Fordim,
I agree with much of what you say. The point you raise about 'invisibility' is interesting. I can't help but wonder if that play on the word was "intentional" on the author's part. Moreover, as you state, Hobbits are not evil. But like other free peoples of LotR, they are "flawed", each race in different ways, and each share characteristics with Sauron.
However, at some point, I feel you may push the semblance too far:
Quote:
....there are a number of intents that the Hobbits have in common with Sauron:
Order
Invisibility
'using' the land
Rules
Again, I would argue that the difference is one of degree not kind -- yes, the Hobbits intend to establish order for the sake of a well-regulated life, and intend to use the land for 'good'. So they are emphatically not the same as Sauron, but they do share his desire for the above things.
|
I see this as more than a simple difference of degree. For example, the desire to garden and to tend the land, to beautify it and bring forth productive fruit, stems from goodness. Such an impulse can certainly be abused, but at its best this is an example of subcreation in natural rather than artistic terms.
Sauron's path was different in its origin. His acts were the opposite of subcreation and involved setting his own will in opposition to what was natural or true.
You can apply the same words to describe what Sauron and the Hobbits were doing, as your list suggests. But these are mere labels--not the thing itself. The two lists share no real common ground. Their origins, their wellspring are different: one springs from goodness, and the other the perversion of goodness. Only in abuse by a Hobbit could you forge an actual tie. This is not to say that abuse did not occur. Most certainly, it did. But that is different than seeing an overall similarity of kind.
It is possible our differences may stem from the way we are using words... I am not sure.
*************************
There is something no one else has mentioned on reading the prologue: how familiar and comfortable the Hobbits feel. I am certainly not the first reader to see this, but every time I read the prologue it strikes me. While the Hobbit perspective is not identical to my own, it's enough alike that I can identify with many of their desires and their shortcomings. There are hints of the goodness and failings in my own life, the small victories and numerous frustrations. Hobbits are not great "heroes" but folk whom I can understand, at least to some degree.
Today perhaps, we're more used to this device. Featuring the "small" character has become a stock usage in fantasy. But, way back then, it was not the norm. And I still feel Tolkien has done this as well as any other fantasy writer who has come since then.
*******************
Thirdly, when I read the prologue this time, I was extremely curious when the author had written it. After all, we'd just finished discussing the foreward in terms of its dating. It also struck me as strange that it was written in numbered parts.
I scrounged around and did find a hint in HoMe for the part of the prologue labelled "i". CT says his father did this just around the time that the Hobbits had reached Bree. Some things about hobbit holes were actually dredged out of the general manuscript and put back in the prologue.
This implies that the latter parts were written later (as well as the lengthy note at the end). But I couldn't find any reference to their composition. Does anyone know? There are certainly references to people and events that
had to come from later in the writing process.
To me, the prologue is like an old friend, full of names and hints of later developments. But I am wondering if maybe it's not so easy for the newbie, especially if they haven't read The Hobbit itself? Can anyone remember being confused by all these names and details on an early reading?
*************************
Squatter,
We cross posted. How interesting that our responses should be so different!
Yes, I can see the "littleness" of the Shire in more ways than one. Yet it is a world that I can understand in a way that Lothlorien or even Rivendell elude me.
I think Tolkien would very much have identified with the non-conformists Frodo and Bilbo, living in a world where they were surrounded by "smallness" while yearning for something more. And perhaps it is that which sticks with me. I can sense how the Shire would be stiffling. But what I remember with a smile is Bilbo out walking the paths, searching for Elves, while his neighbors gossipped about his actions.
It is that yearning, that search for more, which makes the Hobbits and the Shire appealing to me: Sam's love of Elven tales, Frodo's halting attempts to speak Elvish, how Elanor and Fastred journied out to new territory to live in the shadow of the Elven towers. Despite all the monotony and the parochialism of the Shire, we still find extraordinary people like this.
Tolkien was very aware of the limitations of Hobbits. At one point, he has harsh words to say about his character Sam as embodying the parochialism and short sightedness of the "typical" Hobbit. Yet the appeal of family, the beauties of nature and growing things, and the simple pleasures of home life seem to have overridden the more negative characteristics for him.