[Child of the 7th Age]

And so, pictures of England and Scotland look like the Shire to me, and as much as they do, I love them. No offense intended to anybody; but I do not love England for its own sake. I love it when (and if) it reminds me of hobbits, or Eriador, or Weathertop, or The Tower Hills.

Helen--

I think Tolkien himself would have agreed with you.

The Shire which Tolkien depicts is an admittedly idealized portrait. On at least one level, it's the author's view of what England ideally could have, or rather, should have been, not what it actually was.

In reality, Tolkien found many (perhaps most?) aspects of modern England unappealing and even distasteful. These didn't attract him in the slightest. He probably felt that this blight, scenic or otherwise, arose from values that had been ignored or even willfully abused. He found these things depressing, since they represented, at best, an England which had failed to live up to its potential and, at worst, an England which had been corrupted by evil. But he loved his country well enough to keep hunting in the nooks and crannies for those sparks of the "real" England.

Although the Shire represented the best parts of England, I would add that JRRT did not the deny the reality of evil even here. The Shire is idealized only in a relative sense. It is still part of Arda Marred. Small evils like gossip, possessiveness, sticking one's head in the sand, blindness to the desirability of spiritual or mental awakening--all these are evident in Hobbits, and these evils come from within, not from outside, the Shire.

But even with these shortcomings, the Shire still seems to many people as if it would be a pleasant place to live. That's one of the reasons that the ending at Grey Havens is so poignant. If the Shire had been a nasty place, we would have been cheering for Frodo to get on the boat and leave. But we aren't cheering. Our hearts are split; we can see that Frodo is going towards good, but he's also leaving good behind. This makes us sad, yet it's also realistic.

There's something that Lewis wrote which I think relates to this whole question of England and how the Shire represents the heart of England. Many years ago, I remember reading something in his sci fi trilogy about "Logres". For Lewis, every country had a true soul and a true name. Lewis called the true soul of England "Logres". And Tolkien's Shire embodies a little bit of Logres, I think.

There's an interesting difference between Tolkien and Lewis on this quest for the true soul of England. Lewis was always taking part in vigorous cross-country walks, way off the beaten track, searching for scenic hideouts. He'd take a backpack and go off with his friends on long hikes, sometimes staying overnight and stopping at country pubs.

JRRT didn't do much of this. But then, with four children, it's no wonder. His style was to find little hidden plces near his own home. Clyde Klby mentions that, in 1965, he was going with JRRT in a motor car on the main road between Oxford and London. I was on that same road several times in 1967-68, and I can tell you that, even then, it was very busy. Scenically, it really wasn't anything "special" by most people's standards (not like driving through the highlands of Scotland or the dales of Yorkshire!) Yet, on that short, bland trip, Tolkien "pointed out little hills to the north of us that, he said, were just right for Hobbit territory."

I, like many, am doomed to live in an urban area. With husband and children, my life experience is closer to that of Tolkien than Lewis. So I really do appreciate Tolkien's ability to find the hidden pieces of the real England (and by implication parts of Middle-earth) by driving down a main road and just fixing his gaze a little way off on the horizon. That is a rare gift of true seeing!

sharon

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]