A hundredth re-read of the LotR

[Thinlómien]

I've finally managed to get rid of the things that kept me too busy, I've finally managed to read the prologue and the two first chapters and I've finally managed to make it here. Yay! So, without further ramblings...


Prologue/Concerning Hobbits

The things that made me wonder here were two things rather loosely related to the main theme. They would probably merit threads of their own, but I will mention them briefly. First off, Tharbad. We know it was a city of men, we know where it was located and we know the year of its ruin and desertion (T.A. 2912). But what else? Who were these people who lived there? When was the city founded and by whom? What kind of political role did it play? I have never come across with any further information about the city yet the topic intrigues me...

The second thing is the Dúnedain protecting the Shire. I used to take it for granted and not to pay it any attention, but now it strikes me as rather questionable. Just why on earth did the Dúnedain devote themselves to nannying the Hobbits (and the Breelanders)? I know all this noble la-di-dah of protecting ordinary people and fighting the evil, but why? Just because it's morally right? Just because they feel they have a duty? Why would they feel so? Are they still sticking to their lost kingdom as when it still existed, the shirelings were under their protection? Just seems somehow... over-the-top. Were they there only for giving Tolkien a good excuse for making the Shire such a paradise? If someone could shed a bit more light on this issue, I would be grateful...

Then (sorry Nogrod ) I will comment on some of the social/class stuff that were brought up earlier.

I think Nogrod has a kind of point with the Fallohides, but "goes to the forest" (sorry, a Finnish saying, couldn't resist as it sounded so cute in English ) to a degree with his conclusions. The Fallohides were not, if you ask me, any better than the Stoors or the Harfoots. At least, to me they've always seemed like a bunch of good-for-nothings , while the Harfoots represent all the good Hobbit qualities. All the Hobbit heroes of LotR are Harfoots, granted some of them have Fallohide or Stoor blood in their veins.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But how about when the drop-out thinks differently than the community? What happened to the different hobbits? Were homosexual hobbits tolerated, not to ask accepted? Or what about if there were “Rules” of old that oppressed certain fractions of the community? Like the poor? Like women?

Now, this is even more interesting, especially as I happened to argue about whether homosexuality exists at all in Middle-Earth with a fellow 'downer in MSN not so long ago. However, they key thing here, I think, is that no one was really oppressed or discriminated in the Hobbit society. The rich helped the poor, women were (I think) rather equal with men even though the traditional gender roles were predominant (hmm... please, let's not talk about this because otherwise I might start ranting *would add smiley if hadn't passed the limit already*) and even those considered odd (like the Bagginses) were tolerated and had some friends. I think we could rather safely assume that homosexual Hobbits would be treated similarily. Gossiped about, and not always nicely, but in principle liked and tolerated and not shunned. Even though, I find the idea of a publicly gay Hobbit very hard to imagine. On the othe other hand, why would they then stay in the closet if it was not doomed? Or okay, homosexuality has been considered in certain societes (especially in agrarian societies like that of the Hobbits) either as a ghastly crime, or illness, but it has been considered sick and perverted in any case, pretty much the same way we now look at paedophiles. (Which is of course absurd, because it's a totally different issue, but let's not get into that.) So, maybe Hobbits would have had a similar attitude to gays as we have to paedophiles? Not a very nice thought, though...

As for literacy, I have never seen it as the manifestation of injustice in the Hobbit society. Rather, I feel that the Hobbit society was not that much based on it and only those learned to read who had an interest in it, it was a kind of hobby. This theory is, I think, supported by many things in the story (I'm too lazy to find the quotes though or to analyse the origins of my conceptions) BUT Tolkien is really giving rather contradictory information about this, as many things in the Hobbit society are related to the assumption that everybody can read, for example, it's much easier to keep track of genealogy if you can read and in the Scouring of the Shire there are written rules on the walls of the "guest-house" or whatever it is. One could assume that if Saruman's ruffians new hobbits were illiterate, they would not bother with written rules. Thus, I'm inclined to believe this is something Tolkien was accidentally inconsistent with.

Lastly, I think you Nogrod take the question of importance too seriously. I think the word "important" simply means that the families had power.

Ok, this is getting horribly long... I will make separate posts for the next chapters...