Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
06-15-2004, 12:05 AM | #41 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Fordim I did not intend it to sound if I were to denounce your entire post. Points you list are verily very much valid. Evaluation you provide seems a bit misplaced only, for word 'co-dependence' bears an implication both parts, qualities that of Sauron and of average hobbit are both necessary, part of 'world order' somehow.
Yet application of rightful authority is a treat good in itself, and mastery/domination is just authority put to its extreme (as Kuruharan points out), its abuse and perversion. But if there were no abuse of authority, authority will not cease to exist, whilst if there were no authority in the first place, its abuse would not be possible either. Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence Per instance, militant complacency mentioned by Squatter in excellent post of his is abuse of self-confidence, and self-confidence is good in itself, if not taken to extreme. Magic re: more to be said when we reach 'Mirror of Galadrilel'. Brief note here - the whole talk of art/magic in the prologue seems to me to express Tolkien's desire to uproot in his reader notion of magic as something unnatural (or supernatural). Supernatural implies in itself something 'proceeding outside nature'. Such and outside intrusion may be called 'a miracle', but not magic. And there are several instances of such an intrusions into ME nature, and all by Eru himself. Now magic in ME, as I argued elsewhere (and here too), seems to be application of its practitioners inherent, natural abilities, and therefore should not be called 'magic' at all. That includes 'deceits of the Enemy' too.
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
06-15-2004, 12:07 AM | #42 | |||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
I'll take this to an extreme to illustrate. If the range stayed at exactly two feet then what if there was a race of giants that averaged 1,000,001 feet tall and nearly all of them fell between 1,000,000 and 1,000,002 feet? As you can see, the range is still two feet but if you stood the tallest and shortest giants next to each other you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But if there was a race of mini-hobbits that ranged between one millimeter tall and about 2.01 feet tall, there would be a huge difference if you stood them side by side, though the range was still two feet. Firefoot said what I'm thinking- Quote:
Quote:
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. Last edited by the phantom; 06-15-2004 at 06:57 AM. |
|||
06-15-2004, 07:20 AM | #44 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,499
|
Hobbit slums?!
A brief passage in the Prologue that troubles me is this one on the custom of living in holes, as only the richest and the poorest Hobbits did:
Quote:
And what causes the poverty? Natural catastrophes (droughts, etc.) have not occurred for a long time, the land is fertile, and there doesn’t appear to be much serious illness amongst Hobbits – so would it be due to laziness? Or is the tendency to have many children (feeding them is expensive, we hear later in the first chapter) one that creates poverty? Why is the poverty not alleviated by others? Apparently there are no social or health insurances, so if there is no other family member available, are the old and impoverished left uncared for? Many questions, and I have no answers. Is this something Tolkien didn’t think through to its conclusion?
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
|
06-15-2004, 07:34 AM | #45 | |
Banshee of Camelot
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5,830
|
Quote:
How do you suppose Tolkien thought the Hobbits would live in his time? (Since he hinted they were still around in the NorthWest of the old World, although rare and dwindled.) They could hide themselves, but what about their settlements and tilled fields ? edit: cross-posted with Estelyn. I agree, this bit about the poor hobbits living in primitive burrows, sounds disturbing, once I stop to think of it! And what about the very rich ones? Where did the fabulous wealth of Bilbo's father Bungo originally come from? The Shire isn't just a community of farmers... there are gentlehobbits and working class hobbits ...and even paupers? Really,the Shire is not all that idyllic as most people seem to think!
__________________
Yes! "wish-fulfilment dreams" we spin to cheat our timid hearts, and ugly Fact defeat! Last edited by Guinevere; 06-15-2004 at 08:00 AM. |
|
06-15-2004, 08:07 AM | #46 |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
Re: Poor Hobbits
If most of the arable land was already farmed out, and all the necessary crafts were already adequately filled, this could leave a proportion of the population without the means of making a living. This could cause poverty (statement of the obvious). I’d suppose that propertied members of the extended family would do their best to help, but they might have several groups of poor relatives to assist, and they would certainly not want to go without their six meals a day served on crystal dining-ware (let us be reasonable now )
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
06-15-2004, 08:34 AM | #47 |
Laconic Loreman
|
Tales and Legend
Guinevere this goes back to my first post. I agree I don't see a reason for the hobbits to lie. What happens is Tolkien writes in perspective. If he has Gandalf talking he thinks what would Gandalf say? It doesn't mean it is accurate or correct.
In the appendix of LOTR it stated how very few dwarves ever succumbed to sauron or morgoth, no matter what the tales of men say. Then it goes on to state how the men were jealous of the dwarves wealth. So, I think it is very possible that men found a reason to be "jealous" of hobbits so they made tales. Tolkien often writes this way which makes his characters have their own "identity" and really pulls you into the story. You just kind of got to remember when someone says something from the book that is their opinion on it doesn't mean it is true. It very well could be true but not necessarily. Besides the example from the appendix there are no more I can think of off the top of my head where Tolkien uses the characters "perspective," but I know I've caught more than one. So if anyone else found one please feel free to add in. |
06-15-2004, 08:46 AM | #48 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Define "poorest". To me this conjures up just-a-little-smaller-than Number Three Bagshot Row (See Tolkien's watercolor of The Hill) which has two windows, one door, and a contract with the upscale neighbor for earning bread.
Sam is used to helping himself to Bilbo's beer, although he is no stranger to the Inn's beer either. I'd suppose he gets a wage; does he also get meals onsite? I wonder if it is a question of priorities. Lothlorien elves live in simple flets, not because they *can't* do better, but because they prefer nature. Why expand your home when you'd rather be outdoors anyway? Edit: Boromir88, good point-of-view!
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
06-15-2004, 09:06 AM | #49 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
HerenIstarion wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Hobbits are curious to some degree about the world beyond their borders - Sam has heard abouts Oliphaunts. In the poems from the Red Book contained in the Adventures of Tom Bombadil there are accounts of othe lands & races. I think they simply became too inward looking, & caught up in their own affairs, rather than deliberately cutting themselves off, then, eventually, the outside world would come to seem alien to them. But I wouldn't describe them as not being curious - I think they were intensely curious about whatever they felt safe with - the land, plants, animals - woods, fields, little rivers. They preffered order, but not in the way or to the extent that Sauron did. They loved diversity, but struggled with it if they were suddenly confronted with things beyond their experience. I can't see any similarity between Hobbits at their worst, & Sauron, & I can't see that Tolkien wants us to. As to 'poor Hobbits', well, their society is not perfect. Even within the Shire there is distrust of Hobbits from other areas. We don't know enough about their society or economy. I would speculate that large areas of the Shire were either not owned by anyone or owned in common, so I don't think anyone would have been denied access to natural resources. And if your idea of home is a hole in the ground, all you need is a shovel, & an axe to make yourself a place to live. And we can't assume that any hobbits would live in a permanent state of poverty. |
||
06-15-2004, 12:29 PM | #50 | |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
mark12_30 and davem, to my mind, bring up an interesting point.
Poverty might only be in comparison with the wealthy hobbits. It does not necessarily mean that the poorest hobbits lacked the means of survival. Even if a poor hobbit’s extended family could not be of help, I think that other members of the community would step in to prevent crippling deprivation. Quote:
However, I don’t know if there is much to support either view. A glance at the map of the Shire shows that the hobbits were at least spread out over the area, but I suppose that does not necessarily imply that they were thick on the ground everywhere.
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
|
06-15-2004, 12:41 PM | #51 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Quote:
~gave both the Gaffer and Samwise jobs as gardeners, despite his own proclivity to gardening. He could just as well have done it himself. And probably more hobbits too, for cleaning and the like. ~Paid them well ~Question to the rest of you: did Bilbo actually own Bagshot row? If he did, he gave hem free housing. If not... well then disregard this. ~Like it was mentioned earlier, Sam apperantly had free reign where the beer stores were concerned ~And Bilbo taught Sam to read and write, something he would not have had the opportunty to do otherwise. So things can't have been all bad. I simply can't picture a permenently homeless hobbit. Quote:
I have a cheap little copy of the Ring that I always wear around my neck. I constantly have it subconciously on a finger. And it's not even evil and whispering to me. More on this when we get to the end, but Frodo was indeed, good. As was Bilbo, Boromir and probably Isildur. The Ring, obviously an evil object, corrupted them all. And look at Smeagol. He was corrupted by the Ring almost before he set eyes on it. I don't think he was a very good person to begin with. This is just my opinion, now. I've got no proof behind it, other than the fact that he was under the influence of the Ring before anyone else was. But Evil contains the seeds of its own demise. When Sauron made the Ring, he made himself stronger, and capable of controlling others. But he also made something that could be easily lost and destroyed. And, indeed, it was. If not for the Ring, Sauron may never have been destroyed.
__________________
I drink Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters! ~ Always remember: pillage BEFORE you burn. |
||
06-15-2004, 02:44 PM | #52 | ||
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
I've a short series of thoughts besides that of the heights of hobbits (although I have indeed thought about the image of a 2 foot hobbit running around the Men in Bree). Of the quotation, all boldings and italics are my own, and I did indeed slice a few words out here and there.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
||
06-15-2004, 03:10 PM | #53 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Parochialism and Population....
I wanted to add two brief caveats to this thread: one regarding Hobbit parochialism and the other Hobbit population.
Several writers (including myself!) have commented on the Shire's parochialism, the Hobbit's tendency to look within their own community, to enjoy prosperity and to ignore what was happening outside. The Prologue stresses the peace and prosperity of the Shire before the War of the Ring, yet this was a relatively recent development. As late as 2911, the Shire faced a serious problem with famine, wolf attacks, and frigid weather, an event suggesting that true complacency and prosperity only occurred about 100 years prior to the events of LotR. (Interestingly, Tolkien refers in his prologue to a "long" period of Shire prosperity going back to the Long Winter of 2758, and doesn't mention the major problems of the Fell Winter in 2911 that do appear in his appendix.) In any case, it's clear the Hobbits hadn't always had the "luxury" of being able to shut out the world. Between 1050 TA and 2340 TA, there were four separate Hobbit migrations, when significant segments of the community packed up everything and moved to find a new home. The prologue and/or appendix mention the Great Plague of 1636, the wars of 1974-75, the Long Winter of 2758, and the Fell Winter of 2911 as other events originating from outside that disturbed the peace of the Shire. The Fell Winter was no easy thing: the Hobbits dealt with famine, wolf attacks, and bitter cold. It is likely that the Rangers helped them turn back the wolves. Bilbo would have been just 21 years old. (What a great RPG that would be!) So it was only in the past 100 years that the Hobbits forgot about the Rangers and became a sheltered, complacent and parochial people, something of which Gandalf disapproved. The istar's wonderful words in UT say it all about parochialism and hint at an earlier time when this was not the case: Quote:
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 06-15-2004 at 03:28 PM. |
|
06-15-2004, 04:11 PM | #54 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
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? |
06-15-2004, 05:38 PM | #55 | ||||
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
||||
06-15-2004, 06:08 PM | #56 | ||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Quote:
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.... Quote:
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?
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 06-15-2004 at 06:33 PM. |
||
06-15-2004, 07:26 PM | #57 | ||
Wight
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Avalon
Posts: 211
|
Mind if I join in?
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...
Quote:
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: Quote:
~Carnie~
__________________
"When you talk, people can't tell if you're spelling the words right." Sister of The Elf Warrior |
||
06-15-2004, 07:39 PM | #58 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Child, you wrote
Quote:
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). |
|
06-15-2004, 07:53 PM | #59 | |
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
|
06-15-2004, 08:25 PM | #60 | |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Them there lying halflings
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:
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
|
06-15-2004, 08:58 PM | #61 | |
Illusionary Holbytla
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,547
|
Hobbit liars...
Quote:
And maybe this is just because I have a problem with lying hobbits... |
|
06-15-2004, 08:58 PM | #62 |
A Shade of Westernesse
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The last wave over Atalantë
Posts: 515
|
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 ).
__________________
"This miserable drizzling afternoon I have been reading up old military lecture-notes again:- and getting bored with them after an hour and a half. I have done some touches to my nonsense fairy language - to its improvement." Last edited by Son of Númenor; 06-15-2004 at 09:24 PM. |
06-15-2004, 11:01 PM | #63 | ||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Son of Numenor -
Quote:
There are several points in Tolkien's writings that suggest conscious lies were far from the norm. Why would Tolkien make such a "big deal" about Bilbo's alteration of his story on how he got the Ring if telling lies was a normal feature of Hobbit life? The very fact that this was chosen as an example of the power of the Ring, that a Hobbit would lie and alter a story under the influence of a powerful talisman of evil, suggests the opposite to be true: such behavior, that of conscious lying, was not regarded as normal. Secondly, if we accept Tolkien at face value, then Bilbo was the author of the early part of the Red Book including the reference to Hobbit Bowmen. The prologue does give the impression of being Tolkien's personal introduction to the Red Book. But, even so, Tolkien would have had to get the data from Bilbo, since he does not claim to have other sources. Given this context, it is quite extraordinary that Bilbo would have included a detail that the presence of the Hobbit archers was not corroborated by any of the Big Folk. If anything, it would seem to indicate that Bilbo was being scrupulously honest as an author by telling his readers that, although he has heard this tale, it can not be verified in any other way. Thirdly, just look at the tale of the Scouring of the Shire. What was the chief "sin" of Ferny and his men? One could well argue that their most blatant shortcoming was that they were bald faced "liars". Whatever words the outsiders used, they twisted the meaning of these in clever ways. Thus, they came up with a long list of "Rules" supposedly for the Hobbits' benefit, when their real intention was to haul off all the goodies. Why portray the "bad guys" as lying if this same behavior is part of the normal culture of the Shire? It doesn't make sense. ************************** In regard to Hobbit "poverty"..... There is no doubt that the Shire was a stratified society, just as was true of rural Edwardian and Victorian England. Wealth was presumably based on land, which some folk had and others didn't. Yet, the writings give no hint of anything equivalent to Dickens: terrible abuses, children going hungry, and people turning to criminal behavior because they had no option. The only indication of this type of discord is in the period prior to the Scouring when Saruman and Ferny and their types took things over and hauled off the harvest so the hobbits were left with very little. The only other examples of such hardship that I can think of were the Long Winter and, by implication, the Fell Winter when the harvests totally failed. What we do have is several indications that the Hobbits as a whole were fairly generous. Bilbo's treatment of Samwise has already been cited. There is also a telling statement by Gandalf in regard to the Shire that occurs in UT, which indicates Hobbits had a gift for sharing things with each other: Quote:
Is such an idealized picture of a rural society 'realistic'? To be truthful, no, at least in terms of the world that I live in. As a historian, I can cite examples of real hardship resulting from the inequitable distribution of wealth in the very period which Tolkien loosely uses as his model for the Shire. And I have played in a few Middle-earth RPGs where questions of poverty and injustice are investigated even in the so-called 'good' Shire. But, if I confine myself to Tolkien's writings alone -- not "real life" or my own fanciful flights of imagination -- then I have to admit that, while I see differences in social classes, possessions, and amount of land held, I have no hint of real hardship except in those rare instances of famine caused by natural disaster. ~Child, "Defender of the Hobbits"
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 06-16-2004 at 12:26 PM. |
||
06-15-2004, 11:39 PM | #64 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,977
|
Who writes the histories? My soapbox
A rather late and incomplete response to this general question of whether Hobbit archers did or did not attend a certain battle.
Whenver I read this, I think automatically about the contribution which Canadian soldiers made on the D-Day, June 6th assault on the beaches of Nazi-held France. Yes, yes, indeed. The Canadians had their own beach, Juno beach. But you know what? That wasn't as big a newstory as the beaches taken by the Brits or the Yanks, where the 'really big shews were' to paraphrase Ed Sullivan. I cannot tell you the numer of times that I have read newspaper or magazine reports of D-Day which refer solely to the British and American efforts. Small little unimportant Canada doesn't get a mention. I recall particularly an essay in a Norton Anthology of Essays about D-Day. A footnote commemorated the American and British efforts, without a word about the Canadian troups at Juno. (Let alone the various other battles such as at Caen which the Canucks won. Or the fact that, in World War I, it was a major Canadian offensive which began the last Hundred Days' battle which finally ended that war. Or Ypres.) My point, other than personal jingoism? That history is written by the victors and their successors and when circumstances change, the successors may not necessarily bother with what really happened but might be more concerned with the alliances and allies and rapprochments of the current age in which they live. Why did the annals of the Men make no mention of the Hobbits? Oh, I bet they were there alright. At the battle. But maybe memory of them faded as contact dwindled or their importance to Men lessened as Men regain their strength. Like the contributions of women throughout history, that of the hobbits became invisible. (oh, the irony here. ) And good empiricists simply shrug that the evidence is not as fullsome as they would like.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
06-15-2004, 11:44 PM | #65 | |
Beloved Shadow
|
wait, there's more coming
Quote:
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. To convey a false image or impression. Either Bree discovered things first or the Shire did. Whoever didn't but said they did is doing exactly what the definitions above state. And if they didn't really send archers then someone (likely several someones) definitely lied big time. The problem is most people have this messed up opinion about what a lie is. It's like they think lies have to be malicious or something. Well, they don't. If I meet some girl and in order to impress her I tell her some stories about things I've done but exaggerate a bit and make myself look better, that's lying just as much as a murderer denying he murdered someone and inventing an alibi. I'm not trying to say hobbits are evil, merely that they don't always stick to the truth. Now I don't want to get ahead here, but just wait until the next couple chapters. Remember when Bilbo is giving away presents and moving out of Bag End? I recall that Merry was kept very busy trying to stop hobbits from stealing things, buying things that weren't for sale, and knocking holes in the walls. What a bunch of criminals!
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. Last edited by the phantom; 06-16-2004 at 07:14 AM. |
|
06-16-2004, 12:13 AM | #66 |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Hobbits as "criminals" and tracking modern hobbits...
Phantom,
Well, what can I say? I never claimed Hobbits were perfect (nor did Tolkien)! In fact, he once explicitly denied this in his Letters. Since objects seem to change hands frequently in the Shire, one mathom here or there doesn't seem to make a difference! I say this only half in jest, since objects seemed to change hands regularly in the Shire between people of all stations in life. Moreover, the "mayhem" you refer to was not the result of some diabolical plot or series of lies, but the natural outgrowth of the Hobbits' generous custom of giving away things to people on their own birthday coupled with their own attachment to their possessions. One gets the sense that Bilbo could be incredibly generous but still had a minor streak of possessiveness even before the Ring. He was probably not unique in this regard. Tolkien stood back with a gentle smile on his face, viewing the disorder and the pranks of the children, human/hobbit foibles that he could surely understand. This is intended to be funny, precisely because it was not the kind of raid, pillage, and lies that appear later in the book. This is a difference that Tolkien assumed his reader would share in the humor and understand. Now, on that question Guinevere raised earlier on the thread concerning the Hobbits in the modern world.... I can't say where they are in 2004, but there is an interesting hint in a treatise written by Michael Aislabie Denham between 1846 and 1859 entitled "When the Whole Earth was Overrun with Ghosts". Look at the second paragraph from the bottom, nine lines up, and you will see a clear reference to "hobbits" who, according to the author, lived seventy or eight years before, which would date them as late as 1780. Click here. I seriously wonder whether JRRT ever read this and it sank into a dark corner of his head, later retrieved when he was writing those exam papers. ************* Fordim - I certainly concur that because LotR has "hobbit" narrators we are given a certain viewpoint, and that it's interesting to consider how that viewpoint influenced the narrative as we discuss the chapters. In the Silm we also have a unique view--that of the Elves,-- since Bilbo apparently did a job of simple compilation rather than reconstructing the entire narrative. Both books are "limited" as well as enriched by their unique perspective. Rather, my differences come in the other issue you raise: to what extent is the hobbit view specifically provided by Bilbo, Frodo, and Samwise marked by a parochial outlook, implicit acceptance of lies, and a possible tendency to look down their noses at other cultures. I don't see it. This seems to me to be the opposite of what Tolkien was trying to get across.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 06-16-2004 at 07:40 AM. |
06-16-2004, 12:47 AM | #67 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
From the '37 Hobbit:
Quote:
Its interesting that he would claim that magic rings were once 'less uncommon', & expected his readers (& Gandalf) to believe that at one time they were actually so common that even Hobbits would give them to each other as birthday presents! Did he expect his readers to believe that there was once a time when individuals in possesion of magic rings were appearing & disappearing at will? .. |
|
06-16-2004, 06:45 AM | #68 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Bethberry wrote:
Quote:
Archery is important, but not glamorous. I don't wonder that archers were forgotten. Especially little archers, probably dressed in green.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
06-16-2004, 07:28 AM | #69 | ||
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
Look Out, Sir!!!
Quote:
The Dunadan were famous in the golden days of yore for their steelbows. To anticipate matters somewhat, the Gondorians were willing to rely heavily on the bow in their warfare in Ithilien, and certain areas of Gondor seemed to be famous for their bowmen. It is hard to make a comparison of the attitudes of the Arnorians regarding the bow since their society had sort of ceased to exist. Whether hobbit bows would have been much use against armored enemies might be a matter for wild and unfounded speculation (particularly if the hobbits were only two feet tall ). Quote:
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
||
06-16-2004, 07:31 AM | #70 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,977
|
Little green men, Helen! Trust our balroggie fan girl to come up with a hotness rating for weapons.
I think there was one battle in Britiannia's past that was determined by the long bow, no? I could be mistaken. There are a couple of questions about "this very specific lens" which has not yet been considered. When was it written or added to the typescript? Before "The Long Expected Party" or after the book proper was completed? I can understand how the Appendices came about. I wonder what urges prompted Tolkien to offer a short history of Hobbits as a prologue to the story. What was to be gained? Why not just let Bilbo's party speak for Hobbits? Or was it necessary to prepare the 'fiction' that this is recorded history, recorded by representatives of a group of people who did not write histories and in conjunction with other peoples who did? And necessary to recap The Hobbit?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bêthberry; 06-16-2004 at 07:40 AM. |
06-16-2004, 07:47 AM | #71 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Quote:
This is the question I raised in an earlier post that no one picked up on: when were the different sections of the prologue written? The only one I can find evidence for in HoMe is section i which was written at the point in the narrative when the Hobbits were reaching Bree. At that point Tolkien actually yanked things out of chapters already written. This suggests that the entire prologue was a later addition. Another reason for raising this question is that there is at least one inconsistency in the prologue with other things in the book (possiubly more?). Tolkien refers in the prologue to a long period of prosperity in the Shire that he says goes back to the Long Winter. Yet, this conflicts with evidence in the Appendix: just 100 years before when Bilbo was a young Hobbit there had been the Fell Winter when wolves invaded the Shire and there was bitter cold. That was not too very long ago. Why was this not mentioned in the prologue? Can anyone find any other information on the dating of the prologue?
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 06-16-2004 at 07:51 AM. |
|
06-16-2004, 08:19 AM | #72 |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
HoME XII is the relevant reference. The earliest form of the Prologue, then titled "Foreword: Concerning Hobbits", dates from 1938-9 (this version is printed in HoME VI). Much new material was added to wind up with the Prologue as it now stands, but a glancing history of the text indicates that it was developed concordantly with the rest of the book. For instance, "Concerning Pipeweed" began as "a lecture on the subject by Merry to Théoden at the ruined gates of Isengard".
|
06-16-2004, 08:32 AM | #73 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,977
|
Thanks Child and Mr. Underhill for your comments. Sorry that I had missed your earlier query, Child. I am rushed these days. I have only three volumes of HoME. They cost, in paperback, $25 here.
So, the Prologue was written concurrently and finalised after the book was finished. Likely then it became an apparatus like the Appendices to establish the fiction of recorded history and to incorporate material which Tolkien felt would ruin or disrupt the pattern of the narrative. He had so much to juggle!
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
06-16-2004, 08:44 AM | #74 | |
A Shade of Westernesse
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The last wave over Atalantë
Posts: 515
|
Quote:
__________________
"This miserable drizzling afternoon I have been reading up old military lecture-notes again:- and getting bored with them after an hour and a half. I have done some touches to my nonsense fairy language - to its improvement." Last edited by Son of Númenor; 06-16-2004 at 08:47 AM. |
|
06-16-2004, 08:50 AM | #75 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Avalon
Posts: 211
|
Hmmm, I wonder why the Prologue could not have just been part of the Appendices? It's written in much the same style as the appendices, and like them it deals with the nitty-gritty history of certain aspects of Middle-earth. I'm sure that sounds heretical, but there must be a logical reason that escapes the scope of my simple mind...
Oh my, I knew that in the old version of The Hobbit Gollum led Bilbo out of the cave, but I had never read it. Thanks for posting that, davem! Quote:
~Carnimírië, she of the red jewels~
__________________
"When you talk, people can't tell if you're spelling the words right." Sister of The Elf Warrior |
|
06-16-2004, 08:57 AM | #76 |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
Christopher Tolkien's analysis indicates a very fluid development within the various relevant texts. Material would be yanked out of a chapter where it was presumably disrupting the flow and moved to the Prologue. An inspiration in the drafting of the Prologue would lead to alterations in the story proper. An idea that popped up in the Appendices would then propagate back through the story and the Prologue. And so on. Lots of revising and rewriting and conforming one new draft to another. Typical Tolkien.
Looking at the Prologue from a more "meta" point of view, it's a bold and fascinating authorial choice. Part of Middle-earth's enduring appeal lies in its verisimilitude -- its quality of seeming to be real or true. I think it's interesting that Tolkien foresaw the usefulness of a Prologue to set the stage from very early on. This lengthy chunk of exposition has the effect of establishing a tone of historical authenticity. It's a way of telling you, "This all really happened." The flavor of it matches the tone of prologues found in real history books -- authoritative, meticulous, able to take a somewhat detached, amused view of its subject. In a very economical way, Tolkien is able to suggest a broad and deep history of Middle-earth, of which the following tale will only examine a relatively small -- though significant -- part. It's a bold move which risks boring the reader before the story has properly begun. Certainly in today's publishing world, where the mantra is "Show Don't Tell", Tolkien would be obliged to battle tooth and nail to open his tale in this way. P.S. -- Canadians fought in WWII? P.P.S. -- Cross-posting with Carnimírië. Perhaps my musings have somewhat addressed your question. |
06-16-2004, 10:55 AM | #77 |
Haunting Spirit
|
What I enjoyed about The Prolouge was how Mr. Tolkein described humans. The Big People, we were called. I wondered though if he wrote that part last because the Hobbits were said to be disappearing. Or maybe it was written as if the story had taken place a very long time ago. Yeah, that's it. ...I think.
__________________
"For God's sake Ed, just take the stupid call!" said Justin. "Hello, Mum, I'm on stage," said Ed casually. "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGH!" screamed Justin. |
06-16-2004, 11:14 AM | #78 | ||
Mighty Mouse of Mordor
|
The "not so idyllic" place where the Liars dwell?? =P
Fordim Hedgethistle wrote;
Quote:
Phantom wrote: Quote:
I'm convinced ( ) that Hobbits aren't evil. Didn't we just say that they wanted peace and quiet? That there never has been a Hobbit who has killed another Hobbit/anyone else (until the sourcing)? I wouldn't say that Hobbits "lies" are malicious. I'd say that Hobbits "tell many things, but not always the whole truth.” That’s different things, but they can be mixed sometimes. ** Okay, I may have been a bit off topic here. I apologise. Cheers, Orofaniel
__________________
I lost my old sig...somehow....*screams and shouts* ..............What is this?- Now isn't this fun? >_< .....and yes, the jumping mouse is my new avatar. ^_^ |
||
06-16-2004, 12:21 PM | #79 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Carnimírië -
Quote:
Mr. Underhill - Thanks so much for those references and for your ideas on why these materials were placed in a prologue. I had read the material in HoMe VI as the basis of my post but wasn't aware of the materials in XII. I do have the volume, but have yet to master the contents of HoMe; the chapter XIII index only shows references for the prologue in VI. I think your words about authorial choice are key. This would explain the one example I raised. Tolkien omitted reference to the Fell Winter and dated the Shire's peaceful period all the way back to the Long Winter precisely because he wanted to use the prologue to establish the prosperity and complacency of the Shire for a long period---250 years-- prior to the War of the Ring. The Fell Winter that occurred in Bilbo's own lifetime was just too close for that purpose so it remained peacefully 'hidden' in the appendix. The prologue is similar to the foreward in certain respects. We can clearly hear the author's voice in establishing some basic themes; he carefully picked what he wanted to tell us and relegated other material to the appendices. Mr. Underdown - I think you are right in saying the prologue was a "risk". One of the most frequent "complaints" about the book, even among those who enjoy it, is that the beginning chapters are too "slow". I have heard this said any number of times. Presumably this complaint about the pacing of the early part of the book also refers to the prologue. In a sense it is the prologue that establishes the tone and pace of the early chapters, Frodo's rootedness in the Shire (which becomes more understandable in light of all this Hobbit information in the prologue) and his delays and excuses to keep from leaving. My guess is that a modern publisher would have told him that a single foreward is quite enough, and ask him to toss most of the detail back into the appendices, perhaps sparing a point or two with the suggestion that it be tacked onto the foreward.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 06-16-2004 at 12:39 PM. |
|
06-16-2004, 01:14 PM | #80 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Orofaniel -- I don't think that the Shire is terribly 'flawed'. I would live there in a second, given the option; but I do think that after a very short while I would begin to go mad looking for the kind of discussion and inquisitiveness that characterises communities like the BD! I would also chafe against the provicialism of the place and await with great joy the arrival of the occaisional visitor from outside for a piece of news. I'm also not so sure I would enjoy the rather strict class system, no matter how benign it might be.
Still, like I said, the Shire is a better place than just about any I can think of in the Primary World and well worth the struggles of those who give so much to protect it, even if their struggles go unnoticed. Herm -- there's a balace isn't there, in that? The hobbits might be ignored by the other peoples, but the hobbits return the favour. . . Child -- very interesting point about the apparent discrepancy between the Prologue and appendices regarding the long prosperity, versus the set-backs. Is it possible that the Prologue is giving an overview ("everything was generally pretty good") and the appendices are more particular? I mean, we still refer to post-war North America as enjoying unprecedented prosperity and stability, despite things like the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the recessions of the early 80s and 90s, etc etc |
|
|