Hobbits the chosen people

[Farael]

Originally Posted by The Saucerpan Man

Putting these factors all together, is it not at least possible that Morsul is on to something here? I think that it is. It seems to me to be perfectly within the bounds of credibility that Eru specifically created a race with the particular qualities that Hobbits display because he foresaw that there would be a need for exceptional members of that race to bring those qualities to bear in order to bring about the destruction of the Ring and the downfall of Sauron

Now, we have two different issues in here. Did Eru mean to create creatures that would be hard to corrupt? Probably. Were the hobbits "the chosen people"? Absolutely not. Now, there's a difference between both questions and not a slight one.

It is logical to think that Eru knew that the Middle Earth would need creatures of strong will, even if coming along with weaker bodies (or at least, not as suitable for battle). But we see that there is a myriad of creatures, the hobbits not necesarily being the most uncorruptible. Therefore, even if Bilbo was meant to find the ring and Frodo to carry it, there is no evidence pointing at the hobbits being the "chosen ones". Keep in mind that Morsul did not say that Bilbo and Frodo were brought to life and found the ring thanks to Eru's will (which I would have agreed with) but that his concept was that the Hobbits (all of them) were a people chosen by Eru to become the saviours of the Middle Earth.

And as Saucerpan man said, Bilbo and Frodo were exceptional hobbits, not at all your average sacoville-baggins folks

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Actually so too do the dwarves have a resistance to a desire for power. And they're little people too.

They were resistant to domination, but they had a weakness for gold and the like and were therefore potentially corruptible.

Originally Posted by Farael

Morsul did not say that Bilbo and Frodo were brought to life and found the ring thanks to Eru's will (which I would have agreed with) ...

Yet, without Hobbits, there would be no Bilbo or Frodo ...

"Chosen people" may be an inappropriate term, but I really don't think that Morsul's theory, or at least aspects of it, should simply be dismissed out of hand.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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

As a side note I was not dismissing Morsul's theory, rather I was pointing out a spot where I disagreed and gave my thoughts as to why Hobbits aren't a chosen people so to speak. I believe that Bilbo and Frodo were chosen to have the ring but this comes from the fact that they happen to be Hobbits. Something of note is that Bilbo and Frodo were considered odd hobbits and their behavior was not in the norm with general hobbits.

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. Now what I am saying is that their are traits that helped them but their are traits that would have helped them out that other races posses that hobbits do not. Such as the farsight of Elves and Numenoreons, or the strength and endurance of dwarves. So while the best fit for ring bearers came from hobbits I don't believe them to be the chosen people.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by The Saucerpan Man

"Chosen people" may be an inappropriate term, but I really don't think that Morsul's theory, or at least aspects of it, should simply be dismissed out of hand.

And that is exactly why I divided my answer into two parts. I disagree with the notion of the Hobbits being the "Chosen People" but I do believe that from the creatures of Middle Earth, they were, as mormegil said the "best fit".

Originally Posted by The Saucerpan Man

Yet, without Hobbits, there would be no Bilbo or Frodo ...

And then perhaps the ring would have been found by a really wise yet uncorruptible elf, or a strong willed and benevolent Dwarf. As the hobbits are not a "perfect fit" for the adventure, one could think that Eru chose, from the creatures he had created, the most able for the task in hand and gave them some 'unusual' traits to help them along. Perhaps if the hobbits had not been created, Eru would have chosen an elve (who has most of the physical characteristics to endure the voyage) and given him an unusual lack of interest in power as a mean to achieve his goals. THAT is what I argue when I say that the Hobbits were not the "chosen people" as it was only two hobbits with some unusual traits who were able to find and carry the ring to its destruction. Even then, at the last second Frodo succumbed to the Ring, and some intervention by luck or Eru was needed for the ring to be destroyed.

Edit: Posted at the same time as Bethberry

"Chosen people' is a term often used in regard to the Israelites and the belief that they were specially chosen of God to carry on a unique Covenant with Him.

This reminds me. "Chosen People" is even more of a wrong term is used as when referring to the Israelites. They were never meant to save human kind (That is more of a Christian perspective, as according to their faith Chrsit was sent to the world to save our kind) but rather to be the priests of G'd. They were supposed to keep alive the traditions of G'd Himself and pray to him in the most befitting way. Those who wanted to follow their traditions would be accepted but the Israelites were not meant to change the world.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Did Eru then create the Hobbits after monitoring Sauron's (not Melkor, but Sauron's) mentality and designs? That's certainly different from foresight. I think it's also pretty implausible.

[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.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Did Eru then create the Hobbits after monitoring Sauron's (not Melkor, but Sauron's) mentality and designs? That's certainly different from foresight.

Eru is not constrained by time, so when you say He made them "after" seeing Sauron's work that is not entirely accurate, as you could also say He made hobbits before and during. You can't really say when the idea for hobbits entered into Eru's head. All that we know is that He made them, and that is enough.

Even if hobbits were made specifically to counter Sauron, I don't think we can necessarily call it a reactionary creation when we consider that Eru is beyond the constraints of time and thus does not react to anything, in the sense that something has caught Him at unawares.

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).

I agree with this for the most part. I believe that there were others that could have held out as long as Frodo did, and that perhaps had every necessary trait, but for whatever reason the Ring would not have been destroyed.

Think for a moment. What if Elrond had taken the Ring to Mordor and made it all the way to Mount Doom? Once there, he wouldn't have been able to destroy it, just like Frodo. No one could. The difference would have been Gollum. Gollum attacked Frodo and got the Ring from him and fell. If Gollum had attacked Elrond at the Cracks of Doom, Elrond would have grabbed him by the throat and flung his ugly mug halfway across the volcano, and thus the Ring is not destroyed.

As you can see, Elrond made it just as far, but the same result didn't happen. There are a bazillion factors that went into the destruction of the Ring. For instance, there were times when arrows were flying around, and perhaps if Frodo had been a bit taller (in other words, had been a man or elf) he would have gotten hit by one.

Now, that isn't to say Eru couldn't have engineered things for someone else to be successful. I'm sure He could have, but He chose to allow the perfect creature for the job to be a little halfling. Perhaps it was for His glory that he used what many would consider to be a weak instrument. I mean, if the greatest man/elf in the world had completed the mission all of the thanks and glory and such would've gone to him because it would be somewhat believable, but when a hobbit does it- you know there are larger forces at work. Perhaps that was what Eru's purpose was for using hobbits- showing his hand in the world?

Though I've never seen it before, I'm sure someone somewhere in the history of this site has expressed a similar opinion.

Originally Posted by Beth

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

Originally Posted by Sauce

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

Yes, it was a noble deed, but unfortunately it rendered your country powerless to win Wimbledon ever since.

[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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

"Chosen people" may be an inappropriate term, but I really don't think that Morsul's theory, or at least aspects of it, should simply be dismissed out of hand.

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.

"Chosen people' is a term often used in regard to the Israelites and the belief that they were specially chosen of God to carry on a unique Covenant with Him.

And it is a prevalent aspect of folk culture in England to think of the English as the new chosen people. Did Tolkien ascribe to this belief--or work unconsciously within its parameters--when he set out to create a mythology for England? "Never in the history of mankind ..." Hoot.

Frankly, I think Morsul's whistling is fairly close to my laughing. My hat's off to him really. Or, rather, I'll borrow the hat off Squatter's new avatar and raise it to him.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Originally Posted by Farael

Now, we have two different issues in here. Did Eru mean to create creatures that would be hard to corrupt? Probably. Were the hobbits "the chosen people"? Absolutely not. Now, there's a difference between both questions and not a slight one.

It is logical to think that Eru knew that the Middle Earth would need creatures of strong will, even if coming along with weaker bodies (or at least, not as suitable for battle). But we see that there is a myriad of creatures, the hobbits not necesarily being the most uncorruptible. Therefore, even if Bilbo was meant to find the ring and Frodo to carry it, there is no evidence pointing at the hobbits being the "chosen ones". Keep in mind that Morsul did not say that Bilbo and Frodo were brought to life and found the ring thanks to Eru's will (which I would have agreed with) but that his concept was that the Hobbits (all of them) were a people chosen by Eru to become the saviours of the Middle Earth.

And as Saucerpan man said, Bilbo and Frodo were exceptional hobbits, not at all your average sacoville-baggins folks

I think that hobbits were the chosen people. They do not appear any time before the Third Age, and seem to be for no purpose whatsoever. Yet Frodo still failed in destroying the Ring at the end of the book. If Iluvatar really wanted a hardy race, (and if Aule was capable of creating the Dwarves) then shouldn't he have made something a bit better?

[Morsul the Dark]

Yes that is true however He(Frodo) gave out until the very end would anyone else have been able to do that? Besides Think about it what if Frodo had never been tempted by the ring would he have been almighty or the ring just not srong at all you see the ring versus Frodo is a battle between two of the strongest wills in middle earth Eru could've have come down himself and destroyed the ring then he wouldn't have to send anyone. He instead sent mortal beings which no matter how strong-willed have flaws

[Goldberry101]

Hobbits the chosen people? I really don't think so. Most of them are just stay at home little peace loving folks. Sure, there's some amazing ones among them, but aren't there some amazing ones among all the races?