[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

After all, none of us are privy to posters' thoughts and so we cannot make claims for their thought processes.

No, but we react to the way in which people speak and write all the time. On a discussion board such as this, there is very little else that we have to go on. And mine was an genuinely-felt reaction.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think you are here confusing Tolkien's personal statements in his Letters with the story proper.

No, I am saying that Tolkien's comments to the effect that Orcs could be found among all nationalities suggest that he did not regard the English as particularly superior to any other nationality. My statement referred to his views with regard to the real world, not his created world.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, LotR does not, as a story, state that orcs can be any nationality.

But every race in the created world is capable of acts which are portrayed as "wrong" - not good, if not positively evil. For the Elves, we have Feanor, Saeros, Eol and Maeglin displaying "inappropriate" (or at least ambiguous) behaviour. And he is critical, at times, of their "unnatural" desire (instinct?) to preserve. It is said that some Dwarves allied themselves with Sauron, and of course many of the race of Men turned to, or at least served, evil. Even in the Entish realm of Fangorn there are pockets of evil.

As for Hobbits, they do seem to be the race least prone to "wrong" behaviour, which perhaps links in to the point about them being the least corruptible of the races. But even then, we have individual examples of unsympathetic Hobbits - Ted Sandyman and the Sackville-Bagginses (although, of course, Lobelia is redeemed in the end). And the Hobbits did display what Tolkien might consider to be Orcish behaviour in cutting down the trees of the Old Forest to prevent it from encroaching upon their land.

Overall, I think, Tolkien recognises that none of his races are perfect, Hobbits included. So, while there is a link between Hobbits and the English, it is not, to my mind, a link by which he meant to establish any notion of English superiority. Not consciously, at least. Which leads me on to ...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Furthermore, one need not consciously seek to make a point about one's nation's superiority.

That is a fair point and I accept it. It is possible that, subconsciously, Tolkien regarded his own nation as superior. But it is not one which we can determine with any degree of certainty. There is a fine line between patriotism and feelings of national superiority. I regard myself as patriotic, but I do not have any illusions that the English are the "chosen people" or superior in any over-reaching way to those of other nations . Of course, there are aspects of Englishness which I regard as strengths (we write better songs and are better at comedy, for example ). But I also recognise the weaknesses in the English psyche. No one nation can be perfect or have any right to claim absolute superiority over another (although the governments which they elect or have imposed upon them can be a different matter …).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

These are points that always come up on the "Was Tolkien racist" threads. While Tolkien was certainly writing a "West-centric" tale, I do not see them as suggesting any particular feelings of national superiority, much less racial superiority. See, for example, the Tolkien and Racism thread and my post #14 here. Later in the thread, there is (I think) some discussion of Sam's reflections on the fallen Man of Harad which indicates sympathy for individual Haradrim, if not the Haradrim as a unitary enemy. Those from the south and the east may be protrayed as exotic and dangerous, but they are not portrayed as inherently evil.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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 point that I was addressing (which was the one I thought you raised) was whether Tolkien intended the Hobbits as a symbol of English superiority. And the determination of authorial intention seems to me to be a rather critical element in doing so. If, however, you are asking me whether it is possible for an individual reader to interpret Hobbits in this way, my answer would, of course, be yes. Although, I should add, it is not my (individual) reading of the story (even accepting the theory that, within the story, Eru created Hobbits with the destruction of the Ring and the downfall of Sauron specifically in mind).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

To me, these events speak less of feelings of national superiority than the reactions of a nation under attack. I would regard the "Blitz" spirit and the reaction to the London tube bombings as examples of strengths within the English psyche, but not indicative of overall superiority. Indeed, the contrast with the US reaction of incredulity that such a thing could happen on US territory or that anyone could dislike them so much as a nation, is perhaps more telling. But we are straying into off-topic and potentially controversial territory here, so this aspect of the discussion, if it is to continue, would best be pursued via PM.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Meaning is an ongoing process, not something determined by original intentions, a process Morsul's joking initial post suggests.

Ongoing and individual. In summary, I consider it to be a credible interpretation of the Legendarium that Hobbits were created by Eru with an eye to the downfall of Sauron, but do not expect other readers necessarily to agree with that interpretation. And I consider it unlikely that Tolkien intended the Hobbits as a cypher of English superiority, do not interpret them as such myself, but accept that others may read the story in that way.

Does that explain my position, sufficiently?

Edit: Cross-posted with Gothmog, with whom I agree - save that Eru would have known rather than believed that the Hobbits concerned would step forward, Him being omnipresent n'all. Also - it is specifically stated that Bilbo did have a Tookish, adventurous side. Only it lay dormant until Gandalf awoke it.