Child, you wrote
Quote:
|
Strange to say....the same thing that seems to bother you about the book, its Hobbit-centric narration, is one of the principal things that brings delight to me
|
As it happens the hobbit-centric narration is the most delightful aspect of the book for me as well. It's the tone that Tolkien strikes in the Prologue that makes
LotR so readable when compared to The
Sil; the tales there are, well, let's just say for the sake of peace in the thread, badly in need of a hobbit perspective. . .
I'm not exactly bothered by the hobbit-centrism, just intrigued by it. I don't mean to question the veracity of the tale, or the good intentions of its 'authors' -- it's just that the Prologue gives us an invaluable opportunity to
assess the world-view of those narrators. It gives us a chance to see what kinds of things hobbits find important, and to reflect on how that will effect the telling of the story.
For example, would an Elvish narrator have said much about Bilbo's birthday party? Or described in such loving detail the first journeys through the Shire? Or Farmer Maggot? (But I get ahead of myself.) I don't think so. A Man would not have given much attention to the Scouring of the Shire -- but since our 'authors/historians' are hobbits, the realtively 'small' battle is given equal attention in the text as is the battle of the Pelennor (but now I really am getting far to far ahead of myself. . .!)
To be brief: whatever we come to say about hobbits based on this reading of the Prologue will have to be taken into account in the later chapters as we read through those events, since those events are being reflected through a very specific lens (which we are invited at this stage to examine).