As i was re-reading LOTR, i noticed a slight change between the writing styles of the Hobbit and book 1 of FoTR vs. the writing styles of TTT and RoTK. I found that the former two were writen a lot more like a childrens book then the latter. Some examples include good old Tom Bombadil, and a little thing i noticed as the hobbits were leaving the shire.

They set no watch; for frodo feared no danger yet, for they were still in the heart of the shire. A few creatures came and looked at them when the fire had died away. A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffed.

"Hobbits!", he thought. "Well, whats next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but i have seldom heard of hobbits sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's somthing mighty queer behind this." He was quite right, but never found out any more about it.

-Fellowship of the Ring, Page 108


In that passage, he personifys an animal, a trait often used to lighten up childrens tales, and yet after rivendell, i didn't notice another example of that.

It is my opininion that he started out LOTR as a childrens tale, then seeing the potental or simply being bored of childrens tales he shifted it towards another demographic.

Discuss, and share your opinions please.

Is this targetted towards how we will be implementing animals in the MEMod?

Please note that this board is used for Tolkien Lore and how it may be implemented in MEMod... not just random Tolkien Lore and questions.

-- D

Ok, to put this on topic, will the shire have a much higher ratio of non-agressive animals to agressive animals? And will the old Forest be acessable, with or without Tom Bombadil?

They are creating Middle Earth. Creating Middle Earth without allowing you to enter the Old Forest wouldn't make sense. Nor would it to leave out Tom Bombadil, although he will probably not be the common NPC hanging around.

And I can't imagine hostile cows and horses in the Shire either Frodo, Sam, Merry and the Fool of a Took didn't encounter any hostile animals. Did they?

Nope ... just black riders, on black horses with black swords and black breath (USE SOME MOUTHWASH ALREADY!)

Now I can't say how the artificial intelligence of animals in Memod will be set up as that is not a part of my current department. However, depending on race most natural animals shy away from beings. Prey and predators both, wolves only attack any sort of settlement/being if they are desperately hungry for an example. This usually happens in winter when food is scarce, thus the great wolves in the Shire in year I can't remember and don't have the time to look it up. If this is implement, you'd have to be elven OR very quiet to even see some forms of wildlife, making hunting (IF that is implemented again not a part of my department) more interesting etc. etc. etc.

So no running into a crazy cliff-racer every two minutes (Idea not confirmed .. I have no bloody idea)

Your example of Tom Bombadil is perhaps best couched this way - will there be areas of middle earth in which animal AI will be different - i.e. A fox within a certain distance from Tom Bombadil or in the old forest acts more like the example given than a sly predator, which is what you will find anywhere else in ME?

I noticed the same tendency, but only in the writings dealing with Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, almost as if they were in a world of their own - so much so that he almost needed a different tone to even describe him and the area.

If that's the question, I'll leave it up to someone more qualified than myself to answer.

Absolutely correct, Kethruch. Both Bombadil and Goldberry are so far removed from the affairs of other folk that they seem to give the impression as of being distanced from the affairs of others. I believe this is their charm and Tolkien's harkening back towards the previous childlike mythology of The Hobbit (a.k.a. Redbook of Westmarch). I so miss the significance of the Arkenstone!