LotR -- Book 6 - Chapter 8 - The Scouring of the Shire

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

On your second point, I can only say I like to think I am writing for posterity, rather than the moment

Oh my dear fellow! Writing for posterity on the internet: An oxymoron!

Originally Posted by davem

Shadowfax?

Oh now I was expecting a challenge about crows but not Shadowfax, who after all runs so swiftly he almost flies, doesn't he? Check out the description of Pippin's experience riding with Gandalf in V,i.

. . . presently the thudding of hooves was heard, and three riders swept up and passed like flying ghosts in the moon and vanished into the West. Then Shadowfax gathered himself together and sprang away, and the night flowed over him [Pippin] like a roaring wind.

What I find intriguing are the ways various animals are used as descriptors in Tolkien's legendarium. Despite his clear respect for and love of the natural world, that love is usually given (unconditionally ?) only to flora and fauna, one could say. Tolkien seems to rely upon a traditional semiotic for creeping, crawling critters. The bestial, the earthy, the dirty are all negatively connoted, which is interesting because in medieval times, the odour of sanctity was indeed an odour. There is a hierarchy of evaluations for animals I think, a great chain of beasts one might say, although it is not absolute.

[Lalwendë]

How The Shire appears during and after the 'Scouring', is in effect reality. Before this, it was an idyllic place, that village which we all yearn for, which we all 'remember', and afterwards, the Hobbits try to return to that state of grace. But during the absence of the four Hobbits, the Shire is like the real world. Farm labourers toil to produce food which is shipped off somewhere else (to the towns in real life), tenants can be evicted from their homes if the landlord wants the land (as in what happened to the Gaffer), the mill fouls the local water supply. This is, and was, the reality of the countryside. Farmer Cotton takes steps to see that the Gaffer is well fed, which is forbidden, like a labourer supplementing his family's diet by poaching.

Yes, there are many parallels with oppressive regimes and how they have run their respective countries, but what happens to The Shire is in contrast not all that bad! Now I'm waiting for the rotten fruit to come flying, but compare what has happened to The Shire and to the Hobbits with what happened to the farms which had been on the Pelennor Fields, the destruction of the trees around Fangorn, the slavery Sauron subjected his people to, the violence of the Orcs. The Shire got off lightly in comparison; it was never reduced to the state of Mordor, it was only reduced to reality. The changes to the Shire only seem quite so horrific as we have been, like the four Hobbits, away from it for so long. We have been through their torments and like them cherished a dream of The Shire, a hope that we could return there. Tolkien cleverly pulls off this ending which is not happy and not what we expected; he takes us right out of our comfort zone.

This makes me wonder just how true the picture painted of the Shire in the first few chapters really is. It is from the point of view of Hobbits who have been through hell, and one of the things which kept them going through that hell was the vision of a perfect homeland to return to. Any of us who moved from home at an early age and now feel great nostalgia about our original town/village might experience the same if we too returned to our own 'Shire'.

How perfect was The Shire really? We already know that some Hobbits could not read, and Bag End was atypical of average Hobbit Holes (the Chatsworth House of the Shire while the poorer Hobbits lived in places like Park Hill). From Ted Sandyman's snide comments to Sam about him 'prattling' about his dreams for the future, we can also guess that The Shire had its fair share of reactionary Daily Mail types.

Considering the point of view of who wrote the texts, Bilbo (traditional middle England male), Frodo, Sam (working class boy made good), then it might not be that we were seeing The Shire in its true light in the first place anyway. But then we had to see it like that, or we too would not have yearned along with Frodo and Sam.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What I find intriguing are the ways various animals are used as descriptors in Tolkien's legendarium. Despite his clear respect for and love of the natural world, that love is usually given (unconditionally ?) only to flora and fauna, one could say. Tolkien seems to rely upon a traditional semiotic for creeping, crawling critters. The bestial, the earthy, the dirty are all negatively connoted, which is interesting because in medieval times, the odour of sanctity was indeed an odour. There is a hierarchy of evaluations for animals I think, a great chain of beasts one might say, although it is not absolute.

I think there is this 'hierarchy' of animals. Those creatures traditionally considered 'noble' are the same in Middle-earth as in our world - Eagles, horses, hounds, etc - & the ones labled 'vermin' in our world tend to occupy the same position in Middle-earth - rats, crows, flies, etc.

What I find interesting in this context is that the two animals most closely associated with Odin, the raven & the wolf, occupy positions in the negative hierarchy of Middle-earth. Yet Odin was clearly an influence on both Gandalf & Manwe. Why doesn't Gandalf have a wolf companion, why aren't the birds of Manwe ravens? Its been suggested that Odin's 'positive' aspects were subsumed into Gandalf & Manwe & his 'negative' ones into Saruman & Sauron.

Of course, I'm not forgetting Sleipnir, Odin's eight-legged horse. I suspect he 'surfaces' in Shadowfax. My own suspicion is that wolves & ravens symbolised Odin's 'dark' side too much. Wolves become wholly evil creatures, associated with Sauron & Saruman, ravens don't appear at all in LotR - though they have a significant part to play in TH, where they have a strong association with the Dwarves. They are one of the few speaking creatures on the 'good' side.

Actually, this is odd in itself - in terms of speaking animals we have Huan, the ravens of the Lonely Mountain, the Eagles of the Misty Mountains, the spiders of Mirkwood & various dragons(if we can count them). In LotR only the Eagles talk, but other creatures clearly understand human/Elven speech. That being said, its difficult to draw conclusions about animal nature in Middle-earth from TH, as, even if one includes it in the Legendarium, the 'fairy tale' element is so strong we have to question how much of it is down to Bilbo's predeliction for hyperbole.

[Bergil]

One question hasn't been raised, why was Saruman in such a hurry to develop advanced technology? it's hardly his nature to to fund A "Royal Acadamy of Science". I see 2 possibileties. Either he, alone among "bad guys" realised that his slaves are, as slaves, disadvantaged when fighting against people with a fire of freedom in them, and is trying to compensate by breeding Uruk-hai and arming them with powder (eventually), and gaining a support advantage with a better mill etc.

The other possibility is even scarier. He could be trying to reach 1984 as soon as he can. if the hobbits had failed, what would Aragorn have found?, If Rohan had failed, and Saruman's new tactics had inspired Sauron, what would the valar have found? It's not a pleasent thought (unless you're Saruman), hobbits ending up that way.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I'm always struck in this chapter by how little Merry and Pippin seem to have learned from their journeys in comparison: you'd think that they'd know how empty bravado is, and yet they undertake a battle with light hearts.

I wouldn't say that they learned little - they learned a great deal! However, most of what they learned just flew out of their heads after the "world crisis" came to an end. Frodo's change was much more permanent - to such extent that he actually leaves ME.

Jack London said in one of his books that harsh or extreme conditions bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. We see hobbits on Sharkey's side, like Ted S., but we also see Lobelia act as a hero. And she "breaks" when she's rescued by Frodo, repents, and passes out of his life on very good terms. I found it a bit surprising, but, like Gandalf said, you can study hobbits for a month and know them, but after years they will surprise you immensely. You can't "know" hobbits.

We see the full extent of Frodo's wisdom when he says, "It is useless to meet revenge with revenge; it will gain nothing". This line is especially meaningful because Saruman replies "You have grown, halfling". Even though his last hope (if you can call it that) is shattered by Frodo, he admits that he admires his actions, and admits that he is shocked at what happened to the simple hobbit. Frodo also shows pity towards Saruman and Grima, and that last straw did it. Saruman makes evil so that it would cause hatred amongst the ‘good guys’, but that doesn’t work with Frodo, since he forgives Saruman. His hatred recoiled back on him. I guess that at that time Saruman has nothing to lose, so he might as well kill Frodo – the causer of his misfortunes. This makes Frodo pity him even more, because he fell even lower (as low as to unexpectedly stab a hobbit).

Frodo awoke the Smeagol in Gollum. The same way with his words he awoke the last human part of Wormtongue. Unfortunately, with the “human part” also came human hate, which caused him to run like a mad person and kill Saruman. I feel sorry for both of them in the book (but I’m not sure I would have acted the same as Frodo in RL).

Bergil: I don't think Saruman was trying to accomplish anything specific with his destruction - just the joy of destroying good and making evil. Saruman just wanted to strike all the 'good guys' in the most vulnerable spot.