LOTR - classist?

[the.landlord]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I
It's not an accumulating number from year to year like that. Meaning in 2004 at 4% it doesn't rise to 8% in 2005 and then 12% in 2006...and so on. It's not a growth of 4% a year, it was simply 4% per year.

The 2004 study was based upon people born in 1974 (so 30 years before). It took those who were born in 1974, the social class of their parents and saw what their social class was in 2004. Which the studies showed that only 4% changed social classes (up or down), meaning 96% stayed in the same social class as their parents.

Following this pattern, in 2005 (unless if something dramatically changed) those who were born in 1975...around 4% of them would have been in a different class than that of their parents. Hope that clears some things up. It's not a growth of 4% every year, it's 4% per year.

oh, i see! i thought, that in 2004 4% of people where in a different class than they had been in 2003. i got you wrong.

[Lalwendë]

It's hard (maybe impossible?) for someone to descend lower than the class of their parents as upbringing is so important, though their own children may one day be considered of the lower class, due to probably not being brought up in the same environment or having the same opportunities. Although Upper Class people don't tend to be as subject to this as other classes are.

WCs: 'toilet' is Middle Class and lower (definitely not Upper Middle), 'loo' or 'lavatory' is solid Middle, 'bogs', 'khazis' and 'traps' are Working though popular words with young men of all classes, 'heads' is Upper. 'Bathroom' will get you puzzled looks from everyone.
Gnomes: Working Class all the way, though those who've clawed into the Lower Middle (see Gerald in The Full Monty) might still have them. Other classes only have them as 'ironic statements'.
Napkin Rings: the downfall of many would-be social climbers, these are only used by Lower Middles who have climbed from Working and actively want to go higher, but alas, using them reveals their social status, as nobody in higher classes would ever use them. In fact, the whole business of having or attending a dinner party is best avoided entirely in Britain as it offers so much potential for committing social faux pas.

This is part of why I love the start of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings so much, as they are filled with cringeworthy moments and social awkwardness.

[the.landlord]

interesting! do you have some other items for me and other people to guess?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Napkin Rings: the downfall of many would-be social climbers, these are only used by Lower Middles who have climbed from Working and actively want to go higher, but alas, using them reveals their social status, as nobody in higher classes would ever use them. In fact, the whole business of having or attending a dinner party is best avoided entirely in Britain as it offers so much potential for committing social faux pas.

interesting! who would have thought so? i always thoughjt that expensive napkin rings from silver would be way classy and ritzy.
but i would not avoid having a dinner party because of that. if i would want to have a dinner party and i would want to have napkin rings i will have a dinner party with napkin rings, no matter what it looks like. i do not care for napkin rings... but when i am having a party we drink wine from tetra paks, which is worse then 1000 napkin rings (i guess).

Middle-earth's "castes" were defined by metaphysical differences in each race from the others; for example, Elrond was greater than Bilbo not because of aristocratic privilege, but because he was inherently mightier and wiser by virtue of his elven nature.

Although I think it is a fruitless exercise--and probably unfair to Tolkien--to try to draw some conclusion about his socio-political beliefs from his highly fantastic fiction, it may still be telling that Tolkien identified himself most with the Hobbits, the "lowest" of all the free peoples.

[Mänwe]

Apart from the Shire Hobbits being an example for the possibility of social mobility in a society as Lalwendë has most aptly shown and still continues to do so. I would put forward that greatest of British sitcoms, "The Good Life" as another good case study.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Cave

Middle-earth's "castes" were defined by metaphysical differences in each race from the others; for example, Elrond was greater than Bilbo not because of aristocratic privilege, but because he was inherently mightier and wiser by virtue of his elven nature.

Now there's the rub. We have all these super-duper Elves swanning around with their superior beauty and superior crafts-elf-ship and superior fighting skills and superior lifespans etc. (they sometimes make me feel a bit sick to be honest, on a superficial level), and so what does this say about Race in Middle-earth? Of course some have said "Whoa! this makes Tolkien a racist!".

Except it doesn't, because right at the end of Lord of the Rings we learn something, and that's that it wasn't an Elf, nor was it a Wizard, nor was it a Dwarf, and nor was it a Man who destroyed the One Ring. It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now there's the rub. We have all these super-duper Elves swanning around with their superior beauty and superior crafts-elf-ship and superior fighting skills and superior lifespans etc. (they sometimes make me feel a bit sick to be honest, on a superficial level), and so what does this say about Race in Middle-earth? Of course some have said "Whoa! this makes Tolkien a racist!".

Except it doesn't, because right at the end of Lord of the Rings we learn something, and that's that it wasn't an Elf, nor was it a Wizard, nor was it a Dwarf, and nor was it a Man who destroyed the One Ring. It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

Yes, isn't it delicious how he has his cake and eats it too.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

And yet, do we see any elves getting really excited that they will travel and perhaps see some hobbits along the way? Or do we hear Merry saying "To sheep other sheep may look different, or perhaps to a Shepard, but we hobbits haven't had time to concern ourselves studying immortal beings"?

I think there was some inherent superiority by the elves, and one isolated case may just be the exception that confirms the rule.
After all:
All women but one stayed at home during the war, in fact it was a very special one that went to fight, not just any woman.
All hobbits but four never did anything "great". As a matter of fact, two of the four did their parts but did not go to Mordor, and the two that did, one was the servant of the other, thus it's only one "leading" hobbit that changed the world.

I think that, in Tolkien's work, there is a distinct class and racial hierarchy. But you know what? that is not a bad thing on itself. In spite of my apparent point before, we are given some examples that show that there is hope even for a hobbit gardener in The Shire. I don't think that these examples belie the very real and very present hierarchical structure of Middle Earth, both between and within races, but at least they show that there is hope for some change.

It's not even Meritocracy, as it doesn't really seem that Lotho S-B was very merit worthy... and yet, he did manage to buy-out many things and eventually become the chief. Sure, he was played by Saruman, but Lotho did raise through the standings of The Shire.

So, as I said before, I think there is a distinct class hierarchy in LoTR, and there is nothing wrong with it. We are talking about a story that takes place in a semi-medieval time, when Absolute Monarchy was the rule and there was no such thing as democracy. How would you feel if you read a book with a story in the medieval ages and the king said "Yo, homie... whadda think we gotta do with those Orcs? I wanna cap them all, but I ain't got no bling-bling to pay for the bang-bang"?

Quite a turn-off, eh? Same thing here, if the Steward of Gondor was elected it'd raise some eyebrows.... and, furthermore, if during the secret council Elrond would spend half a day giving a speech on why they should re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re... elect him as the leader of Rivendell, I think we would all have been mightily put-off.

To say that LoTR is classist because there is a clear class structure is akin to blaming violence in society on the music youth listens to. If anything, that music is a reflection of the violence that is already present, but the point of the music (at least the way I see it) is to provide a non-violent escape to that kind of impulses. Same thing here, the point of the class-system in LoTR (which to me IS a class system) is to show that, even in a class system, there is hope.

So, to wrap up everything I said in a couple words. Are there clear hieararchies both between and within races in LoTR? YES. Is there hope, in the LoTR world, for individuals in any rung of the hierarchy ladder to transcend their 'limits'? YES. Does that mean that the hierarchy structure is any lesser because there is an allowance for the eventual exception? NO.

At least, in my humble opinion.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Lal

because right at the end of Lord of the Rings we learn something, and that's that it wasn't an Elf, nor was it a Wizard, nor was it a Dwarf, and nor was it a Man who destroyed the One Ring. It was a Hobbit. supposedly the 'lowliest' of Races. It's at that point of realisation that we realise Tolkien's point that no Race was mightier than any other!

I can't say I agree with that. Frodo destroying the Ring does nothing to prove the might of any race or another. It proves that hobbits aren't useless, certainly, and that divinely inspired plans always work when tried no matter how insanely impossible they are.

But prove that all races were equally mighty? Surely not.

Here are some quotes to keep in mind.

Elrond-

This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere

This is obviously pointing towards the hobbits. As you can see from what is said, though the task may be accomplished by the hobbits, they remain "weak", not "strong", and are grouped with "small hands" rather than "the great".

And later-

This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the Great.

The "Shire-folk" are clearly not "the Great". Elrond's point is that hobbits will impact the world despite not being great.

What I'm trying to say is, Frodo's triumph doesn't, to me anyway, prove that hobbits are as mighty as the Elves. They're not. Elves are taller, stronger, faster, and prettier and make better clothes, boats, weapons, and food. Elves are mightier. And nothing in the story disproves that.

But, the story does indeed prove something about might. Not that all persons are equal in might, but rather...

Might is not always the most important thing.