[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Now there's an unfair--and uncharacteristic of you--bit of characterising those who simply apply a quite legitimate and completely allowable (in terms of debate and discussion) act, to treat the topic critically, to question it, to play devil's--Sauron's?--advocate. All quite allowable, old chap, and really very unfair of you to imply that they haven't fairly considered the topic.

And that, if I may say so, is a rather unfair and uncharacteristic miscategorisation of what I was seeking to achieve by my post.

Morsul's preliminary thoughts were followed by some short and (I felt) somewhat dismissive posts (and no, morm, I do not include your post within that desciption) and very little in the way of discussion. My purpose in posting was to do precisely the opposite of what you accuse me of. I was actually seeking to encourage debate and discussion. It seemed to me that there were aspects of Morsul's original theory that had legs and were worthy of discussion, rather than being dismissed out of hand. I was not saying that people are not entitled to disagree with Morsul's points, but I did feel that they were being rather unfairly stomped on.

Originally Posted by mormegil

I realize that some of the general hobbit traits were a definite aid to Frodo and Bilbo, such as their lack of a desire for power, but other non-hobbit traits helped them out as well, namely their sense of adventure.

Farael makes a similar point. I would also include Sam, Merry and Pippin within the debate as being Hobbits who contributed to the downfall of Sauron, and they might be considered as more "normal" Hobbits. As for the sense of adventure, I would actually consider this to be a Hobbitish trait, albeit one which had become largely dormant by the end of the Third Age, most probably as a result of years of isolation and parochialism. It remained most keen in those of Tookish descent and it was this latent aspect of Bilbo's personality that was "re-activated" by the designs of a certain Wizard.

There is also, of course, the innate ability of Hobbits to move unseen, which was certainly of benefit to Frodo and Sam, particularly on the last stage of their journey.

As to whether an individual, or individuals, from any other race could have accomplished what Frodo and Sam accomplished, well it is possible I suppose. But it's not the way that I read it. My sense is that no one else could (or would) in fact have succeeded in the task. And that is why it was appointed to Frodo (and so, by association, to Sam).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And it is a prevalent aspect of folk culture in England to think of the English as the new chosen people.

I think that you're a little out of date there. We handed that particular belief over to the Americans some time ago now.

Bêthberry, the question which you pose relies on the assumotion that Shire is representative of England and that Hobbits are representative of the English. Yet, when Tolkien first sought to (re)create a "lost mythology" of England, Hobbits were not even a twinkle in his eye. Yes, I can see aspects of England (or part of it) in the Shire and English traits within his Hobbitish characters. And they are the characters with which I identify the most. But I think that this is more because he created them, and the Shire, from personal experience and sought to give them a familiar feel so that, as they are the central focus of the story, readers could identify with them. I do not think that, by making them the "saviours of Middle-earth", he was seeking to make any point about the role of the English in our world. He recognised that there are "Orcs" in all nationalities, so I don't think that he held any illusions concerning English superiority, despite being born and raised in a society where this was in many ways a prevalent view.