Quote:
|
Hobbits have less power and power of a different kind.
|
Interesting thought, Kuruharan! I'd never thought about it having to do with a sort of "power begets power" line-of-thought... [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]
I agree with most of what's already been said, but here's
why I agree with it:
Hobbits represent children. (In my mind at least.) But think about it. (1) Tolkien initially invented Hobbits and "The Hobbit" as a story for his own children, (2) Pippen and Merry are the rambunctious children, (3) Sam is the dutiful, obedient child, (4) Frodo is the studious, serious child, and his plight with the Ring is all the more perilous because he risks losing his innocence (i.e. his childhood).
When I read the books and saw the movie, that's immediately what struck me and continued to hold throughout. Except for "Frodolijah" (someone on the "2 Frodos" thread came up with that nickname), who represented "The Everyman," in much the same way that Homer's Odysseus did. (This was more readily apparent in the movie than in the book, which is why I only attibute it to Frodolijah.)
Anyway, to answer your original question, Mayla, it is because they are innocent children that Hobbits are more able to resist the Ring. They are naive enough to not really be able to understand what it is that they could do with it, not to mention, as Naaramare has pointed out, they already have everything they could possibly want, right in their home in the Shire. Now when is the last time any grown-up remembers being completely satisfied like that? (Probably when you were a child, right?)