LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 01 - A Long-Expected Party

[Boromir88]

As we have already established the beginning of LOTR is set up in a lighter mood, we establish Frodo and Bilbo's history and the lead up to the party. We slightly see some clues of Ted Sandyman perhaps becoming a problem with his comments and the clear dislike the Gaffer has towards the miller. A topic I wanted to bring up was it seems like Sauron and the enemy builds up his forces rather quickly (I'll give examples when the appropriate chapters are being discussed). Or did all of this really happen "quickly?"

I believe it just seems fast because of the middle-earth's people (hobbits in particular) refusal to see that Sauron is back and evil again is rebuilding. For a short background a few years before Bilbo takes the ring from Gollum, Saruman finds out Sauron has learned of Isildur's death and turns to Anduin to search for his ring. Saruman however does not tell the council (example one of the refusal to see "evil" approaching). Then around that same time Saruman agrees to push out forces of Dol Guldur to try to get Sauron's attention away from the river. It was either the same year or a year after Bilbo returns to the Shire that Sauron secretly returns to Mordor. So, for 60 some years you have Sauron hiding in Mordor. That is the background.

Then the story starts out with this "long expected party" and there is a light jolly mood established, but soon you see this ring Bilbo has is more then just a ring. And underneath all these "happy" times evil is rebuilding. The hobbits as we know don't like foreigners too well and anyone who mixes with them is thought as "queer." The hobbits especially try to think that all evil is gone and passed, theres only good and happy times left, when it's not so. That's why I believe it seems how Sauron is quickly able to launch attacks against the dwarves of Erebor and the men of Dale, quickly apply pressure to Gondor and Rohan, and so quickly able to affect places far beyond Mordor. The inhabitants refuse to see evil, refuse to believe it, so when they are attacked they are caught off guard.

This is ver similar to the events of WW2. The world just got out of a Global depression, just got out of WW1, so what do they do? They appease Hitler (as well as evil) to try anything to prevent another world war. Grant it the middle-earth peoples did not "appease" Sauron but they ignored the threat, they refused to see that anything was wrong and the whole time they were living under a "flawed peace." Within 6 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong) Hitler is able to take France, and within months all of Western Europe had fallen, except Britain. Same instance in LOTR, within months and a matter of years Sauron is able to press assaults upon all of Middle-earth, and Saruman easily takes the Shire. Sauron, as well as Hitler, weren't able to build up forces that rapid, they weren't able to do it within months, but it seemed like they could take control within a short period of time because of the people thinking there was no evil, hiding behind a "flawed happiness."

[Durelin]

The inhabitants refuse to see evil, refuse to believe it, so when they are attacked they are caught off guard.

I find that it is a beauty of Tolkien's main characters, the hobbits. They do not even wish to realize that there is evil, and they are the ones to face the most evil. All the inhabitants of Middle-Earth have this trouble, as well, but not to the extent of the Hobbits.

The Chapter's title sums up more than just the central event in it. There are many 'long expected' events that happen in the first chapter, setting up the story with its very historical feel. The story does not have a beginning, as it unfolds as events that have long been expected or long in the 'brewing', and have possibly even been fated, occur.

(Short, and continuing my rant concerning the 'feigned history'...I am disatisfied.)

-Durelin

[HerenIstarion]

Concerning names

Just to add some things to the soup. It had been already noted that Long Expected Party is built to parallel, and, at the same time, be an antithesis to the Hobbit chapter 1 – Unexpected Party.

But, with a bit of hindsight, both are quite the opposite – for, in the Hobbit, the party is unexpected to Bilbo only (and half so, since he himself invited Gandalf to tea). Gandalf had it planned long before with a clear purpose in mind, and dwarves look up to it all the way, even before they see the sign on the door.

The Long Expected Party is full of unexpected things, on the other hand (the main thing to happen – Bilbos’s disappearance, is expected mainly by Bilbo himself, though Gandalf knows it to and Frodo may have doubts) – the mere ring of Bilbo’s as we know it from the Hobbit to become the Ruling Ring, Bilbo exhibiting Gollum-like qualities and than vanishing in the midst of a party etc

In both cases Gandalf is in the know, though. But he is Gandalf, and has to be, if you follow my meaning

But one of the main differences lies in the names of protagonists, main [hobbit] heroes, which we come to know in the first chapter off hand.

Not to outrun my own pace – it should be noted that hobbit names are generally categorized in two ways – those of no meaning but mere sound – like Bilbo, Bungo, Bingo and so forth, and those of ‘foreign’ origin with some meaning to them

It is very interesting that main hero of the Hobbit, Bilbo, has a name with no meaning at all. It is significant, than that all four main hobbit characters of LoTR justify their names.

Meriadoc – has some Welsh connotations to it, to the best of my knowledge, and roughly may be rendered as “master of the sea”. True, Merry has not much doing with the sea as the sea, but is Brandybuck, i.e. of the only hobbit family to do anything with [big amounts] of water whatsoever. Besides, shortened form sounds like Merry, and Merry the hobbit is a merry hobbit indeed.

Peregrin – Now Latin rooting, meaning “wanderer”, or “pilgrim”. That’s him, it is -wanderer, for sure. In both senses – he wanders (i.e. travels a lot), and he is curious above measure of average (Palantir, per instance). But not merely wanderer, but wanderer with a quest, i.e. pilgrim. And shortening brings him to be Pippin, and Pippin the Short was a frank king in 8th century A.D., and who is that who dare say hobbits are not short, even if Pippin be taller than most? But, most interestingly, Pippin the Short drove Saracens (i.e. Muslims) out of France, and, strikingly, Pippin the Hobbit drove ruffians our of the Shire.

Samwise – old English for ‘half-wise’. But now that is matter of optimism – is the glass half full or half empty? I daresay it is half full, for if it were not so, Gollum would not have been spared and quest would have failed

Frodo – that being the special case. For one thing, in the first drafts of the LoTR Frodo is Bingo (if my memory does not fail me). And that is in line with Bilbo, i.e., is a name with sound to it, not meaning. But as the scope of the work widens, so the name changes, and we get Frodo. And, what with assessment that ‘hobbitish’ masculine ending is ‘a’, it gives us Froda, as original. But Froda is Norse, and is character out of mythology – old king, father of Ingeld (this latter mentioned in Beowulf), but, unlike main bulk of Norse heroes, not heroic at all in a sense he is not bloodthirsty, but peaceful. In fact, he owns a mill which grinds peace for him, and while he rules there is peace. Unfortunately, he is killed, and his son Ingeld turns back to old bloody heroism. Rings any bells? Especially with Frodo later on, when he draws no sword, takes no part in battles, and is generally kind of a pacifist, but very much neglected by his own people

But I’m again off and beyond current chapter. So I would conclude that, even when we take into account Tolkien’s statement that actually the names in Westron sound different (can not give reference or the list right away) and are merely translated, it is all very much interesting. Or, to summarize it all, we have four hobbit names of Welsh, Latin, English and Norse origins, all with the meaning, all highly relevant to the text and events that befall their bearers, and their behavioral pattern. And all is so well hidden, and at the time is so obviously on the surface, that I can not help but am awestruck (constantly so with Tolkien, that is).

[davem]

Bethberry
The passages I quoted were very selective - Flora Thompson also describes the poverty & everyday struggle of the people - which is why her account of her early life is so moving. But to focus solely on the starkness & harshness of that life is as mistaken as focussing solely on the simple beauty of it. For all the struggles she & her friends & family knew, she is full of regret for what had been lost. She lived through it, & she saw value in it, & knew that something important had been lost.

Its the same with the focus on the 'horrors' of WW1. Yes, horrors there were, but many of the men who fought believed in the cause they fought for, valued the comradeship & were proud of their service. By no means were Owen & Sassoon typical of the men who served. (Interesting points made in Tolkien & the Great War). In short, many of those who fought didn't think of WW1 as a futile exercise or as nothing more than an example of 'man's inhumanity to man' writ large.

Point being, those who lived through such times saw them differently to most of us. Just as Flora Thompson can find beauty amid the poverty, & place a value on that beauty, so can Tolkien. There is poverty in the Shire, but the fact that it isn't focussed on doesn't mean that Tolkien is deliberately 'caricaturing' that world, or being ironic. I think he is presenting what he loved about that world honestly. If he doesn't spend time presenting us with what he hated about it (though we can glimpse it if we look hard enough, & we see it in the state of the Shire when the hobbits return) that's no more dishonest than emphasising a loved ones good points.

(This is what I think Tolkien meant by 'parody', though I think the term is a little extreme - its certainly not 'burlesque', or we wouldn't care about the world or its inhabitants. Its a positive parody in Tolkien's case, & I don't get any sense that he's setting out to mock or belittle the people & culture he's writing about. He simply plays up the people's foibles. As to parodying the toponomy, I think he's 'idealising' the names of places. Its an archetypal rural England - as Rohan is an archetypal Anglo Saxon England)

In short, I chose the quotations from Lark Rise not to try & imply that village life in the 1880's was ideal, but to show that to the people who lived it, it was full of beauty & magic.

And besides, how significant is the last sentence I quoted:

Bands of little blue butterflies flitted here & there or poised themselves on quivering wings on the long grass bents; bees hummed in the white clover blooms, & over all a deep silence brooded. It seemed as though the road had been made ages before, then forgotten.

Boromir88

Do you think that Tolkien might be saying to us that 'traditions' are wise to keep re-telling ? With the seeming departure of Sauron/Ring from ME the tale of the old days has been forgotten, even the fact that The One Ring was not destroyed. Also, ignoring the old traditions, ignoring warning signs, placing ones cranium up ones anus and believing that all is well is not just a habit peculiar to Hobbits. Is Tolkien reflecting what had gone on in the two WW's and also what goes on today ?

I think it might be fair to say that Sauron's forces appeared to gather quickly once the One Ring had been brought from underground. He would have known that it was around somewhere, but not exactly where. Once Bilbo brought it out from Gollum's hiding place it would have been easier for Sauron to 'sense' it. A couple of questions arise here - was the One Ring trying to return to Sauron, did it leave Gollum and 'find' Bilbo ? Why did Bilbo lie about the ring ? If he had said something earlier then perhaps they could have gotten the One Ring to Mt. Doom before Sauron had gathered all his forces to him.

In reference to your last paragraph

This is ver similar to the events of WW2. The world just got out of a Global depression, just got out of WW1, so what do they do? They appease Hitler (as well as evil) to try anything to prevent another world war. Grant it the middle-earth peoples did not "appease" Sauron but they ignored the threat, they refused to see that anything was wrong and the whole time they were living under a "flawed peace." Within 6 weeks (correct me if I'm wrong) Hitler is able to take France, and within months all of Western Europe had fallen, except Britain. Same instance in LOTR, within months and a matter of years Sauron is able to press assaults upon all of Middle-earth, and Saruman easily takes the Shire. Sauron, as well as Hitler, weren't able to build up forces that rapid, they weren't able to do it within months, but it seemed like they could take control within a short period of time because of the people thinking there was no evil, hiding behind a "flawed happiness."

I'm not sure that it was a 'flawed happiness' in either case. Remember that Hitler lost his stab at the first election, then suddenly got in about 6 months later....could have been one of those election rigging thingys. But if it wasn't, then the people of Germany voted Hitler in, it must have been the feelings of a nation that got him there. Sauron did virtually the same thing with people......promises of power, promises of wealth, promises, promises, promises. Tolkien may be showing us not to listen to other peoples BS

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

H-I I ran across this in the dictionary the other day. Something else to add to your collection of names and their meanings.

bil·bo (n. Archaic pl. bil·boes)
1. A sword, especially one having a well-tempered blade.
2. An iron bar to which sliding fetters are attached, formerly used to shackle the feet of prisoners.

Either definition sets one thinking.

[HerenIstarion]

heh, Hilde, you tear half of my argument apart with that bil-boes reference. for indeed I was driving at that Bilbo's name, as part of the more light-hearted story about 'adventures', where lot of toponimy is just plain (The Hill, The Water, The Mountain, The River), is also just funny, whilst the LoTR, work of much wider scope, has layers upon layers of things to be seen and appreciated

But, well, one lives and learns.

On the other hand, I believe the said argument is still plausible, for all of the hidden meaning for 4 hobbits resides in real personal names (exeption possibly Sam, but than, his short name corresponds with our Sam, though it be derived from Samuel and Hebraic, not Samwise and English), whilst 'bilbo' is stated by my dictionary to come (probably) from spanish town of Bilboa.

I believe therefore Bilbo's case to be a coincidence, whilst the other four cases to be there on purpose

Which, probably, proves how much of a swindler I may be.

Or, still, maybe not