Hobbits the chosen people

[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.

[Farael]

I've argued for this already yet my comment seems to have gone unnoticed. While it's plausible that Eru created the Hobbits knowing (as He knows everything) they would be necessary, it does not mean they are the "chosen people" If by that you think of it on the biblical meaning. The Israelites as chosen people were not sent out in a quest to save the world but rather to show the world how G'd Himself wants men to behave. They were chosen to learn and to be judged by the laws of G'd, while the rest of the world would look upon them for enlightment. They would be the 'priests' in the Earth as a temple of G'd.

On the other hand the Hobbits are a race of creatures that could have been created with a specific purpose in the mind of Eru (but then, which creature would not?) and that purpose being to save the Middle Earth, but it does not sound much like the biblical idea of chosen people.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Farael

The Israelites as chosen people were not sent out in a quest to save the world but rather to show the world how G'd Himself wants men to behave. .

Deuteronomy 3:6

[Lhunardawen]

On a side note, I think it's the descendants of the remnant of the Numenoreans that sailed to Middle-earth who are the chosen people. Gondor and Arnor seem too much like Israel and Judah, if you ask me...



I'll get me coat.

[Himilsillion]

I agree with Lhunardawen that it does seem like a chosen people in middle-earth are the desendents of the Numenoreans. Two kingdoms that were united and then split. Anyway thats getting of topic. I think that this thread is meant to discuss if hobbits were chosen by Eru to help save middle-earth in a non-biblical sense. So do you think that Eru deliberately made the Hobbits or maybe made is not the right word...
anyway did Eru decide that the race of Hobbits should save middle-earth?

[Morsul the Dark]

all good points indeed(and may i thank saucy for defending me)

Perhaps i cxame on a bit strong with "chosen people" i do believe that although hobbits are based on england the dwarves are closer to the actual culture(thanks bethberry for brionging up my older threads.)

I dont think tolkien created hobbits "better than everyone" because they were british

i only meant this, remember tolkien wrote LOTR as an observer to him they appeared to be human-like, so in actuality we dont know when how or who crerated hobbits. And Saucepanman is right i also think there is very little space for evolution in ME

now an interesting point/question came up
if the hobbits were "chosen why the fellowship.

well think about this without bilbo finding the ring and frodo carrying it to rivendel would aragorn really have gone to minas tirith without merry and pippin would the three hunters ended up in rohan the hobbits of the fellowship almost act as guides bringing each group to their particular destiny.

[Elu Ancalime]

I dont think anyone mentioned this, but I dont think the Hobbits were directly created like Men and Elves and Dwarves were. Being a strain of Men, they are like a more distant division, like say If there were a realm of elves in harad. They are still elves, but they would be so different. Ok, maybe a bad example, but what i think is is that the river folk grew so appart from Men that they became recognized as a different line. So instead of Illuvatar poffing hobbits next to the Anduin, they were rather 'melded' from men. Whether or not it was by the action of Eru or the Valar cant really be said. Illuvatar didnt need a hobbit to find the ring, or a hobbit to be appointed to carry it. Now while that statement may sound completely false, what I mean is that a character (Frodo) would carry the Ring to Mt Doom. Frodo and Bilbo, being unlike most hobbits, could do that. So Frodo could have been a dwarf who interested in the affairs in the world, instead of being mainly close minded on his own land and affairs. So frodo just happened to be a hobbit, and hobbits just happened to be more resiliant to the Rings temptation. I suppose in this case, it was nature over nurture .
________
Sex Tube