Gandalf, blood of hobbits on his hands?

[The Might]

Well, as it seems that everyone else judges that this was the best way to solve things in the Shire I'll give up the discussion.
If even Merry speaks against me, then indeed within the LotR context there does not seem to have been any other way to solve things at that time.

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context. Perhaps because for many it is an inconvenient truth as Mr. Gore would put it that they would be ready to sacrifice lives for some goal.

Just like Merry and Pippin did. I doubt that the Hobbits taking part knew what awaited them, Formendacil. I doubt they can be expected to have really taken death into consideration. It is as if you're expecting adventurous teens sent to Irak wanting to be part of something grand to also expect their deaths in some explosion. They don't, because they aren't mature or wise enough or in the Hobbits case may have never witnessed or heard of such an end. The volunteering Hobbits can surely be praised for their bravery, but we by taking the context into consideration as Morth said we should do it becomes clear that they did not expect or know death. Who did? The four companions and Gandalf. Bringing the guilt question back to them for sending the Hobbits into battle, well knowing the possible consequence. Ok, except Frodo, he didn't want battle actually.

But, yeah, ok, so the Scouring made sense, no matter who was guilty for the casualties. And so did all the other killing in M-e made in the name of good, peace, order, the Valar, etc. I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Might

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context. Perhaps because for many it is an inconvenient truth as Mr. Gore would put it that they would be ready to sacrifice lives for some goal.


I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

There is a very good reason most posters don't wish to take the discussion out of the context of LotR and it has nothing to do with squimishness over an inconvenient truth.

It has to do with forum posting policy.

Originally Posted by The Barrow Wight, via Estelyn Telcontar, Moderator

“This board is for Tolkien-related discussions."

It's a basic rule of the Barrow Downs, which does not have any non-Tolkien discussions. So discussion of war generally or philosophically or historically or contemporarily does not belong unless it clearly relates to Tolkien's work. When the war in Iraq started members were asked to remove WWI poems from their signatures because they could be construed as fomenting off topic dicussions--at least, I remember Squatter removing some beautiful poetry from his sig. Same for religion. Same for other authors. That's why, for instance, we have a thread comparing Golden Compass with LotR, but no thread alone discussing Pullman. I would say that Tolkien is our one Ring here, but that would be a poor jest.

For more info, see this post by Estelyn: Guidelines for Forum Posting. She has some good things to say, too, about debate, discussion and accepting criticism and opposing thought.

I've really appreciated Formendacil's posts on free will and Gandalf. I think they made the question relevant to the ethos of LotR. I could see, for instance, a more modern writer not having Wormtongue killed but having the hobbits and Wormtongue having to work out their differences. But the harsh irony of his end says something about Tolkien's ideas on fate, dramatic structure, and the sorry nature of warfare.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by The Might

Interestingly enough, nobody wishes to analyse and discuss this question out of the LotR context.

For myself, I'm not willing to discuss it outside the LotR context because I don't believe this is the proper forum for it. This being the Books forum, I would expect the discussion to be a literary one, first and foremost. I'm not exactly sure where a discussion of Tolkien's literary politics versus Real World politics would be best located, but for me, this doesn't really feel like the right place. Just my opinion, of course.

[The Might]

So non-Tolkien matters that are still relevant to a Tolkien-related discussion are not welcomed. Meaning that all arguments must come from Tolkien's work, keeping it all simply Tolkien. Well, now that I know that this is the official policy I guess I have no possibility but to accept it.

I do however dislike this, not having been aware of this fact up until know, since it creates a very tight barrier around this "playground" so to speak, one that one cannot cross. But, if it was decided to do so, fine. I will also refrain from discussing anything not directly linked to Tolkien's works, or in the Movies forum to any movies based on his works.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Might

I do however dislike this, not having been aware of this fact up until know, since it creates a very tight barrier around this "playground" so to speak, one that one cannot cross. But, if it was decided to do so, fine. I will also refrain from discussing anything not directly linked to Tolkien's works, or in the Movies forum to any movies based on his works.

I can emphathise with your feelings. I was slammed once for daring to criticise Tolkien's style--musn't fan the flames of anti-Tolkien sentiment amongst the fandom.

However, the policy has served the Downs well in that it has saved us from likely tsunamis from Potter philes, Lewis lovers, Conan buffs, and hoards of fantasy gamers. It also provides the intellectual challenge of forming questions and threads in clever ways so that they are relevant and are clearly seen to be relevant. I think Ibrin is on to something.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, the policy has served the Downs well in that it has saved us from likely tsunamis from Potter philes, Lewis lovers, Conan buffs...

Wouldn't that be Potter philes, Lewis lovers and Conan connoisseurs?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Wouldn't that be Potter philes, Lewis lovers and Conan connoisseurs?

Well, I suppose so, if mere repetition of the alliterative pattern were the simple aim. And, anyway, 'connoisseurs' in the context ("context! We must have context" ) of "Conan' would be such an oxymoron that I decided to go for a word much more often associated with the barely-clad warrior and his demosels, 'buff'.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

regrettable as killing is in real life, do you actually think The Lord of the Rings would have been better if... well... if none of what now makes up the story was in it?

If I may interject here, your question reminds me of the potential in rpgs, an alternate universe type of rpg. Perhaps one could role play a War of the Rings that is not a war.

[Gordis]

I am always somewhat baffled when people speak of hobbit innocence in a positive sense and lament its loss. Hobbits are NOT children. Adult persons living in a wide world have no call to be innocent. They have no right to be innocent.

Hobbit innocence was bought at a heavy price, and it were the Dunedain who paid the price: those who died at Fornost in 1974-75, in the Ettenmoors, all over old Arnor and finally at Sarn Ford in 3018. Aragorn paid for Hobbit innocence when he had lost his grandfather a year before he was born and his father when he was two, when he himself went to kill orcs and lost HIS innocence well before he was twenty.

But have a look at a fifty-year-old Hobbit, another dweller of Arnor:

‘I knew that danger lay ahead, of course; but I did not expect to meet it in our own Shire. Can’t a hobbit walk from the Water to the River in peace?’ exclaimed Frodo.
‘But it is not your own Shire,’ said Gildor. ‘Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out.’

Gildor was quite right in rebuking Frodo. Such innocence borders on simplemindedness. And other Hobbits were even worse:

Frodo: There have been times when I thought the inhabitants too stupid and dull for words, and have felt that an earthquake or an invasion of dragons might be good for them.

The greenhouse conditions the Hobbits enjoyed for a very long time didn't make them any better, only worse. Why "greenhouse"? Look here, that was the beginning of the Shire:

TA 1601 Many Periannath migrate from Bree, and are granted land beyond Baranduin by Argeleb II (App.B). All that was demanded of them was that they should keep the Great Bridge in repair, and all other bridges and roads, speed the king's messengers, and acknowledge his lordship -LOTR.

Ahem, don't you feel that the King Argeleb had forgotten something? Like military duty or taxes? Yet the state is impossible without taxes, those who use the land and benefice from the protection of the state, HAVE to pay them.

You would counter that the hobbits had sent some archers to the last Angmar war. But read it again:

To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it. -LOTR prologue

"Some bowmen", "they maintained", "no record". The truth is that if there were indeed some hobbit archers in the battle, their impact was minimal. Nobody had noticed them, neither the friends, nor the Enemy.

Now in 3018 the greenhouse conditions had abruptly ended. The Rangers were either slaughtered at Sarn Ford, or went South to aid Aragorn. Only that made the invasion of the Shire by the ruffians possible. Were the Hobbits tougher people, less lazy, meek and fat, no ruffian would have dared to molest them, because they outnumbered the evil Men many times over. The occupation of the Shire was the Hobbits' own fault in the first place.

Originally Posted by The Might

Did the Scouring make Hobbits better? And mark the question, it's not did it make it better for the Hobbits, but made them better. I believe not. It took away their inocence, best example is the killing of Wormtongue. The exhausted and tormented Wormtongue kills his evil master and gets three arrows in his body in return from Hobbit archers before Frodo could intervene and stop them from killing him. Great way to end a war.

Ahh, Wormtongue… But it was the very hobbit INNOCENCE that killed him! The poor shy hobbit archers, who had never witnessed a killing before, shot their arrows reflexively, out of fright and dismay. Less "innocent" bowmen, like rangers would have never done the same, leaving Grima the privilege of a fair trial.

Yes the Scouring made hobbits better, IMO, - but for a short time. Unfortunately, all the positive effects would be obliterated by King Elessar's stupid decree prohibiting Men to enter the Shire. The greenhouse conditions would continue, leading to the inevitable outcome:

Hobbits are an unobtrusive but very ancient people, more numerous formerly than they are today […] Even in ancient days they were, as a rule, shy of 'the Big Folk', as they call us, and now they avoid us with dismay and are becoming hard to find. […] They seldom now reach three feet; but they hive dwindled, they say, and in ancient days they were taller.

So much for all the "training" Gandalf had provided for the hobbits…

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by The Might

But, yeah, ok, so the Scouring made sense, no matter who was guilty for the casualties. And so did all the other killing in M-e made in the name of good, peace, order, the Valar, etc. I'll keep that in mind for further discussions so as to not oppose the general view too much.

Might, regrettable as killing is in real life, do you actually think The Lord of the Rings would have been better if... well... if none of what now makes up the story was in it?