Hobbits the chosen people

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

but I really don't think that Morsul's theory, or at least aspects of it, should simply be dismissed out of hand.

As a side note I was not dismissing Morsul's theory, rather I was pointing out a spot where I disagreed and gave my thoughts as to why Hobbits aren't a chosen people so to speak. I believe that Bilbo and Frodo were chosen to have the ring but this comes from the fact that they happen to be Hobbits. Something of note is that Bilbo and Frodo were considered odd hobbits and their behavior was not in the norm with general hobbits.

I realize that some of the general hobbit traits were a definite aid to Frodo and Bilbo, such as their lack of a desire for power, but other non-hobbit traits helped them out as well, namely their sense of adventure. Now what I am saying is that their are traits that helped them but their are traits that would have helped them out that other races posses that hobbits do not. Such as the farsight of Elves and Numenoreons, or the strength and endurance of dwarves. So while the best fit for ring bearers came from hobbits I don't believe them to be the chosen people.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by The Saucerpan Man

"Chosen people" may be an inappropriate term, but I really don't think that Morsul's theory, or at least aspects of it, should simply be dismissed out of hand.

And that is exactly why I divided my answer into two parts. I disagree with the notion of the Hobbits being the "Chosen People" but I do believe that from the creatures of Middle Earth, they were, as mormegil said the "best fit".

Originally Posted by The Saucerpan Man

Yet, without Hobbits, there would be no Bilbo or Frodo ...

And then perhaps the ring would have been found by a really wise yet uncorruptible elf, or a strong willed and benevolent Dwarf. As the hobbits are not a "perfect fit" for the adventure, one could think that Eru chose, from the creatures he had created, the most able for the task in hand and gave them some 'unusual' traits to help them along. Perhaps if the hobbits had not been created, Eru would have chosen an elve (who has most of the physical characteristics to endure the voyage) and given him an unusual lack of interest in power as a mean to achieve his goals. THAT is what I argue when I say that the Hobbits were not the "chosen people" as it was only two hobbits with some unusual traits who were able to find and carry the ring to its destruction. Even then, at the last second Frodo succumbed to the Ring, and some intervention by luck or Eru was needed for the ring to be destroyed.

Edit: Posted at the same time as Bethberry

"Chosen people' is a term often used in regard to the Israelites and the belief that they were specially chosen of God to carry on a unique Covenant with Him.

This reminds me. "Chosen People" is even more of a wrong term is used as when referring to the Israelites. They were never meant to save human kind (That is more of a Christian perspective, as according to their faith Chrsit was sent to the world to save our kind) but rather to be the priests of G'd. They were supposed to keep alive the traditions of G'd Himself and pray to him in the most befitting way. Those who wanted to follow their traditions would be accepted but the Israelites were not meant to change the world.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Did Eru then create the Hobbits after monitoring Sauron's (not Melkor, but Sauron's) mentality and designs? That's certainly different from foresight. I think it's also pretty implausible.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Now there's an unfair--and uncharacteristic of you--bit of characterising those who simply apply a quite legitimate and completely allowable (in terms of debate and discussion) act, to treat the topic critically, to question it, to play devil's--Sauron's?--advocate. All quite allowable, old chap, and really very unfair of you to imply that they haven't fairly considered the topic.

And that, if I may say so, is a rather unfair and uncharacteristic miscategorisation of what I was seeking to achieve by my post.

Morsul's preliminary thoughts were followed by some short and (I felt) somewhat dismissive posts (and no, morm, I do not include your post within that desciption) and very little in the way of discussion. My purpose in posting was to do precisely the opposite of what you accuse me of. I was actually seeking to encourage debate and discussion. It seemed to me that there were aspects of Morsul's original theory that had legs and were worthy of discussion, rather than being dismissed out of hand. I was not saying that people are not entitled to disagree with Morsul's points, but I did feel that they were being rather unfairly stomped on.

Originally Posted by mormegil

I realize that some of the general hobbit traits were a definite aid to Frodo and Bilbo, such as their lack of a desire for power, but other non-hobbit traits helped them out as well, namely their sense of adventure.

Farael makes a similar point. I would also include Sam, Merry and Pippin within the debate as being Hobbits who contributed to the downfall of Sauron, and they might be considered as more "normal" Hobbits. As for the sense of adventure, I would actually consider this to be a Hobbitish trait, albeit one which had become largely dormant by the end of the Third Age, most probably as a result of years of isolation and parochialism. It remained most keen in those of Tookish descent and it was this latent aspect of Bilbo's personality that was "re-activated" by the designs of a certain Wizard.

There is also, of course, the innate ability of Hobbits to move unseen, which was certainly of benefit to Frodo and Sam, particularly on the last stage of their journey.

As to whether an individual, or individuals, from any other race could have accomplished what Frodo and Sam accomplished, well it is possible I suppose. But it's not the way that I read it. My sense is that no one else could (or would) in fact have succeeded in the task. And that is why it was appointed to Frodo (and so, by association, to Sam).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And it is a prevalent aspect of folk culture in England to think of the English as the new chosen people.

I think that you're a little out of date there. We handed that particular belief over to the Americans some time ago now.

Bêthberry, the question which you pose relies on the assumotion that Shire is representative of England and that Hobbits are representative of the English. Yet, when Tolkien first sought to (re)create a "lost mythology" of England, Hobbits were not even a twinkle in his eye. Yes, I can see aspects of England (or part of it) in the Shire and English traits within his Hobbitish characters. And they are the characters with which I identify the most. But I think that this is more because he created them, and the Shire, from personal experience and sought to give them a familiar feel so that, as they are the central focus of the story, readers could identify with them. I do not think that, by making them the "saviours of Middle-earth", he was seeking to make any point about the role of the English in our world. He recognised that there are "Orcs" in all nationalities, so I don't think that he held any illusions concerning English superiority, despite being born and raised in a society where this was in many ways a prevalent view.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Did Eru then create the Hobbits after monitoring Sauron's (not Melkor, but Sauron's) mentality and designs? That's certainly different from foresight.

Eru is not constrained by time, so when you say He made them "after" seeing Sauron's work that is not entirely accurate, as you could also say He made hobbits before and during. You can't really say when the idea for hobbits entered into Eru's head. All that we know is that He made them, and that is enough.

Even if hobbits were made specifically to counter Sauron, I don't think we can necessarily call it a reactionary creation when we consider that Eru is beyond the constraints of time and thus does not react to anything, in the sense that something has caught Him at unawares.

As to whether an individual, or individuals, from any other race could have accomplished what Frodo and Sam accomplished, well it is possible I suppose. But it's not the way that I read it. My sense is that no one else could (or would) in fact have succeeded in the task. And that is why it was appointed to Frodo (and so, by association, to Sam).

I agree with this for the most part. I believe that there were others that could have held out as long as Frodo did, and that perhaps had every necessary trait, but for whatever reason the Ring would not have been destroyed.

Think for a moment. What if Elrond had taken the Ring to Mordor and made it all the way to Mount Doom? Once there, he wouldn't have been able to destroy it, just like Frodo. No one could. The difference would have been Gollum. Gollum attacked Frodo and got the Ring from him and fell. If Gollum had attacked Elrond at the Cracks of Doom, Elrond would have grabbed him by the throat and flung his ugly mug halfway across the volcano, and thus the Ring is not destroyed.

As you can see, Elrond made it just as far, but the same result didn't happen. There are a bazillion factors that went into the destruction of the Ring. For instance, there were times when arrows were flying around, and perhaps if Frodo had been a bit taller (in other words, had been a man or elf) he would have gotten hit by one.

Now, that isn't to say Eru couldn't have engineered things for someone else to be successful. I'm sure He could have, but He chose to allow the perfect creature for the job to be a little halfling. Perhaps it was for His glory that he used what many would consider to be a weak instrument. I mean, if the greatest man/elf in the world had completed the mission all of the thanks and glory and such would've gone to him because it would be somewhat believable, but when a hobbit does it- you know there are larger forces at work. Perhaps that was what Eru's purpose was for using hobbits- showing his hand in the world?

Though I've never seen it before, I'm sure someone somewhere in the history of this site has expressed a similar opinion.

Originally Posted by Beth

And it is a prevalent aspect of folk culture in England to think of the English as the new chosen people.

Originally Posted by Sauce

I think that you're a little out of date there. We handed that particular belief over to the Americans some time ago now.

Yes, it was a noble deed, but unfortunately it rendered your country powerless to win Wimbledon ever since.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I thought the theory posited suggested exactly that reactionary creation.

[the phantom]

I thought the theory posited suggested exactly that reactionary creation.

Well, I guess only Morsul can say what the precise thought was. But no matter what Morsul's answer is, it is my belief that even if hobbits were made specifically to counter Sauron's Ring after the Ring was created, which would certainly seem to be "reactionary" creation, we cannot call any creation of Eru's reactionary as that implies an inability to perceive all things at once.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Morsul's preliminary thoughts were followed by some short and (I felt) somewhat dismissive posts (and no, morm, I do not include your post within that desciption) and very little in the way of discussion. My purpose in posting was to do precisely the opposite of what you accuse me of. I was actually seeking to encourage debate and discussion. It seemed to me that there were aspects of Morsul's original theory that had legs and were worthy of discussion, rather than being dismissed out of hand. I was not saying that people are not entitled to disagree with Morsul's points, but I did feel that they were being rather unfairly stomped on.

You know, Sauce, had you explained your 'encouragement' this way, I would not have posted questioning your actions, but there is something in this turn of phrase,

Originally Posted by Sauce

". . . . I really don't think that Morsul's theory, or at least aspects of it, should simply be dismissed out of hand.

that struck me as being too dismissive. No matter how brief the comments, it seems to me an act of interpretive overreaching to say Morsul's comments had been dismissed out of hand. After all, none of us are privy to posters' thoughts and so we cannot make claims for their thought processes.

Originally Posted by Sauce

Bêthberry, the question which you pose relies on the assumotion that Shire is representative of England and that Hobbits are representative of the English. Yet, when Tolkien first sought to (re)create a "lost mythology" of England, Hobbits were not even a twinkle in his eye. Yes, I can see aspects of England (or part of it) in the Shire and English traits within his Hobbitish characters. And they are the characters with which I identify the most. But I think that this is more because he created them, and the Shire, from personal experience and sought to give them a familiar feel so that, as they are the central focus of the story, readers could identify with them. I do not think that, by making them the "saviours of Middle-earth", he was seeking to make any point about the role of the English in our world. He recognised that there are "Orcs" in all nationalities, so I don't think that he held any illusions concerning English superiority, despite being born and raised in a society where this was in many ways a prevalent view.

I think you are here confusing Tolkien's personal statements in his Letters with the story proper. Of course in his Letters he states that orcs can belong anywhere, and his analysis of the Allied tactics and strategies in WWII amply demonstrate his thoughts about power and corruption.

However, LotR does not, as a story, state that orcs can be any nationality. We have Gollem as evidence of one hobbit's terrible, terrible spiral into desperation, but no orc is ever presented as a twisted hobbit. Nor is any dwarf ever presented as an orc. The generation of orcs is, of course, a perennial topic of discussion here on the Downs, but it is limited to elves and men and some sort--possibly--of cloning. (Of course, I could err in this, as I don't have all dozen volumes of HoMe under my belt.)

Furthermore, one need not consciously seek to make a point about one's nation's superiority. Colonial and post colonialist studies have amply demonstrated that many cultural assumptions are just that--assumptions unexamined and unquestioned and unrecognised for what they are. These, in fact, are more difficult to understand and deal with than overt claims of superiority. Reading T.S.Eliot's Book of Practical Cats, for example--and Eliot was a contemporary of Tolkien's--demonstrates how cultural assumptions can show forth in art even without the author necessarily desiring to represent them.

It is entirely possible and legitimate to look at how the story is constructed and make a claim about what the story suggests. You, the champion of individual interpretation, should surely not fall back upon "Tolkien's intentions" as evidence in this discussion.

The fact remains that Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry, in company with a wizard, elf, dwarf and several men, journey to the heart of darkness where terrible evil lurks--a darkness far away from The Shire and one particularly collocated with the peoples of the East and "Far Harad". One need only look at the maps of Middle-earth to see that, although evil can befall all, its centre appears to belong to places that are more usually connoted with non-Western races.

Hobbits may have come forth into Tolkien's mind full formed once he thought of them living in a hole, but as the plot imperative of LotR suggests, the hobbits, and one in particular, with the extraordinary love and friendship and courage of character of another, brought about the conditions that enabled a (temporary) victory over the forces of darkness and evil. There is a correlation there (note, I do not say causation).

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the cultural notion among the English of them being the bulwark against evil. The July attacks on the London Underground and its commuters brought about a point of view decidedly different from that which arose in the US after 9/11. "We are not afraid" brought back all the stirring eloquence of Churchill's speeches--and so easily so, on the eve of the 60th anniversary. The current issue of Granta, your modern literature review, even examines this extraordinary cultural theme.

Meaning is an ongoing process, not something determined by original intentions, a process Morsul's joking initial post suggests. I think it would be well to consider how the hobbits are regarded in the text in order to answer his question.

[Gothmog]

It looks like some people think that the hobbits was created for this task and others that think that it was only Bilbo and Frodo that was chosen. But what if we combine these two theories? What if the Hobbits was created to get someone like Bilbo and Frodo? Maybe they were chosen, but so was their whole race?

I think hobbits are the perfect carriers for the Ring. Dwarves can resist the dominating powers of Sauron, but as stated before, they are quite easily corrupted by other things. Look at the creators of Nauglamir! They killed an elven king and stole his jewel because they was enchanted by it. Or look at what happened in Khazad Dum. The dwarves dug to deep and to greedy in their search for more mithril, and it became their death.

Obviously, men are to easily corrupted. Boromir for example. Aragorn on the other hand seems uneffected, but if the ring was his to carry I don't think even he could have dealt with it's power. Neither do I think that elves could have done it. But why couldn't any of these races resist the power? Because they all love power. Who doesn't?

But the hobbits are quite happy with their comfortable life, there's no fights between them over trivial things like who's supposed to govern. They all govern themselves. There is of course exceptions, but on the whole thay aren't greedy or hungry for power. So what I say is: Power to the one that doesn't want it! (I get pictures in my head from Gladiator when Marcus Aurelius tells Maximus that he'll be the one to rule Rome for a while). No-one that in their heart desire power may take the ring without losing themselves to it. That's why Galadriel, Gandalf or Elrond would have failed.

And look at the result! It was the hobbits that did it, brought the Ring to Mt Doom and then actually destroyed it. Yes, destroyed it, Gollum (or at least Smeagol) is after all close to a hobbit.

So Eru created the Hobbits in belief that sometime one if them would step forward, and when that time came he would have very little hunger for power, and be of a much tougher material than what can be seen on the outside.

On a side note I don't think Bilbo was more adventurous than other hobbits. He wasn't exactly thrilled by the thought of leaving the Shire together with a bunch of dwarves and a crazy wizard...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

After all, none of us are privy to posters' thoughts and so we cannot make claims for their thought processes.

No, but we react to the way in which people speak and write all the time. On a discussion board such as this, there is very little else that we have to go on. And mine was an genuinely-felt reaction.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think you are here confusing Tolkien's personal statements in his Letters with the story proper.

No, I am saying that Tolkien's comments to the effect that Orcs could be found among all nationalities suggest that he did not regard the English as particularly superior to any other nationality. My statement referred to his views with regard to the real world, not his created world.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, LotR does not, as a story, state that orcs can be any nationality.

But every race in the created world is capable of acts which are portrayed as "wrong" - not good, if not positively evil. For the Elves, we have Feanor, Saeros, Eol and Maeglin displaying "inappropriate" (or at least ambiguous) behaviour. And he is critical, at times, of their "unnatural" desire (instinct?) to preserve. It is said that some Dwarves allied themselves with Sauron, and of course many of the race of Men turned to, or at least served, evil. Even in the Entish realm of Fangorn there are pockets of evil.

As for Hobbits, they do seem to be the race least prone to "wrong" behaviour, which perhaps links in to the point about them being the least corruptible of the races. But even then, we have individual examples of unsympathetic Hobbits - Ted Sandyman and the Sackville-Bagginses (although, of course, Lobelia is redeemed in the end). And the Hobbits did display what Tolkien might consider to be Orcish behaviour in cutting down the trees of the Old Forest to prevent it from encroaching upon their land.

Overall, I think, Tolkien recognises that none of his races are perfect, Hobbits included. So, while there is a link between Hobbits and the English, it is not, to my mind, a link by which he meant to establish any notion of English superiority. Not consciously, at least. Which leads me on to ...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Furthermore, one need not consciously seek to make a point about one's nation's superiority.

That is a fair point and I accept it. It is possible that, subconsciously, Tolkien regarded his own nation as superior. But it is not one which we can determine with any degree of certainty. There is a fine line between patriotism and feelings of national superiority. I regard myself as patriotic, but I do not have any illusions that the English are the "chosen people" or superior in any over-reaching way to those of other nations . Of course, there are aspects of Englishness which I regard as strengths (we write better songs and are better at comedy, for example ). But I also recognise the weaknesses in the English psyche. No one nation can be perfect or have any right to claim absolute superiority over another (although the governments which they elect or have imposed upon them can be a different matter …).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The fact remains that Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry, in company with a wizard, elf, dwarf and several men, journey to the heart of darkness where terrible evil lurks--a darkness far away from The Shire and one particularly collocated with the peoples of the East and "Far Harad". One need only look at the maps of Middle-earth to see that, although evil can befall all, its centre appears to belong to places that are more usually connoted with non-Western races.

These are points that always come up on the "Was Tolkien racist" threads. While Tolkien was certainly writing a "West-centric" tale, I do not see them as suggesting any particular feelings of national superiority, much less racial superiority. See, for example, the Tolkien and Racism thread and my post #14 here. Later in the thread, there is (I think) some discussion of Sam's reflections on the fallen Man of Harad which indicates sympathy for individual Haradrim, if not the Haradrim as a unitary enemy. Those from the south and the east may be protrayed as exotic and dangerous, but they are not portrayed as inherently evil.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is entirely possible and legitimate to look at how the story is constructed and make a claim about what the story suggests. You, the champion of individual interpretation, should surely not fall back upon "Tolkien's intentions" as evidence in this discussion.

The point that I was addressing (which was the one I thought you raised) was whether Tolkien intended the Hobbits as a symbol of English superiority. And the determination of authorial intention seems to me to be a rather critical element in doing so. If, however, you are asking me whether it is possible for an individual reader to interpret Hobbits in this way, my answer would, of course, be yes. Although, I should add, it is not my (individual) reading of the story (even accepting the theory that, within the story, Eru created Hobbits with the destruction of the Ring and the downfall of Sauron specifically in mind).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the cultural notion among the English of them being the bulwark against evil. The July attacks on the London Underground and its commuters brought about a point of view decidedly different from that which arose in the US after 9/11. "We are not afraid" brought back all the stirring eloquence of Churchill's speeches--and so easily so, on the eve of the 60th anniversary.

To me, these events speak less of feelings of national superiority than the reactions of a nation under attack. I would regard the "Blitz" spirit and the reaction to the London tube bombings as examples of strengths within the English psyche, but not indicative of overall superiority. Indeed, the contrast with the US reaction of incredulity that such a thing could happen on US territory or that anyone could dislike them so much as a nation, is perhaps more telling. But we are straying into off-topic and potentially controversial territory here, so this aspect of the discussion, if it is to continue, would best be pursued via PM.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Meaning is an ongoing process, not something determined by original intentions, a process Morsul's joking initial post suggests.

Ongoing and individual. In summary, I consider it to be a credible interpretation of the Legendarium that Hobbits were created by Eru with an eye to the downfall of Sauron, but do not expect other readers necessarily to agree with that interpretation. And I consider it unlikely that Tolkien intended the Hobbits as a cypher of English superiority, do not interpret them as such myself, but accept that others may read the story in that way.

Does that explain my position, sufficiently?

Edit: Cross-posted with Gothmog, with whom I agree - save that Eru would have known rather than believed that the Hobbits concerned would step forward, Him being omnipresent n'all. Also - it is specifically stated that Bilbo did have a Tookish, adventurous side. Only it lay dormant until Gandalf awoke it.

[Gothmog]

Also - it is specifically stated that Bilbo did have a Tookish, adventurous side. Only it lay dormant until Gandalf awoke it.

Maybe so, but doesn't that mean that there should be an adventurous side laying dormant in a lot of hobbits? At least those that have Tookish blood? I don't say that Bilbo wasn't chosen specificly, he probably was, but maybe he and Frodo wasn't so different from many other hobbits, just that the others weren't "wakened". As we can see in the Scouring of Shire part, the hobbits can act both swift and strong if there's a need to. Bilbo wasn't more adventurous than other hobbits (at least others with Took-blood), but they all were dormant heroes And as I said, this doesn't make Bilbo less special, only less different. It was after all he and no-one else that was chosen for the mission.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I attempted a post this morning and in editing a faulty link I lost half the post, so I deleted the whole thing, lacking time to restore. Perhaps now I will have better luck.

In the interests of keeping a post short, I won't for the time being reply to the many interesting posts here that were written over my weekend absence, but rather to an interesting idea that The SaucyOne introduced in reply to my earlier post.

Originally Posted by SpM

As for Hobbits, they do seem to be the race least prone to "wrong" behaviour, which perhaps links in to the point about them being the least corruptible of the races. But even then, we have individual examples of unsympathetic Hobbits - Ted Sandyman and the Sackville-Bagginses (although, of course, Lobelia is redeemed in the end). And the Hobbits did display what Tolkien might consider to be Orcish behaviour in cutting down the trees of the Old Forest to prevent it from encroaching upon their land.

Overall, I think, Tolkien recognises that none of his races are perfect, Hobbits included. So, while there is a link between Hobbits and the English, it is not, to my mind, a link by which he meant to establish any notion of English superiority. Not consciously, at least.

"Superiority" does not necessarily imply perfection--a point which others have made here. The hobbit faults and frailties are for the most part depicted as fairly petty particularly when seen beside Boromir's fall from grace or the constant reminders of the errors of the race of Men. And, after all, the English aristocracy has no difficulty believing itself better than the other classes without in any way being under any illusion that it is stainless.

Originally Posted by Sauce

That is a fair point and I accept it. . . .
These are points that always come up on the "Was Tolkien racist" threads. While Tolkien was certainly writing a "West-centric" tale, I do not see them as suggesting any particular feelings of national superiority, much less racial superiority. See, for example, the Tolkien and Racism thread and my post #14 here. Later in the thread, there is (I think) some discussion of Sam's reflections on the fallen Man of Harad which indicates sympathy for individual Haradrim, if not the Haradrim as a unitary enemy. Those from the south and the east may be protrayed as exotic and dangerous, but they are not portrayed as inherently evil. . . .

If, however, you are asking me whether it is possible for an individual reader to interpret Hobbits in this way, my answer would, of course, be yes. Although, I should add, it is not my (individual) reading of the story (even accepting the theory that, within the story, Eru created Hobbits with the destruction of the Ring and the downfall of Sauron specifically in mind). ...

In summary, I consider it to be a credible interpretation of the Legendarium that Hobbits were created by Eru with an eye to the downfall of Sauron, but do not expect other readers necessarily to agree with that interpretation. And I consider it unlikely that Tolkien intended the Hobbits as a cypher of English superiority, do not interpret them as such myself, but accept that others may read the story in that way.

Interesting that you bring up the perennial question of racism, as there are other threads which addressed that issue, your own thread Does LotR have cross cultural appeal? being one.


My post with Toni Morrison's excellent distinction between racial and racist is particularly relevant here, as it suggests not the typically virulent form of conscious denigration of other races--which cannot be found in either Tolkien's Letters or in his creative writing--but the far more subtle and unconscious forms of cultural "furniture" that rattles around in our heads.

Morrsion's explanation is worth repeating here, I think, as it reflects upon why some might see the depiction of the hobbits as forming a sense of the English as the specially provident ones.

Originally Posted by Toni Morrison, Playing in the Dark

When does racial "unconsciousness" or awareness of race enrich interpretive language, and when does it impoverish it? What does positing one's writerly [or readerly, as she has suggested previously] self, in the wholly racialised society that is the United States, as unraced and all others as raced entail? What happens to the writerly[again, also, readerly] imagination of a black author [again, reader] who is at some level always conscious of representing one's own race to, or in spite of, a race of readers that understands itself to be "universal" or race-free? In other words, how is "literary whiteness" and "literary blackness" made, and what is the consequence of that construction? How do embedded assumptions of racial (not racist) language work in the literary enterprise that hopes and sometimes claims to be "humanist'?

We might easily use "literary Englishness" here and consider the difference between a 'national language' and an international language and how those affect reader's view of Tolkien's mythology for the English. At the same time, I must say that I think Sauce's term "West-Centric" is very helpful here, for it does suggest the innate way we have of viewing things within our own cultural context--and that can include blinders as much as we may love and admire our own culture.

However, what I also find intriguing about this thread is Morsul the Dark's absence after starting it, particularly in relation to some of his other threads.

By George dwarves are British I think

Why Bilbo?

I think clearly Morsul is attempting to articulate an idea here, one that seems to constantly be slipping through our fingers.