LotR - Prologue

[HerenIstarion]

Fordim I did not intend it to sound if I were to denounce your entire post. Points you list are verily very much valid. Evaluation you provide seems a bit misplaced only, for word 'co-dependence' bears an implication both parts, qualities that of Sauron and of average hobbit are both necessary, part of 'world order' somehow.
Yet application of rightful authority is a treat good in itself, and mastery/domination is just authority put to its extreme (as Kuruharan points out), its abuse and perversion. But if there were no abuse of authority, authority will not cease to exist, whilst if there were no authority in the first place, its abuse would not be possible either. Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

Per instance, militant complacency mentioned by Squatter in excellent post of his is abuse of self-confidence, and self-confidence is good in itself, if not taken to extreme.

Magic re: more to be said when we reach 'Mirror of Galadrilel'. Brief note here - the whole talk of art/magic in the prologue seems to me to express Tolkien's desire to uproot in his reader notion of magic as something unnatural (or supernatural). Supernatural implies in itself something 'proceeding outside nature'. Such and outside intrusion may be called 'a miracle', but not magic. And there are several instances of such an intrusions into ME nature, and all by Eru himself. Now magic in ME, as I argued elsewhere (and here too), seems to be application of its practitioners inherent, natural abilities, and therefore should not be called 'magic' at all. That includes 'deceits of the Enemy' too.

[Kuruharan]

If most of the arable land was already farmed out, and all the necessary crafts were already adequately filled, this could leave a proportion of the population without the means of making a living. This could cause poverty (statement of the obvious). I’d suppose that propertied members of the extended family would do their best to help, but they might have several groups of poor relatives to assist, and they would certainly not want to go without their six meals a day served on crystal dining-ware (let us be reasonable now )

[Boromir88]

Guinevere this goes back to my first post. I agree I don't see a reason for the hobbits to lie. What happens is Tolkien writes in perspective. If he has Gandalf talking he thinks what would Gandalf say? It doesn't mean it is accurate or correct.

In the appendix of LOTR it stated how very few dwarves ever succumbed to sauron or morgoth, no matter what the tales of men say. Then it goes on to state how the men were jealous of the dwarves wealth. So, I think it is very possible that men found a reason to be "jealous" of hobbits so they made tales. Tolkien often writes this way which makes his characters have their own "identity" and really pulls you into the story. You just kind of got to remember when someone says something from the book that is their opinion on it doesn't mean it is true. It very well could be true but not necessarily.

Besides the example from the appendix there are no more I can think of off the top of my head where Tolkien uses the characters "perspective," but I know I've caught more than one. So if anyone else found one please feel free to add in.

[davem]

HerenIstarion wrote:

Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

I have go along with this. As Brian Rosebury in his wonderful recent book Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon has stated:

Any analysis of the aesthetic power ot the Lord of the Rings needs to take into account the fact that its values are organised around a moral conflict: Sauron’s despotism is not only to be ‘undesired’, it is to be undesired in the specific sense of being percieved as categorically morally bad. Nothing could be more false, however, than the notion that the Lord of the Rings represents a deterministic, or Manichean, universe of struggle between the innatley & unalterably good & the innatley & unalterably evil. On the contrary, as several critics have noticed, the imagined world is underpinned by an optimistic, & occaisionally explicit, theology of quite a different kind. ‘Nothing is evil in the begining’, Elrond observes. ‘Even Sauron was not so’. Though God is not referred to in the Lord of the Rings (except fleetingly in an appendix), & though the world is preChristian, there is no doubt that we are in an Augustinian universe, in which all creation is good, & evil is concieved in terms of freely chosen negation, of a willful abdication from an original state of created perfection. Sauron, the Dark Lord, is not a countervailing deity, but a fallen angel who, for all his awesome power, cannot create new life, only strive to annhiliate it or pervert it into abominable forms. Whether the reader consciously recognises the theology is unimportant: the essential point is that the negativity of evil, & the intrinsic goodness of ‘the effoliation & multiple enrichment of creation’ are consistently & palpably maintained.

...The defeat of the forces of evil should ideally appear, not as a lucky accident, or as a punishment inflicted from outside by a superior power (which deprives the actual process of defeat of any moral significance), but as the practical consequence of wickedness itself: Evil must appear as intrinsically self defeating in the long run. Sauron & his servants, despite their steadily growing superiiority in crude strength & terror, are hindered by weaknesses which are themselves vices: their lack of imagination, the irrational cruelty which denies them the option of voluntary assistance (the victim must be made to act against his own will), & the selfishness which disables their alliances.

It is the intellectual myopia of evil, however, on which greatest explicit emphasis is laid in the text. Just as the created world is intrinsically good, so disinterested curiosity about that world is an atribute of that good; the negativity of evil entails a loss of insight & of the desire to understand others. Whereas the light percieves the very heart of the darkness, its own secret has not been discovered’. (FR 366)

In Tolkien's world evil is self defeating - perhaps another meaning of the 'Long Defeat' that Galadriel mentions.Not the long defeat of the good, but the long defeat of evil - they fight to hold it in check till it defeats itself. Sauron's defeat is inevitable because of the very nature of evil itself. Because evil is not a co-equal force with good, but a perversion of good, it has no true existence, it is onoly a perversion, & so can only pervert other things - even its own aims, ultimately defeating & destroying itself from within.

The Hobbits are curious to some degree about the world beyond their borders - Sam has heard abouts Oliphaunts. In the poems from the Red Book contained in the Adventures of Tom Bombadil there are accounts of othe lands & races. I think they simply became too inward looking, & caught up in their own affairs, rather than deliberately cutting themselves off, then, eventually, the outside world would come to seem alien to them. But I wouldn't describe them as not being curious - I think they were intensely curious about whatever they felt safe with - the land, plants, animals - woods, fields, little rivers. They preffered order, but not in the way or to the extent that Sauron did. They loved diversity, but struggled with it if they were suddenly confronted with things beyond their experience. I can't see any similarity between Hobbits at their worst, & Sauron, & I can't see that Tolkien wants us to.

As to 'poor Hobbits', well, their society is not perfect. Even within the Shire there is distrust of Hobbits from other areas. We don't know enough about their society or economy. I would speculate that large areas of the Shire were either not owned by anyone or owned in common, so I don't think anyone would have been denied access to natural resources. And if your idea of home is a hole in the ground, all you need is a shovel, & an axe to make yourself a place to live.

And we can't assume that any hobbits would live in a permanent state of poverty.

[Kuruharan]

mark12_30 and davem, to my mind, bring up an interesting point.

Poverty might only be in comparison with the wealthy hobbits. It does not necessarily mean that the poorest hobbits lacked the means of survival. Even if a poor hobbit’s extended family could not be of help, I think that other members of the community would step in to prevent crippling deprivation.

I would speculate that large areas of the Shire were either not owned by anyone or owned in common

I agree that there were likely large areas held in common, but it has always been my notion that the Shire was a fairly well-populated area. I don’t mean to say that I think the hobbits were crowded, but I think that at least most of the farmable areas would have had some form of ownership.

However, I don’t know if there is much to support either view. A glance at the map of the Shire shows that the hobbits were at least spread out over the area, but I suppose that does not necessarily imply that they were thick on the ground everywhere.

[Saraphim]

Define "poorest". To me this conjures up just-a-little-smaller-than Number Three Bagshot Row (See Tolkien's watercolor of The Hill) which has two windows, one door, and a contract with the upscale neighbor for earning bread.

Like you said, Mark12_30. While poor, perhaps, the lower-class hobbits were not badly off. Especially if they had a neighbor such as Bilbo, who well, let's see:

~gave both the Gaffer and Samwise jobs as gardeners, despite his own proclivity to gardening. He could just as well have done it himself. And probably more hobbits too, for cleaning and the like.

~Paid them well

~Question to the rest of you: did Bilbo actually own Bagshot row? If he did, he gave hem free housing. If not... well then disregard this.

~Like it was mentioned earlier, Sam apperantly had free reign where the beer stores were concerned

~And Bilbo taught Sam to read and write, something he would not have had the opportunty to do otherwise.

So things can't have been all bad. I simply can't picture a permenently homeless hobbit.

Hence, 'Good' and 'Evil' are not co-dependent, it is 'Evil' that is dependent and proceeds from 'Good'. But 'Good' exists in its own right and does not need 'Evil' to do the existence

I'll agree with that as well. It takes a good person (eg. Frodo) to remain uncorrupted for so long, by something that would be so easy to put on.

I have a cheap little copy of the Ring that I always wear around my neck. I constantly have it subconciously on a finger. And it's not even evil and whispering to me.

More on this when we get to the end, but Frodo was indeed, good. As was Bilbo, Boromir and probably Isildur. The Ring, obviously an evil object, corrupted them all.

And look at Smeagol. He was corrupted by the Ring almost before he set eyes on it. I don't think he was a very good person to begin with. This is just my opinion, now. I've got no proof behind it, other than the fact that he was under the influence of the Ring before anyone else was.

But Evil contains the seeds of its own demise. When Sauron made the Ring, he made himself stronger, and capable of controlling others. But he also made something that could be easily lost and destroyed. And, indeed, it was.

If not for the Ring, Sauron may never have been destroyed.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I wanted to add two brief caveats to this thread: one regarding Hobbit parochialism and the other Hobbit population.

Several writers (including myself!) have commented on the Shire's parochialism, the Hobbit's tendency to look within their own community, to enjoy prosperity and to ignore what was happening outside. The Prologue stresses the peace and prosperity of the Shire before the War of the Ring, yet this was a relatively recent development. As late as 2911, the Shire faced a serious problem with famine, wolf attacks, and frigid weather, an event suggesting that true complacency and prosperity only occurred about 100 years prior to the events of LotR. (Interestingly, Tolkien refers in his prologue to a "long" period of Shire prosperity going back to the Long Winter of 2758, and doesn't mention the major problems of the Fell Winter in 2911 that do appear in his appendix.)

In any case, it's clear the Hobbits hadn't always had the "luxury" of being able to shut out the world. Between 1050 TA and 2340 TA, there were four separate Hobbit migrations, when significant segments of the community packed up everything and moved to find a new home. The prologue and/or appendix mention the Great Plague of 1636, the wars of 1974-75, the Long Winter of 2758, and the Fell Winter of 2911 as other events originating from outside that disturbed the peace of the Shire. The Fell Winter was no easy thing: the Hobbits dealt with famine, wolf attacks, and bitter cold. It is likely that the Rangers helped them turn back the wolves. Bilbo would have been just 21 years old. (What a great RPG that would be!)

So it was only in the past 100 years that the Hobbits forgot about the Rangers and became a sheltered, complacent and parochial people, something of which Gandalf disapproved. The istar's wonderful words in UT say it all about parochialism and hint at an earlier time when this was not the case:

They had begun to forget: forget their own beginnings and legends, forget what little they had known about the greatness of the world. It was not yet gone, but it was getting buried: the memory of the high and perilous.

As far as population goes, my impression is that the Shire was not overcrowded. Fonstad's map in the Middle-earth Atlas shows only a middling density in the middle of the Shire, with sparse population in the outlying area. More importantly, if you look at the historical pattern since settlement in the Shire, you can see that every 300 years or so, something happened that cut down on the population. Look at this pattern, which is reflected in both the prologue and the appendix: 1636 plague; 1974-75 war; blizzard and famine 2758; further blizzard, famine and the attack of wolves, 2911. Michael Martinez has a good essay on this called "Charting the Shire Lines". Click here.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Feanor makes an excellent point; if this book is based on 'historical' accounts that have been written and compiled by 'others', what sorts of biases, limitations, prejudices, blindspots, missing information and outright fabrications do we need to worry about? The issue of the hobbit archers at Fornost has already moved into this territory, but not really resolved it.

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

We've already discovered that the Shire is not the idyllic and faultless land that it first appears to be -- is it possible that the same standards that lead the hobbits to aggrandize and idealise themselves will work later in the book to devalue or misrepresent other peoples or ways of living that are not 'up' to their standards?

[mark12_30]

Define "poorest". To me this conjures up just-a-little-smaller-than Number Three Bagshot Row (See Tolkien's watercolor of The Hill) which has two windows, one door, and a contract with the upscale neighbor for earning bread.

Sam is used to helping himself to Bilbo's beer, although he is no stranger to the Inn's beer either. I'd suppose he gets a wage; does he also get meals onsite?

I wonder if it is a question of priorities.

Lothlorien elves live in simple flets, not because they *can't* do better, but because they prefer nature. Why expand your home when you'd rather be outdoors anyway?

Edit: Boromir88, good point-of-view!

[Kuruharan]

Just who were these Authorities

The Authorities are the Valar by another name.

I assume no.

For them to know of the true finding of the Ring, Gandalf must have been involved

While Gandalf was their servant, they did not need him to inform them of anything.

I don't think there's any doubt that LotR is hobbit-centric (that's going to get me in trouble with the posters): does this not mean that its narrative will be as parochial and limited as the hobbits themselves?

Perhaps in a way. However, this does not mean that the text should be treated as biased regarding the events discussed in it (at least as regards the events themselves in the context of the story). In other words, (to borrow an example from later in the story) I mean that we shouldn’t think that Merry did not stab the Witch King just because he was a hobbit and the book was written by hobbits. We should treat that as actually having happened in the story.