PapaBlueMarlin opened this issue on Dec 01, 2004 ยท 108 posts
mickmca posted Thu, 02 December 2004 at 7:42 AM
Well, I suppose he was forced to change (later) because >> the original 3 (small) D&D manuals he (his) company >> produced referred to them as "hobbits". That was the scuttlebutt at the time; they became unprotectable "halflings" by the second or third edition, long before the fancy printings started. There was an estate complaint about the little books (which are nicely collectable, I remind myself, thinking of a box in the basement). They could not challenge "Orcs," because on Tolkien's authority he borrowed that term from old sagas, but the word "hobbit" itself was believed (by Tolkien, I think) to be an invention. Thus was born the hypocritical game/novel relationship that sustained interest in LoTR until Peter Jackson came along to create the ultimate homage, a real movie for those us who don't read. The ludicrous irony of the swarming lawyers was that D&D has little hairyfooted thieves with names like Biljo and Fratto who live in holes and smoke and go on adventures with IP-independent wizards, dwarves, and elves, meet IP-free Ents, and slay orcs, trolls, and dragons unarmored in IP, but they are NOT (Heaven and court forfend) called "hobbits." What a crock. And we go along with it, 'cause otherwise, they'll swarm us. M