The downfall of the hobbit-folk

[lathspell]

Well, as I recall Saruman wasn't their first experience of the world outside the Shire. Their has been the Fell Winter when the wolves crossed the river Isen and had to be fought be the Hobbits. THe Hobbits had also fought a battle against the orcs of mount Gundabad (when the Bullroarer invented the game of golf by hitting an orc's so hard it flew a hundred yards into the air and vanished in a rabbithole). And last, the passing of the Ringwraiths through the Shire would be an experience to remember as well, especially since buckland raised the alarm for the first time in ages. So, I don't think the Hobbits actually lost their innocence in this matter.

What did happen I don't know. It could have been a hundred things. I mean, look at the Ents. The have been around for ages and now they lost the Entwives and are dying out.

However, even Tolkien doesn't know wether their are Hobbits nowadays. When he gives an explanation about them in the Hobbit he says:

I suppose Hobbits need a description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People as they call us. They are (or were) a litte people...

greetings,
lathspell

[tom bombariffic]

If lack of reproduction was the problem, there must have been some very great changes after Sam and Rosie's time!!

I'm not sure I follow. Please elaborate at length, in full detail, preferably with images to aid understanding.

bombariffic

[lathspell]

Now I shall certainly keep an eye on this thread... or two eyes, as often as I can spare them.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by tom bombariffic

I'm not sure I follow. Please elaborate at length, in full detail, preferably with images to aid understanding.

Believe me, you don't want images. The idea behind my words is simple math - at a rate of two children per couple, a population does not die out - it remains the same (does remembering the term "Zero Population Growth" date me terribly?). Sam and Rosie had thirteen. Other Hobbits listed in the family trees were also prone to engender large families. Only a natural catastrophe or an annihilation of huge proportion could have wiped out such a people. There is absolutely no comparison to the Gondorian situation.

davem makes a very interesting point concerning the division of Hobbit society following Sharkey's rule. Could the seed of mistrust been sown then?

When Aragorn became king he passed a law forbidding anyone, himself included, from passing into the Shire. Could this account for the hobbits rarity? Perhaps they did not dwindle literally, they just dwindled from the memory and lore of the humans. I at least have always favored this idea, I would find myself terribly distraught in a world without thier kind.

[narfforc]

Maybe they just re-intergrated back into the species Man, This could have been caused by introducing into the gene pool the Ent-draughts that Merry and Pippin drank, causing their offspring to grow ever taller, have you noticed how big the kids are today................................

[davem]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Maybe they just re-intergrated back into the species Man, T.

Memories of Fletcher 'reading' to Ives from 'Little Women'......

[Farael]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Maybe they just re-intergrated back into the species Man, This could have been caused by introducing into the gene pool the Ent-draughts that Merry and Pippin drank, causing their offspring to grow ever taller, have you noticed how big the kids are today................................

Well, the Professor DOES give us a little insight on what happened to the hobbits... namely that they don't like big people. How could they re-integrate with the big people (the species of Man) if they disliked them?

I think Davem is on to something, the other times a "disaster" happened in The Shire the hobbits responded as an united front to repell the enemy. Also, they did it by themselves. Now, I am sure we all agree that Merry, Pippin, Sam and Frodo were not "normal" hobbits, yet their coming was needed to spark the revolution in The Shire.

The other times the hobbits responded by themselves, but this time they needed forces from the outside. Maybe it is, as Davem said, because the seed of mistrust had ben sown among them.

Originally Posted by bombi

When Aragorn became king he passed a law forbidding anyone, himself included, from passing into the Shire. Could this account for the hobbits rarity? Perhaps they did not dwindle literally, they just dwindled from the memory and lore of the humans. I at least have always favored this idea, I would find myself terribly distraught in a world without thier kind.

I must say I was not aware of such law. Could you perhaps expand on it? Why did he say so? Did it actually mean that no-one should go to the Shire or that no-one should bother them?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Farael

I must say I was not aware of such law. Could you perhaps expand on it? Why did he say so? Did it actually mean that no-one should go to the Shire or that no-one should bother them?

Tale of Years entry for 1427: 'King Elessar issues an edict that Men are not to enter the Shire, and he makes it a Free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre.'

[davem]

Originally Posted by lathspell

Well, as I recall Saruman wasn't their first experience of the world outside the Shire. Their has been the Fell Winter when the wolves crossed the river Isen and had to be fought be the Hobbits. THe Hobbits had also fought a battle against the orcs of mount Gundabad (when the Bullroarer invented the game of golf by hitting an orc's so hard it flew a hundred yards into the air and vanished in a rabbithole). And last, the passing of the Ringwraiths through the Shire would be an experience to remember as well, especially since buckland raised the alarm for the first time in ages. So, I don't think the Hobbits actually lost their innocence in this matter.

lathspell

I think the difference is that in the Saruman period some Hobbits went over to the 'other side' (Lotho, Sandyman, some of the Shirrifs, etc). It wasn't the fact that they'd suffered under Saruman & the ruffians, but the fact that they weren't a 'united folk' anymore. It was no longer a case of all pulling together to get through the bad times - some Hobbits would turn on their own for their own benefit. It would have been that betrayal that shocked them out of their innocence & complacency - which Hobbits could be trusted if a similar situation recurred?