LotR - Prologue

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Feanor makes an excellent point; if this book is based on 'historical' accounts that have been written and compiled by 'others', what sorts of biases, limitations, prejudices, blindspots, missing information and outright fabrications do we need to worry about? The issue of the hobbit archers at Fornost has already moved into this territory, but not really resolved it.

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

We've already discovered that the Shire is not the idyllic and faultless land that it first appears to be -- is it possible that the same standards that lead the hobbits to aggrandize and idealise themselves will work later in the book to devalue or misrepresent other peoples or ways of living that are not 'up' to their standards?

[Child of the 7th Age]

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

Fordim,

Yes, the Red Book of Westmarch is definitely hobbit-centric. Yet the Hobbits of the Shire were not collectively responsible for the Red Book, rather it is the three individuals who were most closely associated with the matter of the Ring.

In judging the Red Book's narrative and determining whether it is "parochial" and "limited", we have to focus not on the Hobbit community as a whole but on those three individuals who were the primary compilers/editors/writers of this unique document: Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise. The earliest chapters concerning matters of Hobbit culture and history, to which you refer, would indeed have been the responsibility of Bilbo.

Bilbo was cetainly capable of "altering the record" as we see in the chapter Riddles in the Dark that appears in the Hobbit. It is also true that he was "under the influence of the Ring" directly or indirectly when he wrote his portion of the Red Book. Yet, the one thing I would not accuse him of is being "parochial" and "limited". He is the compiler not only of the Red Book, but also of the Silmarillion. His knowledge of Elves, of Elvish culture and language, and hence his exposure to other cultures was second to none in the Shire. In Gandalf's words from UT, it was Bilbo whom the istar chose to break through the parochialism of the Shire and teach them about the wide world that surrounded them. In Gandalf's words....

....you cannot teach that sort of thing to a whole people quickly. There was not time. And anyway you must begin at some point, with some one person. I dare say he was "chosen" and I was only chosen to choose him; but I picked out Bilbo.

I do not think Gandalf was mistaken in his choice of Bilbo to break through the parochialism of the Shire. And as an experienced historian, Bilbo would have been capable of dealing with any bias in the local sources he encountered. That said, we can not expect an Elvish or Mannish viewpoint from either of our three Hobbit narrators. Any more than we could expect a Hobbit viewpoint from an Elf or a Man.

In the writing of history, we are all limited by who we are. Yet that is a different thing than saying that the Redbook may "devalue or misrepresent other peoples or ways of living that are not 'up' to their (i.e. Hobbit) standards." I don't see a consistent pattern of such negative judgements in the latter pages of the book.

In my opinion, the three Hobbits responsible for the Redbook -- Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise -- as well as their two companions from Buckland and Tukborough--show a refreshing attitude towards many of the new cultures that they encounter in their journeys. I would not accuse them of parochialism, although their understanding on many points is necessarily limited by the bounds of their expeience.

Strange to say....the same thing that seems to bother you about the book, its Hobbit-centric narration, is one of the principal things that brings delight to me.

Are we straying too far from the prologue itself?

[Carnimírië]

I've been reading the discussions that took place prior to the initiation of this read-through, and after seeing again and again (and again and again and again) that it's ok for newbies to join in the discussion, here I go...

This book is largely concerned with hobbits, and from it's pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history.

How's that for a succinct summary of The Lord of the Rings?

The first time I read LotR the paragraph describing Hobbits, how they like good tilled earth, don't practice magic, etc. made me feel as if I had known about them all my life, and made me tremendously curious to read the entire book. I haven't skipped the Prologue (or the Forword, or even the Note on the Text ) in any of my subsequent re-readings, because I think it puts you in the right frame of mind to enter Middle-earth in Chapter 1. It really sets up LotR as a "history" rather than just a made up story. Hobbit life seems so ideal, living off the land, being in tune with nature, keeping the laws of free will, just peacefully going about their lives and minding their own business.

There's also quite a bit of humor in the prologue, I missed most of it the first time around, but picked up on it later on. I'm not exactly sure why, but the phrase "Hobbitry-in-arms" cracks me up! Maybe it's the mental image... Also this:

The Bree-hobbits claim to have been the first actual smokers of the pipe-weed. They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as "colonists"; but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.

I was really glad that an abbreviated version of the finding of the Ring was included, because I hadn't read The Hobbit when I first read LotR. Reading The Hobbit for the first time was a real eye-opener...

~Carnie~

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Child, you wrote

Strange to say....the same thing that seems to bother you about the book, its Hobbit-centric narration, is one of the principal things that brings delight to me

As it happens the hobbit-centric narration is the most delightful aspect of the book for me as well. It's the tone that Tolkien strikes in the Prologue that makes LotR so readable when compared to The Sil; the tales there are, well, let's just say for the sake of peace in the thread, badly in need of a hobbit perspective. . .

I'm not exactly bothered by the hobbit-centrism, just intrigued by it. I don't mean to question the veracity of the tale, or the good intentions of its 'authors' -- it's just that the Prologue gives us an invaluable opportunity to assess the world-view of those narrators. It gives us a chance to see what kinds of things hobbits find important, and to reflect on how that will effect the telling of the story.

For example, would an Elvish narrator have said much about Bilbo's birthday party? Or described in such loving detail the first journeys through the Shire? Or Farmer Maggot? (But I get ahead of myself.) I don't think so. A Man would not have given much attention to the Scouring of the Shire -- but since our 'authors/historians' are hobbits, the realtively 'small' battle is given equal attention in the text as is the battle of the Pelennor (but now I really am getting far to far ahead of myself. . .!)

To be brief: whatever we come to say about hobbits based on this reading of the Prologue will have to be taken into account in the later chapters as we read through those events, since those events are being reflected through a very specific lens (which we are invited at this stage to examine).

[the phantom]

They claim, of course, to have done everything before the people of the Shire...but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.

Ah, a second instance in the prologue that hints at hobbits lying about things. I was sort of joking the first time I talked about hobbits being a bunch of liars, but maybe they really are.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

It does seem like the hobbits lie a bit, or at least it is alluded to them not being all together honest, but the difference between hobbit-lies and lies of say, the Enemy, are that hobbit-lies are not malicious in nature. And to steal Nuru's quote:

the intent and use of these... make these same qualities good, while it is the opposite for Sauron.

Bad guys are decietful for their own gain, and nothing else. They don't care who gets hurt, but with hobbits, they might exaggerate the truth a bit, or tweak it a bit, but it's nothing that will do lasting harm. What is the worse lie? "I am your friend, Men of Numenor. Heed my kindly words of wisdom." or "Yep, we were the first to smoke the good stuff."

[Firefoot]

The Bree-hobbits claim to have been the first actual smokers of the pipe-weed. The claim, of course, to have done everything beore the people of the Shire, whom they refer to as "colonists"; but in this case their claim is, I think, likely to be true.

By the general tone of this section of the prologue, I do not get the impression of hobbits being liars. It has always seemed to me that hobbits from Bree and the Shire have a sort of friendly "competition". Here you see the Bree-landers refer to the Shire hobbits as "colonists" and yet in "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony" Shire folk refer to Bree hobbits as "outsiders". Then there is the "Sure as Shire-talk" and "News from Bree" quote, which I can't seem to find. Being that this particular information is (supposedly) being presented by Merry, it seems to me that rather than accusing them of being liars, per se, he is boosting up the Shire hobbits (Bree hobbits claim to have done everything before Shire hobbits) at the same time as giving credibility to the Bree hobbits for the smoking of pipe-weed.

And maybe this is just because I have a problem with lying hobbits...

[Son of Númenor]

I don't understand why everyone is talking about hobbits being liars. Can anyone find an example (besides Bilbo's lie about Gollum giving him the Ring as a present, which was mostly because of the nature of the Ring) of a hobbit telling a lie? The examples of Shire-folk being the first to smoke pipeweed and hobbits bowmen aiding Arnorn from the prologue are things that are maintained in hobbit lore, but that is probably just because they are stories that have been passed down from generation to generation; and whether there is truth in them or not, I doubt the hobbits intentionally lied.

Edit: I cross-posted with Firefoot (who made some excellent points ).