When did they learn to read?
 

Hope this isn't too light a topic for the Books forum, but thought I'd try it. My husband and I just finished reading through ROTK (preparation for the movie, naturally!) and I noticed something in "The Scouring of the Shire." What's up with all the signs - the sign on the gate, and the lists of Rules inside the Shirriff-house? Early on in FOTR, Tolkien refers to "their letters" as being something that many hobbits never reach, and yet the Shirriffs (many of whom are semi-willing new recruits) are assumed to be able to read all of these - what's more, when unfamiliar hobbits arrive at the gates, the Shirriffs take it for granted that they can read. And since the inns are out of business and travellers can only stay at the Shirriff-houses, well, they seem to be taking their literacy as at least likely.

So how does this work? Obviously the signs are a nasty symptom of the overindustrialized place that Saruman would like to see Hobbiton become, but wasn't it rather impractical? Or perhaps they just didn't care if people couldn't read, and the signs were a device to force them into learning their letters and getting in step with the times? I do find it hard to believe that the hobbit literacy rate skyrocketed in the space of one year, especially since Lotho and Sharkey's Men don't seem like the kind of people who would have schools for the public high on their respective agendas.

Anyone have any ideas? Because right now I'm consumed with curiosity [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

I'd go with this one. It's reminiscent of Animal Farm, where the farm's rules were posted up notwithstanding that most of the animals could not read them. Perhaps there was a notice at Bag End reading "All Hobbits are Equal" on which Lotho had scrawled "... but some are more equal than others". [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I think that's most likely.
I've only read the books twice, and I never thought about them not being able to read the signs. But the above theory sounds good.
Arwen

Burrahobbit, I like the sign [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Thanks for the answers, guys - I find that I'm leaning towards the "If you don't like it, you can get on with it" view that the signs were an effort to bully people into learning to read or if that failed, to cow them with the fact that there was important information there that they couldn't understand.

Which gives rise to a curious aspect - universal literacy is general seen as a positive development. While I'm not saying that Tolkien endorsed a low literacy rate, isn't it interesting that in this case, increased (forced) literacy is used not as a way to expand peoples' worlds, but to box them in more tightly? Interesting, that, and reminiscent of "He can only mock; he cannot make." Sharkey & Co. had to take something that was inherently good and helpful and twist it around before they were able to subdue the hobbits.

All of the hobbits from the better families could read. It's only the lower classes who don't. If you recall, even Bilbo puts a sign up at the beginning, NO ADMITTANCE EXCEPT ON PARTY BUSINESS. Perhaps there are universal symbols used. Or, perhaps, only the wealthy hobbits were considered important enough to warn.

[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

Coquerors very often use signage to intimidate, as well as frustrate. The Nazis posted signs in German in all their vanquished countries. English colonists posted signs in India and Africa that were unintlligible to the native people. There were signs in the US outlining slave behavior to a people that were forbidden by law, under penalty of death, to learn to read. It's just another tool to make you feel worthless and unimportant. Saruman didn't want the people to learn to read to keep up with industialization; he bloody well didn't care if they could read or not. Enforcement of the rules was not predicated on the ability to read by those that he ruled. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

The point that I was trying to make is that signs are more than just words. Even if there ARE words.

But your sign is unintelligible if not downright misleading if you can't read.

I tend to agree with Gilbo: language can be used as a means of subjugation. When most people cannot read in a society, the ones who can, can enforce their will on the others, because they seem to know best and such. 'It says so on that paper!'

I think that the usage of signs in the Scouring of the Shire can be comparable to the "Commandments" in Animal Farm. Sharkey & Co. used the signs to tell Hobbits that "they couldn't do X" and "they would be punished if they did Y" without letting the Hobbits actually peruse the "rules" on their own. I'm sure that those clever folk would find little loopholes if they got their hands on a set of codified rules, which was why Sharkey & Co. never codified any, and probably didn't let the Hobbits get close enough to read them. Another possibility was that the "Head Shirriffs", the ones who were in the payroll of Sharkey & Co., made up rules as they went to oppress the Hobbits.

That's a disturbingly good characterization of my chat op principles, esp. the "those clever folk would find little loopholes if they got their hands on a set of codified rules, which was why Sharkey & Co. never codified any" part. Apart from the "clever" in most cases.

"chat op"? I'm quite confused.