What ain't there and ought to be.

[Osse]

Sorry to digress as I often to do the start of a thread...

But I always imagined that tradition in the shire was that hobbits were buried in a suitable place - need not be together - for instance under a favourite tree or out in the orchard - in a loved glade or near a favourite turn in a stream. I didn't imagine that the hobbits would leave large gravestones, merely a small cairn of rocks or a small plaque, simply engraved. To me, this fits in with the wholesome nature of hobbits - rememberance should be in the head - let them rest in a favourite spot and remember them in your annals and geneologies - without marring the landscape with unsightly stones or graveyards.

That of course would been there were many graves scattered aroudn the shire - impractical considering all the digging the hobbits do - the fear of disturbing old bones would mar any gardener's plans.

Good point - i can't really find a place for the dead in hobbit society - cept in their annals of course. Probably better that Tolkien left it out.

Regards,
Ossë

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The lack of certain pieces of what we would normally assume to be ‘important’ pieces of information has always struck me as a conscious piece of story-telling by Tolkien, insofar as it makes his world more realistic (in the sense of literary realism). In a novel set in contemporary London, for example, would you expect to find descriptions of graveyards and police forces if these did not feature in the story? Of course not, because we know that graveyards and police are a part of the fabric of London, along with Buckingham Palace and doubledeck buses and dog mess on the sidewalks, and on and on and on.

I remember once reading an interview with George Lucas in which he explained that for him, one of the hallmarks of bad sci-fi is that it spends too much time describing the world it is set in rather than telling a story set in that world. I think that Lucas learned this from Tolkien.

Of course there are graveyards in the Shire, just as there are kitchens and larders in Minas Tirith – these features are not described by the narrators because they are not part of the story and to take time out to address these would call attention to the fact that ‘need’ to be described, which would destroy their reality. A novel set in Paris does not need to describe the Eiffel Tower because we already know it’s there and it is real. To set about describing a Hobbit graveyard is to highlight the fact that one has to describe such a thing because such a thing does not exist. It’s a wonderful slight of hand practised by realist authors since the invention of the form in the 19th century: what you don’t describe is magically made into an ‘assumed’ or ‘given’ element of the story’s reality. In effect, you make things real for the reader by ignoring them!

This has always struck me as a double-edged sword in fantasy, however, for it shows up how the tactics of realist authors are anything but ‘real’. The London of Dickens is no more a “real” place than the Shire; they are created/imaginative realms that are brought to life for the reader through a set of literary/narrative techniques. Where things get interesting, of course, is in looking at why certain elements of the narrated world are deemed ‘important’ to the story by their inclusion in it: the patterns of hobbit-holes (living) and Numenorean-tombs (death), for example, is a fascinating idea I’d never considered before.

[Lalwendë]

I think the question of the absence of 'graveyards' arises for a good reason, and though what you say is a good point, it is the fact that we see a significant battle with deaths resulting that brings up the question - we expect to see graveyards/burial rites because we have already seen them in other parts of the book. Throughout LotR we see many deaths, which are usually followed with solemn 'burials' - I say 'burials' as not all are actual internments, some are more 'funeral rites'. In addition, to Hobbits, funeral rites are not a strange concept as they see these in other cultures.

Yet we do have graveyards of a kind in The Shire after the Battle of Bywater:

Nearly seventy of the ruffians lay dead on the field, and a dozen were prisoners. Nineteen hobbits were killed, and some thirty were wounded. The dead ruffians were laden on waggons and hauled off to an old sand-pit nearby and there buried: in the Battle Pit, as it was afterwards called. The fallen hobbits were laid together in a grave on the hill-side, where later a great stone was set up with a garden about it. So ended the Battle of Bywater, 1419, the last battle fought in the Shire, and the only battle since the Greenfields, 1147, away up in the Northfarthing. In consequence, though it happily cost very few lives, it has a chapter to itself in the Red book, and the names of all those who took part were made into a Roll, and learned by heart by Shire-historians. The very considerable rise in the fame and fortune of the Cottons dates from this time; but at the top of the Roll in all accounts stand the names of Captains Meriadoc and Peregrin.

What is interesting in this passage is that the communal burial with a stone and garden is highly reminiscent of the war memorials we see today. The 'Roll' also brings to mind the boards which are seen in churches listing fallen locals in various conflicts. So we do not see an extensive graveyard, but we do see that the fallen Hobbits are buried, and they do receive an appropriate memorial and resting place.

Another interesting aspect to this is that in the fourth version of A Long-Expected Party it is said of Bilbo's death (as was intended at that time):

His relatives and neighbours lost the chance of a funeral, and they had a good deal to say.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lalwendë,

Thanks for that final reference on the funeral. I had totally forgotten it.

_________________

Also, the other day I was blithely reading a Tolkien interview from the NYTimes of January 1967 when my jaw dropped open. Some of the ideas expressed in these two paragraphs seemed to bear an odd resemblance to our discussion in this thread! (The italics are mine)

"Hobbits," Tolkien says, "have what you might call universal morals. I should say they are examples of natural philosophy and natural religion." They are certainly capable of extraordinary bravery and humaneness; living in burrows, their creator declares, doesn't amount to anything like an animal kink.

"People still love thatched houses; they pretend it's because they're cool in summer and warm in winter, and they'll even pay a bit of extra insurance. We found German trenches which were often very habitable indeed except that, when we reached them, they faced the wrong way about. And have you been to England's oldest pub, the Trip to Jerusalem? It is carved out of the solid rock of Nottingham Castle. I went to Nottingham once for a conference. I fear we went to the Trip to Jerusalem and let the conference get on with itself."

"Animal kink!" I love it. First, Littlemanpoet you're obviously going to have to duke it out with the Professor if you persist in your belief that living in burrows is further proof of the Hobbits' essential animal nature. Then again JRRT had a solid reputation for contradicting himself. If we searched more intensively on the web, I can probably find another interview where the author argued the exact opposite. I say that with considerable amusement and affection!

Secondly, who said that a German trench couldn't be the original prototype of Bag-end?

Seriously though, what leaps out at me from these brief consecutive paragraphs is how JRRT's mind leapt from one subject to the next, making these interesting connections that would never have been evident on the surface of things. I can see how this can be wonderfully creative, yet make it difficult for someone to finish anything they start. And, perhaps more importantly, it also means it's difficult for us or any other so-called critics to nail down the origin of many of the ideas and concepts he's used. They've just gone through too many permutations.

I confess that my own mind works similarly, but only in one exceedingly humble respect. When I try to do housework, my mind flashes from one task to the next and consequently nothing whatsoever actually gets done!

[davem]

His relatives and neighbours lost the chance of a funeral, and they had a good deal to say.

I wonder what this implies about Hobbit funerals. Were they 'wakes'? Were they highly organised events - like Birthday parties. If not, why were the hobbits annoyed at having missed Bilbo's? Of course, this tells us nothing about what happened to the body.

Of course, it could be that funerals were solemn events which were felt to be 'the proper thing'. It may have been another example of Bilbo 'letting the side down' - or rather Bingo letting the side down. These little asides are interesting because of what they reveal about Hobbit culture, & about Tolkien's heroes in particular. Clearly this aside was intended to convey something about the two hero's attitude to the mores of the Shire, & show how different they were. A funeral should have been held for Bilbo, but wasn't, & the other Hobbits didn't approve.

I suppose this is another thing that 'ain't there & ought to be' - not in the sense that Tolkien has missed something out, but in the sense that his heroes have a tendency to miss things out. Perhaps its an example of Tolkien's own 'Hobbitry'.

One could perhaps say that our esteemed LmP has lost his chance of graveyards in the Shire & has had a good deal to say about it

[Child of the 7th Age]

Clearly this aside was intended to convey something about the two hero's attitude to the mores of the Shire, & show how different they were. A funeral should have been held for Bilbo, but wasn't, & the other Hobbits didn't approve.

Davem -

It's interesting because my reaction to this quote was different than your own.

His relatives and neighbours lost the chance of a funeral, and they had a good deal to say.

What drew my attention in that quote were the final words: "and they had a good deal to say." It seems to me that what they were bemoaning was not that a "proper" funeral had not been held, but rather that they had not had a chance to discuss Bilbo behind his back, after he was dead and they were quite safe from his sharp wit.

Above all else, a funeral is a social gathering where you get to see people you haven't seen in ages. A great deal of time is spent discussing the attributes of the deceased. Some of this is open and shared with all. Other conversations are quietly held in the corners, since they may be too 'honest' for some. Yes, it's all said with a wistful smile and in good spirits, but people do remember the foibles of the deceased as well as the accomplishments. Bilbo had a great many foibles in the eyes of his neighbors. Without a funeral, his neighbors found they'd been denied a final opportunty to discuss their nonconformist neighbor.

To me, this brief quote is another example of the fact that, in the Shire, the emphasis is on the living and not the dead (as it was in Numenor). Even a side quip about a funeral focuses humorously on the needs of the mourners to gossip rather than viewing it as a solemn memorial to the deceased.

There is a social or communal aspect of mankind that is reflected in the Shire. I do agree with Littlemanpoet that the Hobbits have some natural and animal-like characteristics, but they also display certain social behaviors that operate on a different level. Such proclivities remind me less of rabbits and badgers, and more of what I see in my neighbors when folk attend funerals and weddings, spread rumors over the back fence or, heaven forbid, post here on the Downs!

[Durelin]

I wonder if Hobbits give gifts away at funerals... I know I could see Bilbo writing out invitations for his own funeral, and getting a good chuckle out of it.