# Forsaken Inn Theories



## Neumy (Nov 29, 2006)

Okay, one of the great discussion out there is what and where was the Forsaken Inn that Aragorn mentioned while in Bree. Other than the one reference, Tolkien never mentioned it again. But that does not stop us speculating ... 

What are your theories regarding the Forsaken Inn?
- was it another town?
- was it in ruins?
- did people live there?
- etc.

I'm not looking for literary proof, I'm looking for your personal theories.


----------



## Starbrow (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm thinking it might be the gambling Mecca of MiddleEarth. You know, neon lights, show girls, slot machines chiming, fountains, etc.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 12, 2007)

> _The Fellowship of the Ring: A Knife in the Dark_
> 'How far is Rivendell?' asked Merry, gazing round wearily. The world looked wild and wide from Weathertop.
> 'I don't know if the Road has ever been measured in miles beyond the Forsaken Inn, *a day's journey east of Bree*,' answered Strider. 'Some say it is so far, and some say otherwise. It is a strange road, and folk are glad to reach their journey's end, whether the time is long or short. But I know how long it would take me on my own feet, with fair weather and no ill fortune twelve days from here to the Ford of Bruinen, where the Road crosses the Loudwater that runs out of Rivendell. We have at least a fortnight's journey before us, for I do not think we shall be able to use the Road.'
> 'A fortnight!' said Frodo. 'A lot may happen in that time.'



I guess that is the only passage that we have to work with.

The late Karen Wynn Fonstad places it, roughly, some 10-12 miles east of Bree in her _Atlas_ (p. 75, Harper Collins). 

I think I would have to disagree with that, I'd say a greater distance ought to constitute 'a day's journey'. For example, in her Pathway table (p. 157) she provides the mileage for all the journeys of the Fellowship from Bag End to Mount Doom, and rarely have they walked 10 or fewer miles a day, e.g. when the three hobbits set out from Bag End, they traverse 18 miles in 5 hours, according to Fonstad, and that was supposed to be a leisurely stroll through the Green Hill Country.

Therefore, I would judge the distance more around 20 miles, though since I'm going by speculation, I may be off.

I would think it was no town, but a lone inn, with perhaps a few additional buildings surrounding it, serving as stables and housing for employees and possible guests/visitors. But I wonder if the Inn was operational at the time of the LOTR, and whether it had many customers, in part due to the proximity of Bree, where a rather more famous inn was located, and in part due to being positioned alongside this 'strange road' that travellers are apparently not too keen on treading.


----------



## StoneHeart (Sep 2, 2007)

Oh lord it has been long years since I have picked up my books... 
Forgive us...

Let us say that most inns, especially the old fantasy realm type tend to have obvious names. Going from there let us assume that the Forsaken Inn is just that, forsaken. Most likely an inn made before or shortly after Bree became a village and soon went under from the more convient Prancing Pony. However abandoned places tend to overflow with children of shadows. Thieves, criminals, unruly teenagers, rangers, ringwraiths, goblins, and other unsavory creatures. So I guess I assumed that the Forsaken inn was the original rest stop on the road to Rivendell before the coming of mans civilization. (Did elves have inns? I think not, who then owned this fine establishment?) A second thought was that it could simply be a landmark. I would like to reference Poe's The Gold Bug and the "Devil's Chair" Perhaps we are thinking too literally. 

But as I have said, it has been a long, hard road since I was in my full obsession for Tolkien. (Sadly New Line robbed me of my passion) I also have been inside around industrial cleaners all day, so maybe I am not talking about what I am talking about.


----------



## Halasían (Sep 21, 2007)

Since there is little to go by as far as when the Forsaken Inn, or Bree for that matter, was established, it could be well back into the years. There could have been more people and commerce in the early days of Arnor so it may have been a viable Inn at that time. The mention of 'an inn or two' on the edge of the Lone Lands in the Hobbit suggests there were more inns around Bree at one time.


----------



## Valandil (Sep 22, 2007)

Yes - and it's easy to imagine that there would have been a whole string of them at one time, when commerce was greater, each about a day's travel apart from one another.

That way, travelers could just go from one inn to the next, if they chose to do so.


----------



## Firawyn (Oct 29, 2007)

I would venture to say that perhaps it was a hideout for the Rangers, since no one but Aragorn ever mentions it, and he was one of the last Rangers. It would certainly fit with why he so often passed through Bree, and why Butterbur knew Aragorn was 'one of those rangers'. 


*sparks fly* Ohh.....that right there is a great idea for a RP!


----------



## Halasían (Oct 29, 2007)

Firawyn said:


> *sparks fly* Ohh.....that right there is a great idea for a RP!



It is indeed! A lot of gray area around it so leaves lots of room to work with.
I was in an RP in 2000 where the setting was in part at the Forsaken for a time. It was one of the best I had been a part of. 



Firawyn said:


> I would venture to say that perhaps it was a hideout for the Rangers, since no one but Aragorn ever mentions it, and he was one of the last Rangers. It would certainly fit with why he so often passed through Bree, and why Butterbur knew Aragorn was 'one of those rangers'.



I think it would be less of a 'hideout' but more of a gathering place for the Rangers as it was fairly well known of in Bree. I think the Rangers had 'hideouts' all over Eriador in the less traveled areas (South Downs, the Angle, Evendim, etc.)


----------



## baragund (Oct 30, 2007)

I can see The Forsaken Inn being in business at the time of FOTR. It would be the gathering place for the more undesirables who were wandering about at the time. The Prancing Pony would be a relatively respectable establishment.

As to the distance from Rivendell, I think 10-15 miles is more appropriate. When one is loaded down with backpacks, rucksacks and the like, that is plenty distance to cover in a day.

Fonstad's estimate to the three hobbits covering 18 miles in 5 hours in a "leisurely stroll" is wayyy off the mark. Consider that it takes world class runners almost 3 hours to do a marathon. 

Here's a bit of trivia on the distance thing: In my neck of the woods (Virginia), one of the considerations when counties were set up in the old days was that one shouldn't have to travel more than a day to reach the county seat. These towns, where the courthouse and magistrate were , were typically located in the center of the county and the farthest reaches were usually no more than 12-15 miles.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Oct 30, 2007)

baragund said:


> As to the distance from Rivendell, I think 10-15 miles is more appropriate.



I believe you meant 'the distance from _Bree_', but other than that I would agree with you except it seems to me that Strider was referring to a normal days journey for himself with much less baggage to bring along. With only himself and very little to carry he could travel much farther.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 30, 2007)

Isn't there some mention in the Hobbit's first few chapters (My books are all in a storage unit down in San Diego with the exception of the Children of Hurin) about the first few days of the journey being pleasant with good inns . . . assuming this doesn't simply mean the road from Hobbiton to Bree, it implies that there are a few communities in between Bree and Rivendell. It would make sense for the Forsaken Inn to be the last of this chain, possibly called Forsaken because it was the loneliest post and being somewhat out of the way received less business.


----------



## solicitr (Oct 30, 2007)

Fortunately, this is one question which can be answered, thanks to previously unpublished Tolkien papers.

About 1960, Tolkien had the idea of revising, indeed rewriting, The Hobbit to make it 'fit' better with the LR, both in consistency and tone. He never got farther than the arrival at Rivendell, but he was at least able to (attempt to) redress the problem he created for himself in Book I- that Strider took six days to reach the Troll-glade, which Bilbo reached in an hour or so!

Anyway, as part of the rewriting (which this time mentions Brandywine Bridge and the Prancing Pony and so on), after leaving Bree Thorin & Co plan to spend the next night at the Last Inn 20 miles east- but find it deserted and ruinous (part of a general theme of progressive decay) Hence its remains were known as the Forsaken Inn some eighty years later.


----------



## baragund (Oct 31, 2007)

Thanks, Mr. Istari, I meant Bree.

Good point, solicitr. It always pays to check the source materials.


----------



## Mr. Istari (Oct 31, 2007)

Anytime Baragund! Thats what I'm here for.
That's pretty cool solicitr. I never knew Tolkien was doing anything like that!
And it also seems to agree with my point that Strider would be able to travel further than the 10-15 mile a day distance stated before. Although it would take longer for the hobbits with all their baggage and their little legs.


----------



## Halasían (Nov 26, 2007)

That is the trouble with scale when one writing is published using one vague measure, and another is more detailed. I always wrote off he difference in Bilbo & the dwarves were on open road while Aragorn and the Hobbits were busy trying to dog the black riders, and even Aragorn seemed to get confused by the land before coming to the stone trolls.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 27, 2007)

As the word is 'forsaken' and not 'derelict' or 'abandoned', I assume the inn was still in business, but was a tad short of regulars, being on one of the roads less travelled. It must be very old.

I like the theory that the Rangers used it. Once you're a day out of Bree, you would be looking for a dry bunk for the night.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 21, 2007)

Yeah, me too.
Also, Aragorn goes out of the way & frodo is weak after the attack, so to this day that alone explains the 6 days.

Plus, in 80 years, a number of inns could disappear too.

Just the name Forsaken Inn does not imply, as some have written, a hang out for undesirables or just Rangers.....

By simply being on The East Road, & a day's journey from Bree, it would be used by EVERYONE who was travelling on the road - just that simple.
Would YOU sleep outside on the ground or at The Forsaken Inn?
Come on......

I always saw it this way, as a previous poster said:

Therefore, I would judge the distance more around 20 miles, though since I'm going by speculation, I may be off.

I would think it was no town, but a lone inn, 

Of course, as he/she also said, there must've been a stable too.

I've NEVER heard the story of Tolkien rewritting The Hobbit - those years seem to be years devoted to The Silmarillion & writtings on The Istari (among others), so I don't know where that comes from.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 22, 2007)

Bucky said:


> I've NEVER heard the story of Tolkien rewriting The Hobbit - those years seem to be years devoted to The Silmarillion & writtings on The Istari (among others), so I don't know where that comes from.


Tolkien edited The Hobbit (especially Riddles in the Dark). This was necessary as he did not anticipate a sequel; so when one was written it was necessary to alter the original story for the sake of continuity. It was not a re-write.

I am told that The Annotated Hobbit has the original texts in it; but despite issuing hints as subtle as a sledgehammer, I have yet to find one in my Christmas stocking.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 22, 2007)

Actually *Solicitr* is talking about the version recently published in _The History of_ _The Hobbit_...




solicitr said:


> Fortunately, this is one question which can be answered, thanks to previously unpublished Tolkien papers.
> 
> About 1960, Tolkien had the idea of revising, indeed rewriting, The Hobbit to make it 'fit' better with the LR, both in consistency and tone. He never got farther than the arrival at Rivendell, but he was at least able to (attempt to) redress the problem he created for himself in Book I- that Strider took six days to reach the Troll-glade, which Bilbo reached in an hour or so!
> 
> Anyway, as part of the rewriting (which this time mentions Brandywine Bridge and the Prancing Pony and so on), after leaving Bree Thorin & Co plan to spend the next night at the Last Inn 20 miles east- but find it deserted and ruinous (part of a general theme of progressive decay) Hence its remains were known as the Forsaken Inn some eighty years later.


 
This (ultimately abandoned) text is different from the published editions of _The Hobbit._


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 22, 2007)

Thanks Galin. There was no link to the quote and I didn't check.

That's another for my Christmas list, then.

Is that the only mention of the condition of the inn? If anyone thumbing through a HoME book comes across more, we'd be glad to hear it.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 22, 2007)

Tolkien edited The Hobbit (especially Riddles in the Dark). This was necessary as he did not anticipate a sequel; so when one was written it was necessary to alter the original story for the sake of continuity. It was not a re-write.



Yeah, everyone knows that, but I was referring to the suppossed 1960 rewrite.....

As I said, in 1958-59, Tolkien was definitely writing material for The Silmarillion - I've seen Christopher Tolkien state these dates in HoME.
Also, I've seen dates for 1960-61 for certain writings in Unfinished tales, so I doubt that JRRT had much if any time for this alledged rewrite of the entire Hobbit....

Add to this the fact that none that are hardcore Tolkien fanatics (like me) ever seems to have heard of it, I tend to doubt the truth of it.

For example, it's never even mentioned in 'The Letters Of JRR Tolkien'.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 22, 2007)

Bucky, the text was recently published in The History of The Hobbit, by John D. Rateliff. Here's a passage (for example) explaining why Gandalf did not read the runes on the swords...



> 'These look like good blades too, said the wizard, half drawing the swords and examining them closely. 'They were not made by any troll, nor by any smith among Men of these days. But there's black blood on them, goblin-blood. When they are cleaned and the runes on them can be read, we shall know more about them.'


 
_The Broken Bridge, The History of the Hobbit_


----------



## Elthir (Dec 23, 2007)

Just to add, part of this revision of 1960 was read at the 1987 _Mythopoeic Society_ conference in Milwaukee... by Christopher Tolkien!

Also just to add, Tolkien emended _The Hobbit_ again for the American and British editions of 1966, the former in part due to copyright concerns.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 23, 2007)

Galin, OK, I believe!

But, I don't understand the bit about the blades from Gondolin.....

As I've just read that part of The Hobbit - I'm reading it to my son - and have read it about 30 times, I realize there's no line about black blood being on the blades.....

Is that the point?


----------



## Elthir (Dec 25, 2007)

Yes, that's just a fun example from the abandoned 1960 revision. 

Tolkien appears to have added the goblin-blood to help explain why Gandalf seemingly couldn't read the runes on the swords.


----------

