[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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.

You know, Sauce, had you explained your 'encouragement' this way, I would not have posted questioning your actions, but there is something in this turn of phrase,

Originally Posted by Sauce

". . . . I really don't think that Morsul's theory, or at least aspects of it, should simply be dismissed out of hand.

that struck me as being too dismissive. No matter how brief the comments, it seems to me an act of interpretive overreaching to say Morsul's comments had been dismissed out of hand. After all, none of us are privy to posters' thoughts and so we cannot make claims for their thought processes.

Originally Posted by Sauce

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.

I think you are here confusing Tolkien's personal statements in his Letters with the story proper. Of course in his Letters he states that orcs can belong anywhere, and his analysis of the Allied tactics and strategies in WWII amply demonstrate his thoughts about power and corruption.

However, LotR does not, as a story, state that orcs can be any nationality. We have Gollem as evidence of one hobbit's terrible, terrible spiral into desperation, but no orc is ever presented as a twisted hobbit. Nor is any dwarf ever presented as an orc. The generation of orcs is, of course, a perennial topic of discussion here on the Downs, but it is limited to elves and men and some sort--possibly--of cloning. (Of course, I could err in this, as I don't have all dozen volumes of HoMe under my belt.)

Furthermore, one need not consciously seek to make a point about one's nation's superiority. Colonial and post colonialist studies have amply demonstrated that many cultural assumptions are just that--assumptions unexamined and unquestioned and unrecognised for what they are. These, in fact, are more difficult to understand and deal with than overt claims of superiority. Reading T.S.Eliot's Book of Practical Cats, for example--and Eliot was a contemporary of Tolkien's--demonstrates how cultural assumptions can show forth in art even without the author necessarily desiring to represent them.

It is entirely possible and legitimate to look at how the story is constructed and make a claim about what the story suggests. You, the champion of individual interpretation, should surely not fall back upon "Tolkien's intentions" as evidence in this discussion.

The fact remains that Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry, in company with a wizard, elf, dwarf and several men, journey to the heart of darkness where terrible evil lurks--a darkness far away from The Shire and one particularly collocated with the peoples of the East and "Far Harad". One need only look at the maps of Middle-earth to see that, although evil can befall all, its centre appears to belong to places that are more usually connoted with non-Western races.

Hobbits may have come forth into Tolkien's mind full formed once he thought of them living in a hole, but as the plot imperative of LotR suggests, the hobbits, and one in particular, with the extraordinary love and friendship and courage of character of another, brought about the conditions that enabled a (temporary) victory over the forces of darkness and evil. There is a correlation there (note, I do not say causation).

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the cultural notion among the English of them being the bulwark against evil. The July attacks on the London Underground and its commuters brought about a point of view decidedly different from that which arose in the US after 9/11. "We are not afraid" brought back all the stirring eloquence of Churchill's speeches--and so easily so, on the eve of the 60th anniversary. The current issue of Granta, your modern literature review, even examines this extraordinary cultural theme.

Meaning is an ongoing process, not something determined by original intentions, a process Morsul's joking initial post suggests. I think it would be well to consider how the hobbits are regarded in the text in order to answer his question.