[The Saucepan Man]

Gadzooks! Who would have thought that so much could be written about the Prologue over such a short space of time, and still remain so pertinent and interesting. Kudos to all those posting. There are some fascinating points made here.

I’m playing catch-up again so, as is my wont, I’m just going to go ahead and post my thoughts on reading the Prologue (most of which have already been noted by others to some degree) and then pick up on one or two points made by others. As always, apologies for the length.

I love the way that the Prologue is so Hobbit-centric (to borrow Fordim’s phrase), largely because I love Hobbits. And it makes sense that it should be, given that LotR was written (originally at least) as a sequel to The Hobbit in response to calls from readers to learn more about Hobbits. Here, before the story has even begun, Tolkien is satisfying that demand from his existing readers.

The question of why not include this information in the Appendices was raised and has, I think, been well answered by Mr Underhill, Firefoot and Fordim, among others. I agree with the point that, like the First Forword, it draws us into the story by seeking to persuade us of the “fiction” that this all really happened and was compiled by the Hobbits in the Red Book of Westmarch. But what really struck me, on reading the Prologue, was the way in which it establishes an understanding of the nature of the characters that are to be central to the story. By doing so, Tolkien helps us identify with them and ensures that we are not surprised when they behave as they do in the story. This process manifests itself in a number of ways in the Prologue.

First and foremost, Hobbits are established as likeable characters. They are described as a merry folk, good-natured and hospitable, who dress in bright colours, have mouths apt to laughter, delight in parties and are fond of simple jests. As Bêthberry says, they appreciate leisure. Yes, they have their vices, such as drinking, smoking and eating a lot, but these are themselves endearing (at least to me, as someone who indulges all three – perhaps that’s why I like Hobbits so much ). And their less endearing flaws (their parochialism and isolationism are mentioned here frequently) are not played up in the Prologue, or at least not in such a way as to cancel out the positive qualities with which we are presented. In short, given the way that Hobbits are presented to us here, how could we not fail to like them and look forward to hearing more about their adventures?

The Prologue also helps us, the readers, to identify with these charming folk, from whom the central characters of the story are drawn. Even though Hobbits are described as being scared of the Big Folk, they are nevertheless identified as being closer to us than Elves or Dwarves. They are “normal” (and therefore not flawless, as has been noted), certainly moreso than the likes of the noble Aragorn and the lofty Elves, much as we may admire their qualities. And, in being described as such right at the outset, the Hobbit characters collectively become the “everyman” with whom the reader can closely identify in this enchanting, but often frightening, world. This sense is, I think, heightened by the fact that their society and way of living seems anachronistic in comparison with the rest of Middle-earth, as HerenIstarion noted.

Others too have touched on this point in their posts. Davem said:

I do think its interesting the way Tolkien wishes to deny any speculation about 'magic' as regards Hobbits. Maybe he feels that the reader may form the impression that they are supernatural creatures (HOBgoblins, HOBthrusts, HOBhounds - all supernatural creatures from folklore), so he's attempting to disabuse us of the idea, & emphasise their ordinaryness - they're 'relatives of ours'.

To which mark12_30 interestingly replied:

I had often thought his insistence a little odd, but considered this way it's quite comforting.

Child said:

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.

And Fordim, in musing upon the parallels between Hobbit nature and the nature of evil, said:

They are not ‘pure’ manifestations of natural ‘good’ who can be corrupted, but – like ‘us’ – regular and normal people who are capable of both “magic” and “art”, “Rules” and freedom, “order” and “contradictions”, generosity and possessiveness.

Fordim also suggested that we learn about ourselves by learning about the Hobbit characters and this, I think, is because they are presented in such a way that we are able closely to identify with them.

And, having presented us with these likeable folk with whom we, the readers, can identify, Tolkien goes on to outline those additional Hobbitish characteristics which, while not immediately apparent, are nevertheless of utmost importance to the storyline. They are described as “curiously tough”, “difficult to daunt or kill”, and able to “survive rough handling by grief, foe or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well”. This helps to explain how the central Hobbit characters, despite being from a diminutive and fun-loving race, are able to endure the incredible suffering and hardship which each of them undergoes on the Quest. (A similar picture was painted of Bilbo when Gandalf described him as being “as tough as a Dragon in a pinch” or something similar, although it is addressed in a more light-hearted manner – as indeed are the travails which Bilbo undergoes.) It also helps explain why, despite being uncomfortable with things with which they are not familiar (a result of their parochial nature), they are nevertheless resilient and adaptable when confronted with them. As Fordim said, although Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin (as well as Bilbo) are extraordinary characters:

… their ability to do good in the war against evil is here, I think, being set up as being the result of their Hobbit-natures.

This also helps to explain their unique resilience to the corruptive properties of the Ring.

Of course, we do not need Tolkien to tell us about their resilient nature in the Prologue to make them believable characters, but these passages in the Prologue do aid our understanding of the Hobbit characters and the way in which they interact with others and react to events in the story. And it also helps us understand how, once galvanised by Sam, Merry and Pippin, the Hobbit folk are able to rise up so effectively against their oppressors in the Scouring of the Shire.

I would also agree with those who have said that, by presenting the Shire as an idyllic setting, the reader is able understand exactly what it is the Hobbits are fighting for, both throughout the Quest and during the Scouring. Son of Numenor put this very well when he said:

The prologue, in my opinion, serves to highlight the idyllic, pastoral quality (and also the simpleness and 'smallness') of the Shire, perhaps even moreso than the actual book chapters that take place in the Shire. It lays the groundwork for why four hobbits are willing to fight to preserve their homeland, and ultimately serves as an illustration of why Frodo can never be at peace in the Shire after destroying the Ring.

**********************

On a slightly different point, it is interesting how much Tolkien gives away about the outcome of the story in the Prologue, at least as regards the fates of the characters. As Lyta said:

It almost seems as if the prologue is an epilogue as well! It hints at the connections of Meriadoc and Peregrin with Rohan and Gondor, tells us that Frodo indeed lives to complete a history of the War of the Ring and that there are considerations made for the "children of Samwise."

We learn that each of the four central Hobbit characters survives the events with which the story is concerned. The same applies to Faramir, since reference is made to his grandson Barahir. I find this particularly interesting, given that the narrative (deliberately) leads us to believe, at various points in the story, that four of these characters (Frodo, Faramir, Merry and Pippin) die, or are on the verge of dying. I don’t recall this affecting my sense of suspense (particularly as I specifically remember mourning Pippin’s “death” when I first read the book), but perhaps I didn’t read the Prologue first time round, or perhaps I just didn’t pick up on these references. Does anyone else remember having had the suspense of these characters’ apparent or imminent deaths “spoiled” by the knowledge which they gained from the Prologue?

**********************

On a very minor point, I love the reference to “wild folk and wicked things” having “not heard of the King”. This ties up with a comment made by Bilbo in The Hobbit to that effect, and nicely explains why he said it, despite the region having had no king for a good many years.

**********************

Finally, a quick response to Estelyn’s point:

This brings a vision of Hobbit slums to my mind that disturbs me greatly! How does that go with their friendliness and peacefulness, with the familial ties they hold high? Is Tolkien thinking of the Biblical “The poor you have always with you”? Is it inevitable that there will be poverty, and the kind described by Tolkien is great poverty indeed, even among a society with so many idyllic traits?

And what causes the poverty?

Like Child, Kuruharan and others, I don’t think that Tolkien was here describing extreme poverty (at least as regards the times in which Bilbo, Frodo et al lived). The Shire is described as a society with a rigid class system (like England at the time he was writing), but one very much at ease with such a system (unlike England). The “poorest” Hobbits were simply to be contrasted with the more well-off. They were not, I think, desperately poor, in the sense of living on the breadline. It is, of course, an ideal, like the Shire itself, and couldn’t exist in real life, since the rich are rarely the philanthropists that Tolkien suggests most wealthy Hobbits are, and the laborious poor would no doubt resent the idle rich. (Or perhaps there were the seeds of a labour movement in the Shire – could be an interesting topic for the renowned Hobbit sociologist, Professor Marileangorifurnimalium .)