[Child of the 7th Age]

Bird --

First of all, this is very mysterious. We seem to have found a secluded thread on the boards where we can talk. No one else apparently reads this question or responds! Indeed, I wonder if they can even see it on their computers.

I don't think I've ever gone on and on like this writing lengthy exchanges without having someone else join in at some point. Very strange. The only reason Helen found her way here is that I mentioned it in a pm. (Plays spooky music.....)

Ahem, back to our discussion.

Now I'm not saying that he would not be a Hobbit. Of course he would. Just a different type of Hobbit.

I see Bird and Child on two ends of a long plank. Both begin curiously inching their way towards the middle! If you will stand by the above sentence which I took from your post, we can probably meet somewhere near the middle and at least be in waving distance of each other.

I will certainly not deny the reality of change in Frodo. But I see that change happening within the context of being a hobbit. In fact, I would argue that by going forward, Frodo becomes more of a hobbit (not less). He would definitely not lose his hobbit-ness which stands at his very core. He would become (for lack of a better term) 'purifed'. He would become the true hobbit he was really supposed to be instead of the watered down version they have in the Shire.

C.S. Lewis deals with this question in his writings in terms of nations. There is the everyday Britain which is full of pettiness and strife and not living up to potential. Then there is the 'true' Britain which Lewis calls Logres. This is what Britain could and would become if she lived up to the best in her soul. Lewis postulates that this is true of every nation, and, by implication, of every created being. To me, Frodo is not changing away from what he was, but merely becoming more like he was meant to be. The one does not preclude the other.

But another aspect of being a Hobbit is showing a complete lack of curiosity about their origins and their "position in littleness and in greatness". It is this attitude that possibly led to Frodo's ostracism within the Shire, (though this was partly self-imposed.) Frodo had decided that "you can't go home again". The change had already taken place.

Definitely! Hobbits in the Shire can be exceedingly closed minded. (But to be truthful, the same thing could be said of Elven insularity!) That's why it's so interesting when some hobbits come around who are different. Tolkien clearly stated that the LotR is about "extraordinary" Hobbits, ones who are gifted. We would all fall asleep if we read too long about the "normal" ones. Too predictable!

But I think I could make a similar comparison within the human race itself. If an alien were to come to earth and visit a typical suburban community, he/she would come away with a very limited and not too optomistic picture of Man. But what if that same alien had spent a few days with Mother Theresa or Moses or Siddhartha? They would probably develop a totally different opinion of Man, and his/her capabilities.

I know more about figures from my own tradition than others. And I'd definitely say Moses was still a Man at the core, even though he grew and changed and became more aware of a divine presence in his own life and that of his people. I would say the same for Frodo. That hobbit base is still there. Everything else that comes later builds on top of that.

It's as if he is only half-born, and is struggling like a butterfly half trapped in its cocoon. The transformation could only be completed if he left behind his origins and "moved on".

Bird, what a beautiful statement this is! Your words are wondrous. Only this stubborn hobbit doesn't believe the last sentence is possible for Frodo or anyone else. And I think this is where we come to the heart of our difference. Leaving aside the specific examples of Tolkien or Frodo, I do not believe it is possible for anyone to leave behind their origins and move on. Your origins are with you every day and every moment, whether you like it or not.

Since I am trained as an historian, I probably have stronger feelings about this than most people do. I might even push it one step further and say that I became an historian because in my heart of hearts I believe this: you carry your past with you, no matter how you evolve. And, whether in Aman or the Shire, Frodo would have done the same. For a similar reason, I do not believe that true "revolution" is possible. Take a look at history, and you'll see what I mean. It's possible, Bird, that you are more optomistic at heart than I am, and this is why you see Frodo able to leave behind his origins. I do not.

Since Tolkien isn't here to answer, we can't be certain what he would say. But I think he'd be closer to my end of the plank than yours. He definitely saw limitations in humanity which, according to his beliefs, could only be transformed beyond the circles of the world, or at the far edge of time. In fact I'd say that Tolkien was even more of a pessimist than I am. JRRT even suggested in he Letters that Frodo might not be able to be healed in Aman. I do not have the heart to entertain that possibility!

sharon, the 7th age hobbit