The Significance of the Shire - Community in LotR

[littlemanpoet]

I was just doing my job, reciting the quaint line of Gaffer Gamgee, "It's an ill wind as blows nobody no good, and all's well as ends better," when it suddenly struck me just how important to the whole story the Gaffer, Lobelia, old Cotton, Proudfoot, and all the rest of them are.

So I'd just like to talk about community in LotR, and what Tolkien achieved with it; was it essential to what makes LotR what it is? If so, why? If not, why not? Why do we like to read about Gaffer Gamgee and listen to the quirky things he says?

[HerenIstarion]

They are making Tolkien's ME real.
Being totally unimportant and inessential to the main plot, they are forming kind of entourage, the medium of "realness" in which main characters operate. Whilst reading LoTR I have no disbelief to suspend, I'm entirely in, thanks to those unimportant characters. This art of "realness" I met with no other writer but Tolkien, bless him

[lindil]

H-I is dead on.
Although I have come across realness in a few other places it is indeed rare [ironically enough, Williams' Otherrworld centered mostly in Virtual Reality had that sense of the real world].

We see 3 communities up close in LotR.
The Shire, Minas Tirith, Lothlorien. With the Shire being by far the most intimate and fleshed out.

I think clearly it functions as the 'earth element' in the story. The center point around which the Airy Elves, the Metallic Dwarves, the Watery Men of Dale and Coastal Gondor, the Woody Ents all revolve.

Not the most important but the touchstone and measuring stick for the story and even more importantly ourselves and our relationship to our own communities.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Kuruharan]

Airy Elves, the Metallic Dwarves, the Watery Men of Dale and Coastal Gondor, the Woody Ents...our relationship to our own communities

So most of us would now, I presume, be the Steel and Concrete Humans? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Touching base with some historical roots here, community used to be far more important to people. Now many people live in steel and concrete jungles not even knowing the names of their neighbors. (I am afraid to admit that I know the name of only one of my neighbors and I never speak to any of them.) Tolkien's work throws back to a time when people were more closely connected to each other, and probably better off for it.

(Ironic isn't it that the more people you get into an area the less actual community they usually have.)

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hallo littlemanpoet.

* bows a friendly greeting *

What do you think of phrasing your theme thus ... LOTR as the struggle of free community pitted against the disenfranchised disunity caused by the Enemy and his Ring? From the strain created between Elves and Men by Isildur's keeping the Ring, to Gollum's becoming outcast from his society because of the Ring, contrasted with the coming together of once-estranged kindreds to form a willing Fellowship for the destruction of the Ring, and Sam's summing it all up on his homecoming with a comfortable "Well, I'm back." While Frodo as ring-bearer leaves the Shire, where had life been otherwise, he might've lived happily ever after, to the end of his days.

Another lens through which to view this topic I would proffer in the form of a poem which I deem might have some measure of applicability:

Rangers on their forest trail
Among strangers take their ale
Returning duty’s call with smiles
Protecting realms that stretch for miles
The less you have the more you see
The worth in breathing sunshine free
In the warmth of friends and kin
Home is better than an Inn.

Unremarked by folk unknown
With eyes as sharp as eagle’s own
Keeping teeth of wolves away
Where peaceful crops are grown by day
And kettles steam with stew at night
Round windows frame the firelit sight
Of the warmth of friends and kin
Home is better than an Inn.

Passing to the Age’s end
Soon the road will show a bend
Hope remains as shadows fall
In worthy folk, both big and small
Together against Enemy’s power
Heroic deeds will light the hour
For the warmth of friends and kin
Home is better than an Inn.

Gandalf the Grey

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

[The Barrow-Wight]

The whole idea of community is what makes Middle-earth quite wonderful. Tolkien laced his stories with many characters that had small roles in the tale as told but weighed heavily in the imagery we create as we read. Characters like the Gaffer and Gamling the Old give the notion that characters just like them have existed for years and years. And other, younger ones like Bergil and Angelica Baggins show us the future of Middle-earth. Together, the generations come together to form a community that many readers can identify with, even though they are made of fantastical creatures.

[Belin]

Very true. I think the specific type of community matters as well.

Tolkien’s portrayal of the Shire provides important background information for the characters of the four hobbits that we do need get to know. If we had no sense of their past, we might see all four of them simply as blank and rather inadequate slates for the Aragorn and Gandalf and others to write on. We definitely get to see them as part of a culture, and when they wish they were home, we know exactly what they mean by it. Because we identify with the hobbits for most of the story, it is important that their backstory be sketched with a certain amount of detail. They’re grounded in the Shire throughout; the little moments that call us back to it, particularly the prediction of storytelling that Sam and Frodo do as they’re heading for Mount Doom, are meaningful to us because we’ve been there and we’ve had the opportunity to see the kind of people that do this storytelling and the kind of children that grow from it. It has to feel like home, and home is populated.

It also provides a nice contrast with the other places that we see. Pippin’s experience in Minas Tirith has both great differences from and odd similarities to his life in the Shire. The strict regimentation seems rather oppressive to him, and the completely different tone of the feeling of community makes him very lonely, and we react in similar ways, because we too have come a long way from a place that, as I have said, feels like home. On the other hand, for a brief moment we get the sense that Bergil would fit right in, and that also adds something sad to the encounter.

Furthermore, at least some knowledge the inhabitants of the Shire is necessary for the Scouring to have any effect at all. As I’ve pointed out a few times already, it would be far less important to us to find that the hobbits can’t go home again if we didn’t have some kind of connection with their home. The fading of Lothlorien, which we don’t know very well, is very sad, but it is sad in terms of the greater fading of the elves and the loss of its beauty—an awed and distanced feeling that’s very different from the painful and more personal sadness of the scouring or of Frodo’s departure.

So the particular inhabitants all contribute to an idea of the Shire that it would perhaps be possible to create without them, but that seems so much more meaningful when you throw some actual individuals into the mix. They also give Tolkien a chance to show off his ability to give us a whole story with just a line. Angelica’s mirror, in this way, works in a similar way to the fleeting mentions of Amarie and Eilinel in the Silmarillion. You see the history, you see the kind of relationships they had, and to some degree you actually see a character, but it’s just a tiny sketch when you look at it. He’s very good at this, and this is one way of using it to his advantage.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[littlemanpoet]

Thank you for all the insightful replies, complete with moving poetry!

H-I, I agree with you but wonder about:

Being totally unimportant and inessential to the main plot

My feeling is that the Shire is the linchpin for the entire story, and that the Scouring of said Shire is the necessary denouement to the whole story, precisely because it IS essential to the story, including every Gaffer and Proudfoot and Cotton and Bolger and Nobottle, etc.

[elfling]

I do believe the Shire and the Hobbits are the most important things in JRRT's purposes of LoTR. We can most relate to the hobbits, their lifestyle is pleasant and not awe inspiring. The description of the Shire helps us to understand where they come from and who they are, this also lets us understand how encredible it was that they choose to leave and somehow found the abilities to save ont only their Shire but all of ME. The fact elves, dwarves and men, all trained warriers or leaders kept going against the odds is not as amazing as the hobbits struggle to continue and develope an understanding of the peril of the Ring and their task. They are small unimportant people from a small unimportant place who rise up and do the impossible. This is what I think JRRT is showing us with his descriptions of the Shire and hobbits. Any of us from the most benign backgrounds can do amazing thing. By making the Shire so real and wonderfull we alos see the sacrifice it was to leave it. It would have been easier to stay and hide and await the future.

[littlemanpoet]

Addressing things in the order they come to mind:

elfling: Can it be said that a benign community is necessary to produce people (hobbits) who are basically healthy and sound of mind and heart, to do the great things that need doing in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles?

Gandalf: Your mention of Gollum as outcast put me in mind of Beregond of the Guard, who, upon hearing from King Elessar that he must leave Minas Tirith, blanches in pain for he sees it as being outcast before the King resolves his justice with mercy. Again, though in a different context, we see the importance of community.

[charly]

Dominic Monagan(Merry) said something about the significance of the Shire I really do want to post here, because I very much agree with what he says....

I mean, the way of showing the Shire shows how important the hobbits´ quest was right away. They fullfilled the quest because they wanted to save this beautiful piece of land,like heaven on earth with it´s green hills,where everything grows and were there are no problems and perils. This place really is the heart of the hobbits.

[Helkasir]

I never thoguth of LOTR as a book with a pplot and a story and a moral... I've always seen it as something of a "Portal" to another world in which things exist in the ways the books portray it. In it, everything is key.

[littlemanpoet]

Helkasir, I think that's really cool. Keep that going as long as you can! It means that you're able to live it time and time again. I wish I could get back to that, but in the meantime I must let the work churn in my mind as it can. Ah well.

[elfling]

Well Littlemanpoet, I never thought of it as being necessary to create the kind of people(hobbit or whatever race) to accomplish such a great task but maybe it is. The Hobbits seem to have something special the others don't. The way they can resist the evil of the Ring and continue on through all kinds of horrible things and keep their hope is truely a gift. They appear simple but I think they are stronger than any other race (elf and other mortals, not counting Gandolf) in the book. Not in a physical warring way but they have more persistance and emotional strength that may come from their place in the Shire. Despite their physical smallness they kept up and often surpassed the others in deeds of importance.
Is this more than you asked for? As you can tell I am a hobbit fan.

[littlemanpoet]

There's nothing wrong with being a hobbit fan, elfling! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

It seems to me that you are suggesting that the hobbits' resiliency and ability to persevere comes from the Land, the Shire. I think you have a good point, though I think there may be more to it, too.

[elfling]

Thanks.
I do think the shire plays a large part in who the Hobbits are but I agree with you that there is more to it. Where we live e very much shapes us we are all still individuals with our own strengths as each hobbit is. Also each race seems to have inherent quailities that make them different and Hobbits from other places than the shire probably share alot of the Shire hobbit traits.

[Carannillion]

I may just be repeating things already said, but I'll say it anyway.

I agree that the Shire is important. The Shire gives LotR a soul, and makes it cozy and warm, in all its despair. Rivendell, the wonderful refuge of the elves, Lorien, Galadriel's secret kingdom, Minas Tirith as the high castle of freedom and so on and so on are all good places, but there is a sadness and hopelessness hanging over them all. The Shire, on the other hand, is the well of hope, the place of dreams. Galadriel's mirror, the Palantiri etc. are all items of vision and dreams, but what visions? Nightmares is what they project! In the Shire we are allowed to sit back and enjoy life, while the rest of the world is going to hell, and we need that "breathing space" sometimes.

[tangerine]

The hobbit's simpler strength, i believe, is partly from their innocence. Bilbo is the only one left among them in the Shire that had known battle,and the history of ME was just a fireside story for most of them. When they saw the Nazgul in the SHire, the hobbits thought they were big and scary, and that they should not be caught by them, or something bad might happen. They did not know what they were. A man of Gondor might freeze in terror at the sight of one, knowing what they were, what they had done and what they represented. The hobbits in the fellowship eventually learned of this as well. The Shire folk only have the vaguest inkling of Mordor, and Gandalf is just a strange old man there, who happens to make neat fireworks.
I used to work in a theatre. during the end credits of a movie, when all of the guest were leaving, a kid jumped from the railing at the top of the stair where the seats were to the entrance area about 15-20 ft below. He just jumped back up and ran out laughing while I was picking my jaw up off the ground. He thought it was cool, but he could have gotten seriously hurt. I wasn't even able to speak until his friend (who took the stairs) went past me, and I just told him not to copy his friend of there would be trouble. I think this sums up the difference between hobbits and the rest of the people of ME quite nicely. The hobbits at first don't really believe they will get hurt- their only source of information is Bilbo, who makes it all sound quite fun. Perhaps that was a part of why Gandalf wanted the Shire to remain something of a fairy tale to the men of gondor and rohan- the shire contained an innocence that was rare to find anywhere but in very small children anywhere else in ME.

[littlemanpoet]

Tangerine: I agree with a good deal of what you're saying here. I think that the innocense is provincial rather than childlike, however. Your illustration is interesting, too, but I fear I must disagree with it since it seems to me that Hobbits were NOT given to feckless and dangerous behavior. They didn't like anything that upset their lives, like boats or magic rings or adventures. I think you're right, though, if you say that the innocence is provincial, and that rather than innocence you call it naivete.

[Neferchoirwen]

One of the reasons, I believe, for the Shire being such an intimate community is because of the food. Well, food itself is one of the central culture of the Shire, but we all know that when we eat, or when we go out for a drink, we all sit together in a fellowship. I marvel at their culture having 9 meals a day, and how hospitable they can be to each other in terms if all the food they serve and have at their homes.

[Sapphire_Flame]

tangerine does have something of a point, I think.

The hobbits at first don't really believe they will get hurt- their only source of information is Bilbo, who makes it all sound quite fun. Perhaps that was a part of why Gandalf wanted the Shire to remain something of a fairy tale to the men of gondor and rohan- the shire contained an innocence that was rare to find anywhere but in very small children anywhere else in ME.

Very good. I do think that Frodo, at least, had some idea of what he was getting into, if only because Gandalf told him all about the history of the Ring and et cetera.

They didn't like anything that upset their lives, like boats or magic rings or adventures...

I agree with this too. It seems that none of the hobbits really wanted to go on the Quest, but rather they felt obligated to do follow Frodo in what he had to do.
And in regards to the Shire...

I mean, the way of showing the Shire shows how important the hobbits´ quest was right away. They fullfilled the quest because they wanted to save this beautiful piece of land,like heaven on earth with it´s green hills,where everything grows and were there are no problems and perils. This place really is the heart of the hobbits.

That really sums the whole thing up, don't you think?

[Carannillion]

Also, check out the Hope and Hopelessness topic. Some thoughts on the Hobbits and their culture and their influence on the way of the world... [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

Seems rather late to admit that I think tangerine was right, but I do now see the Hobbits as being not only provincial, but childlike as well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Tolkien created in the Hobbits a race that were quite comfortable with themselves as a mix of human (pipe smoking and beer drinking), animal (furry feet and always eating), childlike (bath-loving), and provincial. They even have a little teeny tiny bit of Elvish sensibility in them - or at least, some of them do, such as Frodo (a lot) and Sam (a wee bit).

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet,

It's fun dredging these old threads up and rereading them again, and seeing what new thoughts come popping out. I am surprized that I didn't respond to this one earlier, since I tend to post heavily on Hobbit and Frodo threads.

I found it interesting that you now see the Hobbits as "childlike". There are certainly elements of that in the story, especially since the race as a whole evolved out of a children's book. I'm not sure I would agree with you that the touch of "Elvish sensibility" was also indicative of a childlike nature. In fact, I would probably say the opposite. Those Hobbits like Sam and especially Frodo who acquire not only an appreciation of Elves, but a true understanding of their ways and nature, are the ones who've gone furthest from their roots. In effect, they have left a chunk of their childhood behind and are reaching towards adulthood.

I do think there is an element of that personal evolution in Bilbo's journey in The Hobbit: entire books have been written on how the quest was one of maturation. A similar argument could be made for all four of the Hobbits in LotR . Just as we have the greater journey taking place to destroy the Ring itself, we also have lesser, individual journeys whose end result will also be to break down and change the people involved: what we start out with and what we end up with are not the same, especially for the Hobbits. And all of this will eventually have an impact on the Shire community and its innocence.

Perhaps, this process of maturation is one of the underlying realities that makes Frodo's tale so poignant. In this regard, I am wondering if Tolkien was influenced, especially in regard to Frodo, by his experiences as a father and the fact that he himself had such a wrenching transition to adulthood through the intervention of WWI.

Of course, we'll never really know, and the author would probably look askance at any attempt to link up things in his writing with his personal bio. And yet, when a child reaches adolescence and begins to make their own choices, parents watch with bated breath to see what the outcome might be. Will life be kind or cruel? Will the choices offered be such that the young adult can navigate successfully through the storms and shoals to what every parent wants for his child: a meaningful and contented life. It is so hard to sit and watch a child be confronted with things to which there are no answer. Tolkien certainly knew that harsh reality, seeing his own close friends who had led a sheltered, childlike existence suddenly confronted by the intervention of war. And too often in real life, we see something happen on the road through adolescence that takes a promising child and turns him on his head, eventually destroying his life or his nature.

Frodo may have been "fifty" in chronological terms, but there is another sense in which he too was a child before he began his journey with the Ring: more inquisitive and reflective perhaps than most of his neighbors, yet still at heart someone who had never been asked to mature. A "child" may have been the only one who could carry the Ring with reasonable safety. Yet, the true irony is that once a child takes up the Ring he can no longer remain a child. There is a wrenching process of internal readjustment that is hinted at throughout the story. And while maturity came to all four of the Hobbits on their journey, Frodo's experience was markedly different. Three of the Hobbits successfully navigated their adolesence to a full and active adulthood and participation in the community. They each ended up with families and lives of their own. Yet one did not, and there is something terribly sad about that.

We've had a thousand threads which asked "why Frodo?" Wouldn't someone else have been a better choice? And then we go on to name the likely candidates: most often Samwise. We've identified all Frodo's numerous "flaws": his tendency to whine and see himself as a lone martyr, a certain underlying pessimism, even his procrastination. Yet, in the end, this is one case where I have to take the author at his word. In his Letters, UT, and LotR itself, we are told that Bilbo and Frodo were the only two that could have pulled this thing off. And if we consider the backdrop of the Silm, where time and time again the great Elvish and Mannish heroes fell flat on their faces, this is an amazing thing to say. How sad then to have the "best of the Shire" be lost to the Shire community.

Bilbo's life was bent out of shape far enough that he had to leave the Shire and go to Rivendell to be with Elves: a clear admission both of his growth and the healing that he needed as well as a foreshadowing of what will happen to his nephew. Frodo's own experience was far more wrenching. This will be no gentle transition such as Bilbo had, but a far more painful process. Of all the Hobbits in the Shire, it is Frodo who reaches out the furthest and experiences the greatest degree of change. He is the one who becomes the Elven friend, most fully articulates the meaning of mercy, and eventually reaches a profound understanding of the destructive nature of violence and war. Yet, because of the experience he's been through, each of these changes comes at a terrible price. There is an infinite sense of sadness to see the child Frodo systematically destroyed and replaced by an adult who is so deeply hurt.

Perhaps I've come a long way from community....but perhaps not. We need to understand not only what makes up the community but what breaks it down, what causes it to dminish. And in this case, the Shire lost its very best. Could Frodo have contributed to the community, or was he simply so far ahead of it that his lessons would have fallen on deaf ears?

The Hobbits and the Shire itself did mature beyond childhood at the end of the book, largely through the mechanism of the Scouring. (In that sense PJ really blew it, since we see a Shire unchanged.) Yet, even that reconstituted community will not be the answer for Frodo. All the community and good will in the world sometimes can not make up for the tough realities of life. And it is that sense of underlying fragility that makes the Hobbit community "precious": despite all the bumps and abrasions, despite the loss of the "best" Hobbit of all, the community still manages to find itself and blossom again at the end of the book.

[davem]

The Lord of the Rings is not so much a novel of character as it is an evocation - almost musical, an opera or a symphony - of a mood & a time of life. The time of life is early adolescence, & the mood is sehnsucht, fernweh, nostalgia, Sweet Desire. the experience of reading the book is the experience of those spring days when one is thirteen or fourteen, when the wind seems to be blowing from somewhere beyond the end of the world, when life seems almost unbearably full of possibilities of romance & adventure, & yet also of a sense of loss: the sense that one;s conscious personality is taking shape & acting as a filter to the immediacy of experience - life is actually, & inevitably, growing more ordinary. Yet in this pre-sex stage one's inner world still seems limitless...
There is no going back. Accordingly, the magical world of the Lord of the Rings is one person's inner world, with no real, clashing, messy relationships between different selves; &, when couples wed at the end of teh story, this world ends too: childhood & its magic have to pass into memory...
It is no longer good for people to live in the bosom of nature or within mythical systems, or even pretend to. But it is good for them to remember how it may have felt, & that is one service that Tolkien provides....
What if there's a whole bright, elvish world out there, where pleasure & wonder come with no price attatched? And this is the point of The Lord of the Rings: an invitation to experience joy, the 'koy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief'....Yes, joy is 'infantile', & no, you can't feel it & look clever at the same time. Joy is not The Lord of the Rings 'answer to evil, nor does it make up for suffering - if defenders of Tolkien claim this, they play right into the detractor's hands. But it stands alongside them, undiminished by them, as a fact in this world.
Tolkien haters refuse joy for fear of being decieved. Their predicament was precisely rendered by that smarter-than-they-think writer CS Lewis: they are the dwarfs who Refused to be Taken in. Sitting in a huddle in their imaginary dark prison while the sun shines & the green grass grows all around.

Caroline Galwey,'Reasons for not liking Tolkien', Mallorn 42

So, is LotR a novel about childhood? And if it is, is that really a bad thing. Of course, we grow up, & have to put aside childish things, & terrible things happen to us when wew have grown up - or in the process of growing up, yet I wonder whether that's what draws us back, & whether Galwey isn't right. Why do we go back to LotR? To experience the traumas of growing up, & the inevitable suffering that results, or to experience again the wonder of being a child. Aren't we invalidating childhood if we focus on how terrible are the possibilities of being grown up?

I wonder whether what really draws us back is not the 'facts' of the story, the suffering, the pain, the inevitability of loss, but rather the 'possibilities' - the wonder, the mystery, the awe, the possibility of the happy ending. When we read & re-read LotR, & especially The Hobbit, we want the possible to be made real - to believe ' there's a whole bright, elvish world out there, where pleasure & wonder come with no price attatched'.

Of course, Tolkien seems reluctant (incapable?) of ever quite giving us that - but is that why we love his works so much? Isn't it what he offers us that draws us - in spite of the fact that in the end he takes it away, & tells us we must now grow up & leave it behind, do without it, that its all gone, none left now. At almost every moment in the story there's a glimpse of what we really wish for, always just out of reach, but at the same time, even though its never quite possible to take it in our hands, we can't shake the feeling that that's what our hands were shaped to hold, so we keep reaching out for it.

So, I think maybe LittlemanPoet is right, & the hobbits are 'children', & the child in us, who has never really gone away, identifies with them, with their hopes & dreams & desires.

Oh, to be 'only quite a little fellow in a wide world' again!

[Mithalwen]

I have read the previous posts fairly quickly, so I hope I don't repeat what has already been said more eloquently by someone else....

For me, although it was the strangeness (as in difference) of Middle Earth that formed a major part of the appeal of LOTR when I read it first,as a young adolescent, and used it as a method of escape from my own reality; now as an adult it is, in part, the ability to relate LOTR to my own world that maintains interest.

Although there is much to praise in the films ( I grieve for omissions and diversions as much as most other "book" people but that ground is all ready well trodden), and I understand the "filmic" reasons for it's omission, I feel that without " the scouring of the Shire" the whole story lost its point - at least has far as the Hobbits are concerned. I think that most moving speech of Frodo's "I wanted to save the Shire..." is hugely significant. He didn't set out to save the world. He never intended to be a hero. He just wanted to save he place he loved. Similarly the other hobbits went out of friendship primarily. You cannot stay at home and expect theworld to leave you alone - or go away and find all unchanged.

Without "community" - the quest would have failed. Aragorn's decision not to "sacrifice" Merry and Pippin, by going after the "principal" was key to the success of the quest - without all the events that unfurled consequent to this, Frodo and Sam could not have finished their task. And it is by ralling the community that the Shire is rid of it's invaders.

The Shire, is England, the hobbits are English ... when I read the gaffer's words, I find them so similar to "passed down" quotes of my great grandfather, who would have been about a generation older than Tolkien .... Hobbits may be physically different from men .. but they aren't "foreign" at least not to someone old enough to have had contact with those of a pre-car age. I think the characterisation of the shire folk is affectionate, and a reminder among high ideals that little things and ordinary people are worth fighting for too - freedom is being able to go to the pub for a pint and to "put the world to rights" without fearing that your words will land you in gaol or worse. Sometimes, in the face of overwhelming loss the little things seem most important. I feel there is something very poignant in Sam mourning his saucepans when the world is about to end. We can relate to the gaffer and Lobelia because we know them, in a way we do not know the mighty lords of Gondor.

Despite the urbanisation and spread of Birmingham, Warwickshire is still amazingly rural .... parts I am sure have changed very little since Tolkien's youth - and it is insanely beautiful. So beautiful that it reminds you that your much maligned country is worth caring about, worth fighting for. I know Tolkien hated allegory, but I think it is likely he was at least subconsciously affected by the situation of England and the world around the time he wrote. It should not be forgotten how precarious Britain's state was between the fall of France and the entry of the US into the war. Like the Shire it was so nearly lost.


Englishness is not a topic which most of us who are English are comfortable addressing. There is a feeling that any pride in our heritage condones the "shame" of the country's imperial past. However - if we fear to look beyond our borders for fear of accusations of Empire building, we risk the other accusation - that we are "Little Englanders" , insular, smug, complacent, thinking ourselves safe on our island.

At the start of the story, the Shire folk are "Little Englanders" (sorry if that seems an awful pun on their stature - for once I am trying to be serious!) - I feel the Breelanders are English too but their location, like the gives them a more "outward look". If the shire is protected by an expanse of uninhabited land as Britain is protected by the Sea, then Bree is a port town, more linked to the outside world.

The hobbits go out into the world and influence it's events but they do not Empire build. They return, and though they undo the "industrialisation", they do not quite return to the status quo. The materials are used to improve the homes of ordinary hobbits, the food stores are distributed for the benefit of all. While I wouldn't quite say that it is a form of communism, I feel that there is a shift in power away from aristocracy to meritocracy. It isn't that the hereditary authority figures, the Thain and Master, are overthrown, just that the elected mayor, the lowborn Sam, increases in stature.

Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for England, but maybe, unwittingly, he also created a pattern for England's involvement in the modern world.

Despite some editing, I feel I am reaching for something I cannot quite clasp here, I cannot find words to express I feel quite viscerally. I hope it makes some sense - otherwise forgive the ramblings of a madwoman.

PS I would add that I started writing befor Davem posted so that is why it doesn't quite follow on!

[littlemanpoet]

Wow! It looks as if there's been latent interest in this thread. That's fun!

Sorry to have miscommunicated, Sharon, but I didn't mean to imply that an elvish sensibility as indicative of a childlikeness in Hobbits. Rather, I saw it as yet another quality in some elves, and I mentioned it as an afterthought, actually, not having any proof in mind other than Frodo himself. I agree that an Elvish sensibility does pull Frodo away from other Hobbits, although I'm not sure it pulls him away from his own Hobbitishness, any more than Elvish sensibility pulls Aragorn away from being human.

Sharon, you write poignantly of Frodo's maturation and loss, both his of the Shire, and the Shire's loss of him. Could it be no other way? All that we read suggests that the answer is 'no'. But one thing you said, or perhaps implied, toward the end of your post, was that the Shire itself matured. What matured it? I would say that it was not only the scouring, but the occupation - that is - the subsequent War of the Ring that came home to roost in the Shire. It was on a very small scale compared to the War that ravaged all the rest of Middle Earth, but it served as a microcosm.

The Hobbits did mature. The Gaffer, Old Cotton, and Lobelia are singled out in the scouring.

The Gaffer doesn't look much older, but is deafer; as hardy as ever, and put out over his taters. Frodo reassures him that Sam has done more than well by him, and that things would be put to rights. The Gaffer's completely oblivious to the real goings on, even though Sam has tried to tell him what they've been up to, "chasing Black Men up mountains" and all; and Frodo would have it no other way.

Tom Cotton comes across as a really sensible ally, respectable, and uses that reputation for the good of all. Here's a hobbit of hobbits, and itching to make trouble for the ruffians. You love him for what he is, loyal, smart in a local way, cagey after his fashion, not to mention courageous, willing to face off with the ruffians one on many. Great stuff, that!

Lobelia's moment is the most poignant. She has been a thorn in Frodo's and Bilbo's side, but being a prisoner and the word having got around that she had stood up to the ruffians in hobbity subbornness, made her popular. In reading over the little passage, I was astounded to see that there was no dialogue - the story was simply related in a brief and touching way - and it's not even in the scouring chapter!

Each character makes up part of the community. Each one relates to Frodo directly in his or her way. He has an immediate impact on all three; in fact, he has an impact on the entire community, right away. Sure, Sam, Pippin and Merry are the heroic acting ones, but Frodo is the leader. The Shire hobbits all must notice it, since Merry, Pippin, and Sam all look to him for final word. Most importantly, he kept needless violence from occurring, thereby in a very subtle way allowing we don't know how many hobbits to remain good instead of having done something they would be sorry to remember.

davem, I don't think LotR is all about "being grown up versus being a child". It's way too simplistic. I would say LotR has aspects of childhood, but that's not what it's about. It's about death and deathlessness; remember that thread? I go back to LotR for the same reason I go back to other works of fiction (and I'll be going back to Orson Scott Card novels now for the same reason), which is that the story has touched me deeply, in ways that one cannot pick apart with the finest analytical tools.

Think of Tolkien's closing comments in On Fairy-Stories: he points to the Christian gospel as the one fairy-story that turns out to be true. That is his belief.

It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be "primarily" true, its narrative to be history, without thereby necessarily losing the mythical or allegorical significance that it had possessed. ... The joy would have exactly the same quality, if not the same degree, as the joy which the "turn" [eucatastrophe] in a fairy-story gives: such joy has the very taste of primary truth.

I think primary truth means the same thing as Reality.

So the joy that Tolkien and Lewis (and all the Inklings) speak of is not the nostalgic joy of childhood, but the joy in recogonizing that that which is real, is good, and not merely good, but the best good. Any parent would want this for her child. Any human wants this for himself. Every community that is a real community, wants this for itself.

... little things and ordinary people are worth fighting for...

Mithalwen, that was an excellent statement. I agree with your take on the Shire as insular (pardon the pun to Britain!) and Bree as a kind of port town. I think it's important to note that an overthrow of the Thain and Master are not even remotely considered. The Mayor, Thain, and Master become equals during the reigns of the three friends, each having authority in their own spheres. It really is a strange system of government, very like the organic growth of government in Europe during the middle ages, toward one thing in one place, another in another place. The difference is that the three realms of the Shire were healthy and well-functioning and not feeling threatened in the least by the other two. Just an afterthought, that, and deserving of its own thread!

[Lalwendë]

What I want to say, I have already said before in another thread which was about 'reality', but I want to say it again anyway - put into the context of this thread of course.

The Shire, to me, is redolent of 'home'. It is a small, intimate place, very much a community, and it is full of familiar touchstones. There are pubs, people smoke, there are gossips and self-important mayors and proto-policemen. It reminds me of growing up in rural England, so it is very much a real place to me, and no doubt to many other readers, whether urban, English, American or anything else. It does symbolise a place which is familiar even if we have not been there. It is also the most fully drawn place in Middle Earth, and by that I mean it is described the most vividly; perhaps this is to be expected as the chief protagonist, Frodo, comes from there.

The Shire is not the only beautiful place in Middle Earth, but it is presented to us as the most real, the most recognisable place. I think the significance of this is that as we recognise it so much, we are also determined that The Shire will be 'saved'. I think this is one area where Tolkien's own particular personal politics come through strongly. He felt a deep emotional attachment to the concept of the English countryside and to the idyllic sense of rural life and this is very clearly mirrored in his writing about The Shire. It is presented as a place to be cherished and preserved.

An interesting aspect of this is that the rural idyll is not quite so perfect. Poverty is and always has been a very real spectre haunting England's rural areas. The countryside is also brutal at times - the animals are destined to become meat, the people are often suspicious of 'outsiders' and all manner of crimes (from pub stay-behinds to badger baiting) can go undetected. Tolkien has chosen to reflect the idealised vision of the countryside - and I don't condemn him for this, as in portraying something perfect, it makes it all the more powerful a symbol of something which we know we want to be saved and protected.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Mithalwen, I think it's important to note that an overthrow of the Thain and Master are not even remotely considered. The Mayor, Thain, and Master become equals during the reigns of the three friends, each having authority in their own spheres. !

Yes I agree with this...and that is why I tried to emphasise the rise of Sam rather thatn a diminishing of Merry / Sam - however I do think it is a reflection of a slow change in British society post war ...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In rereading the FotR for the Chapter-by-Chapter discussion, I was reminded of something I'd forgotten about the saving of the community of the Shire - Elrond originally wanted to send Merry and Pippin back to warn their fellow Hobbits of impending danger. Aside from the fact that their presence in the Fellowship was vital to the success of the quest, I started thinking about what might have happened had they gone back.

Was their own understanding of the danger great enough to convey it to the others? I'm not sure - they experienced the Black Riders, but aside from that, they only heard of deeper matters, and they weren't even present at the Council of Elrond. Even if they had warned, would the Hobbits have taken them seriously enough? Without actually having experienced anything negative at that time, I doubt that they would have understood the danger. The taking over by Sharkey and his ruffians was necessary to arouse them, and even after that, they fell back into complacency, for the most part.

Insular communities tend to stay aloof from the events of the greater world surrounding them until they are actually invaded...

As I see it, Elrond's good intentions would not have brought the results he hoped for, and the events preceding the Scouring would not have been prevented.

[The Saucepan Man]

I agree very much with what Mithalwen and Lalwendë have said concerning the familiarity of the Shire. It certainly has that “familiar” air to me with its place names, its smoky pubs, its postal service and its general “Edwardian England” feel, and this would have been even more so amongst readers at the time the book was first published. It is something that has been noted during the course of the Chapter-by-Chapter discussions, particularly in those discussing the Prologue and A Long-Expected Party . Frodo and his companions start in a place familiar to the reader and move through the world of Faerie (the Old Forest, Bombadil’s House and the Barrow-Downs) into a mythical world involving an epic and heroic struggle between good and evil. This, I think, is why the Shire appears to be so much more “technologically” advanced (with its mantle clocks and umbrellas) than the rest of Middle-earth, as noted by Ealasade in the Middle Earth - Unstuck in Time thread. It is a place that would most certainly have provoked a sense of familiarity in readers in 1950s England, and it does still, I think, has that effect on us today. (But for how much longer?)

I would also agree that the Shire, and Hobbits in general, have a “childish” or, more properly, “child-like” feel to them. Although I suspect that this is largely because, as Lalwendë notes, the Shire is presented to us as a rural idyll, ie a rural ideal. The darker aspects of true rural life are not presented, making it seem slightly naïve, and therefore giving it a child-like feel. For me, this certainly inspires a sense of nostalgia when I read the book now (although I wonder how much that is because it brings back memories of the time that I first read it, aged 11).

Turning back to the question originally posed by littlemanpoet, there are indeed a number of tight-knit communities within Middle-earth. As has been noted, the Shire is the most closely drawn and the most familiar. The conversations in The Green Dragon and The Ivy Bush, and also the general Hobbitish approach to life, bring this home to us. But there are other close communities too. Rivendell springs most immediately to mind. It is, after all, described in terms of a single (albeit very large) house, yet it seems that many live under its roof. Feasting is communal, and there is the Hall of Fire where the residents gather to share poetry and tales. The descriptions of Lothlorien, Erebor and even Dale also convey the impression of very tight-knit communities.

However, it does seem to me that the greater the size of the realm, the less the sense of community. This is probably because the larger the realm, the slower and less efficient communication is. Rohan, for example, is ruled from Edoras, but is spread across a wide expanse of land. The ancestors of the Rohirrim were a nomadic folk, and even at the time of the War of the Ring seem to live in small, sparsely spread communities. In contrast to the short time within which Merry and Pippin were able to assemble a force to challenge the ruffians, the Muster of Rohan takes some days to accomplish, and even then (if memory serves me) not all of the men eligible and available to fight could be assembled in time. There is, of course, the communal refuge of Helm’s Deep, but that was only resorted to in times of trouble (and quite possibly out of reach for some before danger overtook them). Because it has this looser sense of community, the ease with which Saruman is able to bring Rohan to such a parlous state seems more credible. In contrast to his rule of the Shire, Saruman does not need to use force but is able to accomplish his purpose through persuasion because the bonds holding the community together are less secure.

A similar picture may be painted with Gondor, which basically comprises a series of semi-autonomous fiefdoms. While Minas Tirith itself no doubt presents a fairly tight-knit community, the regions themselves were pretty much self-governing and, again, only came together in times of need.

Which brings me on to Estelyn’s comment:

Insular communities tend to stay aloof from the events of the greater world surrounding them until they are actually invaded...

This is true of almost all the communities in Middle-earth. There is very little sense of “international” community, and they are only drawn together by the struggle against a common enemy. Yes, there is trade between Esgaroth/Dale and Erebor, Thranduil’s realm and the Shire. But many communities have closed themselves of completely. Apart from the Shire (which, as has been noted, was isolationist in its outlook), Rivendell seems to have been fairly isolated to all but those who knew where it was or (like Boromir) searched long for it. Lothlorien was even more isolated, being regarded as a place of mystery and danger by the Rohirrim and many in Gondor too (a situation no doubt encouraged by the Elves of Lorien). And the Dwarves of Erebor and Elves of Mirkwood were (as evidenced by the initial distrust between Gimli and Legolas) openly antagonistic towards each other. Funnily enough, the two communities (Dale and Erebor apart) that seem the closest are those which seem the most disparate in themselves: Rohan and Gondor. They are linked symbolically by historic alliance and (in some cases) by marriage, and logistically by the chain of beacons along the foothills of the White Mountains. But even then, they are only physically drawn together in a time of war.

So what does this tell us? Well, I think that it very much reflects the world of the time in which Tolkien was writing. There was a much greater sense of community within towns and villages, but very little in the way of international community. As in Middle-earth, nations only came together in times of international crisis. Yes, alliances and ententes were formed, but institutions like the United Nations, NATO and the economic unions that we have today only came about after the Second World War and largely as a response to it, to prevent the same thing ever happening again.

The world has changed dramatically since the publication of LotR and it continues to change. Although the Shire still seems a familiar place to readers of the book, I wonder how much this will remain the case as time goes on. In developed countries, and in many developing countries, large sections of the population have migrated/are migrating to the urban conurbations, where there is much less of a sense of community. Those of us who live in towns often hardly know the people who live two doors down the road and we go to pubs and bars to socialise specifically with our friends rather than with others in our “community”. Even our modern “gated communities”, which I suppose do bring people together, are primarily aimed at insulating their residents from certain sections of (their own) society. And, at the same time, the international community grows. The corporations which govern so much of our lives are global in nature and (even though it is far from perfect) there is much more international co-operation than ever before in our history.

Now, I’m not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing (although the loss of a sense of “individual community” is, in some ways, to be mourned), and it can (or could) be a very good thing in areas such as international co-operation in environmental matters. But I do wonder whether, as time passes and this trend continues, the world presented in Middle-earth will become less relevant to us. Or will we instead retain that sense of familiarity, but with a heightened sense of nostalgia for something lost?

[davem]

Yet, wasn't that sense of belonging to a community a thing of the past even for Tolkien & his readers? I know what's depicted is further away from us in time than it was for Tolkien & his readers, because nothing stays the same - even nostalgia isn't what it was - but Tolkien is mourning what had been, & I think that that sense of 'loss' will remain accessible to readers for as long as the book is read, because its not what is lost, in the sense of specific things, or a particular way of life, its the sense of having lost something - innocence, loved ones, whatever - which will speak to readers. We all lose something, & mourn its passing, so the Shire will become a symbol of that even when it has passed out of living memory.