can't).


Doublings?


Olorgando said:


> Yes, now delegated to rumors among the Hobbits, who are by JRRT's description certainly far from being wise in the way of the world - or to but it less benignly, myopic bumpkins. Still adherents to the "conventional fairy-tale tradition", perhaps intended according to that German saying "nobody is useless; they can still serve as off-putting examples." And while JRRT idealized some aspects of his early childhood Sarehole experience, he certainly wasn't under any illusions about the shortcomings, the "small limited imaginations" that often were part of such an existence. The Gaffer & Co.


He seems to imply the best compromise is someone like Frodo or Bilbo. Educated and aware of the outside world but still more concerned with being simple with no great plans of conquest.


----------



## Radaghast (Dec 8, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I think they lost to the Eagles.


No. They won the last two meetings


----------



## Mike Gentry (Jan 26, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I think they lost to the Eagles.


😜


----------



## 1stvermont (Jan 26, 2022)

Elthir said:


> Tolkien did mention "giants" again in the posthumously published corpus. And even in the author-published corpus, the term "giants" (at least) appears (see especially the last quote in this post) . . .
> 
> . . . and leaving interpretations aside for the moment, I once wrote the following "giant" post dealing with certain draft-references to _giants, Tree-men, Treebeard_, and the Anglo-Saxon word *ent* "giant".
> The Green Dragon discussion starts it off.
> ...



Great stuff thanks.


----------



## Aldarion (Jan 26, 2022)

Elthir said:


> Well, in my bookcase _The Hobbit_ is canon in any case. Interpret "giants" as you like, with Gandalf saying:
> *"I must see if I can't find a more or less decent giant to block it up again, . . ."*
> 
> In a world where _Half_-lings exist, I'm not sure why giants can't too (not that anyone said they can't).


I always interpreted that as referring to trolls... they _are_ giants, basically. And while I do not remember how English text goes, in Croatian translation Ents are also called "giants" ("orijaši"), during the scene when Theoden comes to Isengard I think...


----------

