Okay. I'll start with two thoughts from just the first pages of the chapter to get this rolling again. I probably have time tomorrow to read the rest of it and to hopefully join a discussion already on its way then...
The chapter begins with the description of Bilbo's reputation and stature in Hobitton. Now some said it was unfair that someone was so rich and blessed with such an old age
well-preserved.
Quote:
|
"It will have to be paid for," they said. "It isn't natural, and trouble will come of it!"
|
Now one might say here an author is laying grounds for what will come; kind of hinting to the future and the whole affair, setting the gloomy feeling to the background from where it would eventually come forth.
But is it also Tolkien's own world-view? Do good fortunes need to be earned? Is that the way how a rich man justifies his riches; by suffering or fulfilling a noble destiny? Or is it how things should be? Or is Tolkien just posing the question?
So, is there an eventual balance where normal life (Hobitton way) is easier or requires not the heroical sacrifices which in turn justify the more "nobler lifestyles" or opportunities?
Are there theological implications involved? The mainstream christians who just lead their lives and receive the grace with not too much effort or thought of it and then those existentially anguished romantical "burning souls" who need to take their fill which somehow makes their lives at the same time a torment but also much more rich and fulfilling?
A second thought.
Looking at Gaffer Gamgee one easily finds a servant venerating his master who in turn is "very polite" to him. Even if the relation between the two have been described as somewhat informal with a few examples (Bilbo calling Gaffer "Master Hamfast" etc.) one gets a relation of a servant and a master - however benevolent the master is towards his servant - and the servant is acknowleding his place however the master asks for advice from him.
But could you imagine a similar relationship between Frodo and Sam? In a sense, in the beginning of the journey, their relationship is something reminding one of that and Tolkien indeed keeps on reminding us of it throughout the story, oftentimes in Sam's lines and reactions.
But still in the end it's a lot different even if they never get to be kind of equals as Frodo was the Ringbearer and thence of "nobility" of sorts. But is that a same kind of difference? Sam is indeed given some bits and pieces of the nobility - through him bearing the ring for a while at least - and Frodo openly declares his worth by giving him the mastery of Bag End when he leaves.
What kind of intrigues me is that even if they journeyed along and faced all those troubles together - and Sam saved Frodo and the whole mission a few times - they didn't end up as equals even if they ended up as friends rather than just a master and a servant.
(Something which quite bugs me indeed is that Frodo treats Sam like one who is generous, loving, friendly - I'm not denying his earnest feelings of gratitude or friendship even - and Sam goes along the same route, being the one to receive the honour of being treated that way.)
Is the barrier un-breechable? And which barrier is it? Inherited
noblesse as a birthright? Fate-ordered thing? Just something growing from their different socio-economic backgrounds?
A third one just to lighten things up.
Don't you think Bilbo turning 111 and Frodo 33 on a same year is just a bit... well how does one say it... "fantasy-like"?
Like a bedtime-story or a fairy-tale where all the numbers must match (or Hegelian philosophy for that matter...
)? What did the story gain from that instead of Bilbo having his 114th birthday while Frodo turned 31? Is it a reminder that we're now entering the magical kingdom of myths and tales?