"Gated communities"......

[Child of the 7th Age]

On a recent thread that dealt with academics and their perceptions of Middle-earth, Bethberry raised the intriguing term "gated community" when discussing Tom Bombadil and Goldberry.

To be truthful, this same phrase has often crossed my mind when reading Lord of the Rings. So many of the communities in Middle-earth can be seen as self-contained enclaves that discouraged others from staying or even visiting. There's Lorien, perhaps the most extreme example of all, where most folk are discouraged from entering. There's Rivendell which does let a few visitors in, but has secret entrances and exits. The inhabitants of the Shire clearly look inward and pay little attention to those outside their borders. The fourth age prohibition on men entering the Shire is, in my opinion, an extreme example of this. And then there's the dwarves. It's true that they often acted as traders, but they also have a secret language, which no one else knew. Their private lives are so hidden that Tolkien only gave us a name for one representative female dwarf. Folk even speculate about what dwarf women might have looked like because no one truly knows.

You can certainly go back in Tolkien's history and find other examples of communities that are gated and protected in some sense. There's Valinor itself as well as the Elvish cities in Beleriand. There's the isle of Numenor, which is protected by the ocean waves.

Remember, we are talking about the "good guys" here, not the villains. Yet, my feelings are always a little mixed when I consider how many of the communities in Middle-earth look like gated enclaves. The idea of a gated, protected community in real life makes me recoil. I'm older than most posters here, and I remember fighting against such structures way back when, since they invariably implied racial separation of some sort.

This is obviously not what Tolkien meant. But what was he saying by giving us the gated community as an ideal? Or perhaps others would argue with the statement I've just put forward.

Was this for merely practical reasons, the need for physical protection and isolation in a dangerous world? Certainly, one can make that argument for Beleriand and Valinor and a host of other locations prior to the destruction of the Ring.

And yet I still have the feeling that something else is going on here. Did Tolkien feel that "gated communities" were necessary for the different peoples of Middle-earth to maintain their cultural identity? Could this have possibly had anything to do with his own perceptions of England's past, where its separation from the mainland served to protect it, at least until recently? How did JRRT reconcile his concept of the "gated community" with his other obvious belief, expressed in LotR, that the different peoples of Middle-earth had to learn to cooperate or they would perish? And why, after the defeat of the Ring, did the hobbits and Woses again put up bars to keep others out?

Are there exceptions to this gated model? One example that springs to mind is the interchange between the Elves of Mirkwood, the men of Dale and their dwarf neighbors.

But, still, there are enough hints in the books and Letters to suggest that Tolkien would have respected the adage "Good fences make good neighbors." What is Tolkien telling us about the nature of the Free Peoples and, by implication, our own natures? It's always disturbed and intrigued me. Anyone have some answers?

Cami Goodchild who hails from "The Shire," a gated community in the southerly part of our site.....

[ April 01, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[mark12_30]

This is an odd thing to do, but your post reminds me of this article by Derbyshire (a Brit who has become an American citizen) :

Mutual Incomprehension

Scroll down and read the paragraphs on Our patriotism and Their patriotism. I think the " Old World patriotism " is, sort of, the "gate" that you are seeing.

More later...

[Bêthberry]

Melian's girdle, too, Child, which ultimately fails.

A cloistered virtue is no virtue.

More later.

Edit: To me, the issue is not one of patriotism, but of how Tolkien has conceived of good and evil, of virtue and error. It relates to the philosophical constructs underpining Tolkien's work. The moment virtue--or, in Goldberry's context, the female other--refuses to walk out in the world, but to sequester itself, is the moment when every thing 'not virtue' becomes targetted by projecting qualities on it not becoming virtue. It is a strategy that I think leads to continued disparity, arrogance, and further disharmony.

[ April 01, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Lily Bracegirdle]

Great topic, Child!

You've brought up something that hasn't occurred to me before, but once I heard it I thought "Yes! Of course!"

Perhaps this insular tendency in the races of ME is part of why people with certain political/racial beliefs like LotR (to the chagrin of the rest of us).

One exception to the "gated community" model that I can think of is Bree, where Men and Hobbits lived together.

The Big Folk and the Little Folk (as they called one another) were on friendly terms, minding their own affairs in their own ways, but both rightly regarding themselves as necessary parts of the Bree-Folk. Nowhere else in the world was this peculiar (but excellent) arrangement to be found.

Dwarves also frequented Bree; there were some in the common room of the Prancing Pony the night the hobbits met Aragorn. I don't know if Elves ever went there, but it was on the Road to the Havens, so I like to think they did.

Another example might be Ithilien after the War of the Ring. Not only were Men of Gondor (and at least one woman of Rohan) there, but Legolas brought elves from Greenwood to dwell there. One can only assume that Gimli went to visit his friend.

I wonder if Tolkien didn't make the diffeent races so insular so that he could keep them culturally/linguistically distict when he wrote them. I don't believe he kept them apart because he thought different races *should* be separate. (Otherwise why would he have one of his major heroes marry a woman of a different species?) In other words, maybe when he set up the world he made separate languages for different cultures, and he didn't want to deal linguistically with cross-pollenation between cultures, so he made the different races physically separated.

I think Tolkien approved of cross-species fraternization. Many of his heroes are "halves" or marry out of their "gated communities". Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Men, and Maiar form legendary friendships and the participants are respected and admired for doing so. Being an "Elf-friend" is a great thing in Tolkien's view.

I was disappointed that the Woses and Hobbits returned to being so separated from the rest of Middle Earth at the end of the war. I had hoped that the friendships of the members of the Fellowhip would extend to encompass their respective races, but it didn't happen. Why do you think this was so?

-Lily

[Diamond18]

This may be simplistic, but what readily occurs to me, is that the "clustering and hiding" of these non-human cultures, just works to further their fading. In other words, perhaps if Tolkien had them all mixing freely, it would be harder to believe that Elves, Hobbits, and Dwarves eventually disappeared or went into deep hiding, which leads to them being mere "myths" in today's culture.

Could this just be a way of Tolkien's to segue his world into ours? “They're gone now—what was the process that led today's "all-human" world?” If you lock a plant away from the sun, it dies. If you lock away the Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves, they disappear.

Again, I know that's a bit simplistic, but it does make sense in a way. If we're to imagine that this is a pre-history of our world, you have to sow some seeds for the transition.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen,

I will take a look at that article later, and respond.

Bethberry,

I noticed on the other thread that you said you would suggest a definition of "gated community" here and consider how this relates to Tolkien. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this,

Lily,

You've cited several good examples where Tolkien did portray the different peoples of Middle-earth coming together in a positive light such as in Bree and Ithilien.

But, like you, I am baffled by the Woses and the hobbits in the Fourth Age, especially the latter. Were the hobbits so terrified by the Scouring that they felt the only realistic option was to exclude Men totally? Since the Fourth Age was to be the time of the dominion of Men, how could this possibly work?

Another thing that intrigues me is that each of the three main hobbit types bears a resemblence to one of the other major free peoples of Middle-earth, both physically and in terms of their likes/dislikes. We have Stoors who look and act like Men; Harfoot who bore a resemblence to dwarves; and, of course, the Fallohides who seem to have Elvish ties. Certainly, this is seen in Frodo.

Is this mere coincidence? Or is it the result of these hobbit groups formerly having particular acquaintances among the other folk of Middle-earth, or the result of actual physical unions? Perhaps the fairy brides that the Tooks were rumored to have taken in The Hobbit.

And yet, even with these affinities, the hobbits are clearly insular. Gandalf comments negatively on this in Unfinished Tales. And the first thing the Shirelings do in the Fourth Age is to secure an edict from Elessar that reflects not only their right to self governance, but excludes all men from the Shire. I'm not sure if exceptions could be made to this under the King's safe conduct, or even by the hobbits themselves.

A puzzling attitude. The forces of the shadow are defeated, and Tolkien has the good guys put up even higher barriers than before.

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Lily Bracegirdle]

Diamond18, I like your idea of Tolkien sequestering his non-human races in order to retroactively explain their non-existance in our world. I think his separation of races came less from his own social/political beliefs than from the necessities of building a myth that was internally consistent. This would explain the Hobbits and Woses nicely.

Bethberry, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your addendum. Could you explain?

Mark12_30, that article was very interesting and gave me a lot to think about. It was nice to hear from someone who understands both sides.

-Lily

[Mister Underhill]

My Downs-time has been increasingly limited of late, but what the hey – I’ll just throw in a few first impressions here, even if I don’t have the time to make a real meal out of them.

I think there’s an implication in some of these observations about Tolkien’s so-called “gated communities” that the professor is somehow advocating “segregation”. I don’t think that’s a safe assumption. On the contrary, I think this may just be another one of those areas where Tolkien astutely observes human nature and uses it to make his invented world that much more real (and applicable).

I live in Los Angeles, one of, if not the, most culturally and racially diverse cities on the planet – yet even here, racial and cultural groups have a tendency to segregate themselves. Birds of a feather flock together, as the old saw says. I’ll leave debate of the why’s, how’s, and wherefore’s to others; my point is that this is a condition of human nature, one which is reflected in Middle-earth. Tolkien doesn’t offer any easy answers or false happy endings. You don’t have a big celebration at the end where Ents, Gondorians, Hobbits, Rohirrim, Woses, Elves, and Dwarves all join hands and dance the Springle-ring while fireworks shoot off overhead and an (integrated) orchestra plays a victory march. Frodo doesn’t just shrug off the effects of his task. The Shire isn’t just how the Hobbits left it when they return. The result of the victory over Sauron isn’t One World, One People. I need hardly allude to “the long defeat” here.

The history of the people of Middle-earth is a history of their follies and foibles, their ignorance and imperfection, their stubbornness and stupidity. One theme of LotR is how these insular communities must open their doors to the multi-cultural Fellowship, to the benefit of all, and we see that in individual cases, this broadening of the horizons inevitably leads to increased maturity, growth, and wisdom.

[davem]

Hmm. Maybe its not a good idea to bring in 20th century feelings & attitudes to too great a degree. The Mythological races, Elves, Dwarves (& men in this context), all have separate 'worlds' which they inhabit - ie the Nine Worlds in Norse myth. When you look into it, in most mythologies there is this separation, Elves live in Elfland, which is 'Elfland' because Elves live there. In other words, Tolkien's world is a mythic world, not a 20th century one. Maybe Tolkien wasn't making any 'point', just trying to create a world in conformity with the mythological archetypes he was inspired by.

[lindil]

Ahh, finally a thread with more interseting aspects [to me at least] than I can possibly hope to respnod too - Wonderful!


Dave M:

Maybe Tolkien wasn't making any 'point', just trying to create a world in conformity with the mythological archetypes he was inspired by.

Well he specifically points out via Gildor that the Hobbits can shut themselves in but not shut out the world completely as it is not 'their shire'. So I think that there is most certainly much 'applicability' to be found in the various relationships amongst the gated and less gated communities.


The same ultimately proved true even of the ultimate gated community [well one of 2] in the third age - Lothlorien.

Lothlorien's multifaceted and even paradoxical place in the LotR and even more so the Legendarium is beyond my abilities or temporal constraints to fully dileneate here, byut just a few aspects will I think show just how subtle and complex the 'gated community' reality of M-E is.

Point 1 - Lothlorien was dangerous to mortals. Any place that reduces an entire group of grown males to tears upon leaving is not for everybody.

Is it Beleg in the Silmarillion [ or Finrod on the Athrabeth? or ?] who comments to the effect of 'perhaps indeed it is better if men and Elves have little to do with each other] - the differnce in their 'gifts' from Eru is radical and can easily [especially for men] lead to jealousy and misunderstanding, and probably not infrquently to a certain arrogance fro Elves. Lothlorien was seriously potent medicine, having it open to the 'public' as was Bree or to a lesser degree Rivendell, as a rest stop over the pass of Caradrhas would have benn foolish. Many could not have handled it. Aragorn call's it the heart of Elvendom on earth, and if we take the analogy one step further, as the heart of an organism it needs to work in concert with many other co-factors, ALL intrinsic to it's function. Lothlorien is not the skin or voice of Elvendom on earth [i.e.the parts that interact with the outside world], it has a totally differnt function, a haven where 'essence' can grow, like a child in the womb [ the ultimate gated community!].

Point 2 - Does this have it's downsize? of course, but we must be careful I think in judging Lothlorien, because we are given few glimpses directly into the psyche of it's inhabitants. One thing I will mention id that I think Galadriel, had she ruled as an autocrat there, would have been far more outwardly active with Lorien's substantial if limited military might, but from all apparent evidence - the Elves were somewhat insular, and could be led to fight Dol Guldor and defend Rivendell from Angmar, but it is rather clear that interaction with Gondor more or less disappeard early on in the Third Age [note Farmair's comments to Frodo when he learns Boromir had been there] and seems never to have had direct contact with Rohan till the End of the Third Age when the Eomer/Gimli dispute was settled! Lorien's Elves it is said in UT did not even venture to Fangorn, though Legolas is more interested in returning there than to his kin in the heart of Elvendom on Earth.

I think this tells us several things:

That all of the races of M-E tended toward not just a sort of inter-race centricity, but that the divide between there different fates makes it inevitable and natural.

Does that mean that most communites can not profit from a healthy dose of multi-cultural exchange?

Of course not, JRRT displays this very thing as one of the crowning acheivments of Gandalf's labors [See Quest for Erebor in UT and Annotated Hobbit] and his gift if you will to Aragorn that for the first time in the history of Men, there is no 'Incarnation of Evil' to fight and there is peace and diverse and educated contacts among every race in M-E.
Ents -Hobbits - The three classes of Men - Elves and Dwarves. There will always be gates in Erebor and Thranduils halls, just like bethberry I inmagine you have a front door with a usable lock [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

But there is something of an evolution in race relations going on, though to turn back to Lorien, it can only really happen, when Lorien's unique 'Valinorean' timelessness has been destroyed.

Of course one can go to far in walling oneself off, and I am personally deeply suspicious of the wisdom of Aragorn granting [seemingly at his own idea it seems to me, not at the instigation of the Hobbits, though Letters or HoME 9 may say something onthis I may have missed] the Shire to be a Big People free zone when Dwarves [and Elves] still need to use the Road that predates the very Hobbits existence! But as was mentioned above, this is in a sense the begin their inevitable transformation into 'little folk' like the red hatted gnomes of the 70's coffe-table book fame.

~~~

Every community by it's very nature has gates of some kind, even if it's borders are wide open to travel. Customs, mores and folkways all create barriers even as they serve to bond, for better or worse, those who participate in them.

Ultimately 'gated communities' ideally serve as spirtual wombs, for a place of sfaety during a period of gestation or convalesence. Monasteries and isolated spiritual communities have been the major source for me of growth and forming of whatever small degree of insight I have. I would not see them traded for anything else in the world. Indeed several deffernt cultures have the saying that 'The world is sustained by the prayers of the monastics'.
I do not think JRRT would have to much to disagree with there. though that would be no exscuse to try and turn everywhere into a monastery or convent.

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[davem]

Well, ok, Tolkien does comment on & critcize the 'gated communities' of M.E., but I would still contend that his starting point for them is the worlds of Norse, Welsh & Finnish myth. I think a reading of the Eddas, the Mabinogion & the Kalevala will give more insight into what Tolkien was doing, or at least of his motivation, than a hundred sociology textbooks. Mythological worlds/realms, are incredibly self contained, with precise boundaries, as a reading of myths, legends & fairy stories from all cultures will confirm. In order to re-create a mythic world, as opposed to just a trivial fantasy world, there are certain conventions of structure which are necessary. Maybe Tolkien's criticms of these gated communities reflect his own attitudes to the mythic worlds he was using as a source, not his attitudes to modern society.
(wish I had more time to pursue this)

[Birdland]

Child - Since the denizens of Middle Earth are supposedly "us" from an earlier time in pre-history, I just think the Good Professor was painting his cultures based on our own history.

Walled and fortified cities were a fact of life for most of human history. It was the best way to protect yourself, at least until the advent of the missile. Heck, the Chinese walled off half their country, and apparently, with good reason. (Dang Mongols.)

Remember that M-E was a land under siege, first from Morgoth, then Sauron. Not to mention that the three main races each had their share of dirty dealings when it came to their neighbors. So I'm sure that paranoia and xenophobia were alive and well in Arda, just as it was (and sadly, is) alive and well in our own world.

As for the Shire, their "walls" were created from pure isolation. The halflings settled in a land that had been emptied of Men through war and plague. If you look at the map of M-E, the country around the Shire is empty wilderness. And once you get on the other side of the Misty Mountains, Halflings become a myth. Again distance and isolation was a very effective form of protection in our own world for most of history.

As for King Elessar's edict against Men entering the Shire: I think "Strider" made an excellent decision, based on his own knowledge of history and his experiences. As peace came to Middle Earth and the number of Men grew and expanded into formerly empty lands, the Hobbits were bound to lose the protection of isolation. History shows that when "little folk" (either in stature or culture) meet "big folk", it is usually bad news for the Little Folk. As Tolkien suggests in "Concerning Hobbits", King Elessar's Edict did not last. Sadly, such edicts seldom do.

To sum up: Tolkien's "gated communities" and the fear and suspicion of the races towards each other only makes his characters seem more real and "human". It seems much more real than some of the modern fantasies, where different races of magical creatures just mix willy-nilly, a sort of mythical One World Order.

Now if that were to happen for real is our own world, it truly would be "magical".

[Schmendrick]

I don't usually answer questions that require writing long posts, since english isn't my mothertongue and also because I'm not "a Tolkien-expert". But this time I thought I'd write down some of my thoughts.
Actually, I quite agree with Birdland. I think Tolkien might not have created these "gated communities" deliberately. I'd rather think that he had been influenced by the old texts that he read and just forwarded the models presented there to his own stories (quite unconsciously).
Also - or in consequence- I don't know if one can think that Middle-Earth is supposed to be seen as a "model-society"; I think it rather is a mixture of these old models and the world as it was at Tolkien's time( even if "the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex"). At least "xenophobie" for one, marked Tolkien's period greatly. And personally, I have always thought that there is much criticism of xenophobie in the LOTR, for example in the way that the Hobbits of the Shire think that those " on the wrong side of the Brandywine River" are "queer" (and no doubt, those think the same about the hobbits of the Shire...) etc.
Well, this became really confusing! What I mean is that the societies per se are probably not meant to be "models", but rather the behaviour of the central figures, who fight the prejudices and cross the borders(some obvious examples: Legolas&Gimli, Beregond&Pippin etc).
Hope you could understand something about my english! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Bêthberry]

*takes a deep breath and with some hesitation begins to explain her use of "gated community."

This is not a flippant beginning, for I really do fear that my way of considering LOTR might offend those for whom the book is a sacred story. Please read no further if you wish only accolades for the Professor's work.

I begin by clarifying what I am not doing.

I am not concerned with equating the book with our world or our communities. That is, I am not seeking to explain or justify Tolkien's text by reference to something outside it. Our own experiences and witnesses are valid and significant, but for the purposes of my argument, this witness does not automatically or axiomatically justify or explain what happens in LOTR.

I am not interested in determining Tolkien's intention. I mentioned that in my addendum above, and that was an unfortunate misdirection. This is not a rejection of authorial intention, but rather a wish simply to step outside that box, for the time being.

I do not wish to deny the personal witness of those who have used religious retreats, nor to deny the value of meditation, retreats, or any form of renewal. Once again, these forms of personal experience are outside the text and in this argument, do not act as validation of the narrative.

Nor does my discussion revolve around determining whether the hobbits and Aragorn were right or wrong in limiting access to The Shire in the Fourth Age. That is, I am not here engaged in interpreting LOTR so much as trying to understand how it works as literature.

What I am here attempting to say is that I don't want, at this point, to consider LOTR a mirror of the world or my world. It isn't mimesis (the representation of reality) I am trying to use to explain Tolkien's work. I am trying to priviledge the work of art as literature.

A long preamble. Forgive me.

I used the term 'gated communities' because it has a special function. That function is often negatively connoted, unlike other specialized communities such as the university or the monastary. That function is not simply retreat from the world, but a rejection of the conditions of the world. The community within the gate protects itself by creating an opposite which the gated community believes might taint it. Inevitably, the gated community becomes priviledged when the opposition becomes hierarchical. That other term, those outside the gate, ultimately become alienated from the positive values which the gated community uses to describe itself. The gated community can then project onto this 'other' many kinds of fantasies and descriptions. Thus, the values of the gated community no longer need to be applied to or respected in its relationship with this oppositional other.


Edit: My argument beyond this point was over-generalized and abrupt. I need more time to elaborate on this before I consider whether or how this relates to LOTR. Be back tomorrow to finish this. My apologies to all.

Bethberry

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[tangerine]

Odd... When I saw the title of this post, I immediately thought of South Africa, where Tolkien was born. Gated communities were (maybe still are) very popular there. It's where the rich people lived as a way of living in security from the unwashed masses. These literally had gates around them, to prevent anyone unwanted from coming near their neighbourhood. I know this happened during the Apartheid period, but I wouldn't doubt their existence beforehand.
Now I know that he moved back to England shortly after his birth, but he might have been told something, and the concept might have filtered through. The only gates to towns nowadays are tollbooths and customs.

[Iarwain]

Fascinating. First of all, before my inevitable distraction, I think, Child, that this is a wonderful thought as well as one worth discussing.

That article was probably the most interesting peice of political commentary I've read in months. (not saying much, but still I found it extremely interesting) I suppose stability has not reached the world after all... It seems quite disturbing/exciting to myself as an American that the european-communist world is still awake after the fall of the USSR. I've been terrified of the idea of Stalinistic Communism ever since I read 1984...

Anyway, about the topic. It seems that as others have said, these gates were meant to preserve cultural identity while keeping the community peacful. This also brings in the concept of walls, what they mean, and the psychological image they reflect on people, places and cultures. I'd love to watch this thread as it progresses, however I regrettably have nothing further to contribute right now.

Iarwain

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[davem]

Tolkien's original intent was not to 'invent' a mythology for England, it was to 're-discover' England's lost mythology. Shippey goes into this in great detail in Author of the Century. Tolkien was taking the last remnants of the myths & legends of England & attempting to reconstruct the original, rather like reconstructing a lost language from a few scattered inscriptions.
He took what was there. Elves in Middle Earth live in underground realms, because Elves & Faeries in northern European myth live in underground realms, like the Hollow Hills of Scots & Irish mythology, or the live in the Wild Wood, a la Robin Hood, which grew out of the stories of Puck & Robin Goodfellow. Dwarves live underground in the Mines they dig their ore from.
Tolkien is starting from this point, not from the point of social commentary. The Legendarium develops & Tolkien explores the motivations of each race, trying to give an explanation of why they live the way they do, & comments on those motivations, but his starting point is the original myths. The comments are secondary, & ultimately do not provide an explanation of the individual races way of life.
If the races live in separated communities its ultimately down to two things, room & psychology. There's room in Middle Earth for each race to live as they do. Psychologically, the differences between races are immense. They couldn't live together in true harmony. Elves are, for Tolkien, 'embalmers'. They want to turn the earth into a work of art, put a frame around & 'freeze' that perfection. The Dwarves see the earth as a source of resources for their craftsmanship. Men want to dominate the earth. These races could not live in harmony, & luckily, there's enough room in M.E. for them not to have to.
Each race's realm reflects its essential nature, taken to an extreme. I can't see them as 'gated communities', at least not in the sense that Tolkien was 'commenting' on such things. Maybe 'applicability' comes in here, or seeing in the Legendarium what you want to see, but I think its dangerous ground, because I can't see that it had any part in Tolkien's thought, & therefore any 'comments' anyone sees Tolkien making on the subject will be sheer guesswork.
The subject of 'gated communities' may have a great deal of relevance to twentieth century humans, but its one area where I don't think Tolkien has anything to say.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Whoa! I got called away by real life and duties in the Shire, and so many great posts went up while I was gone. Just wanted to thank everyone, respond to some ideas, and add some thoughts of my own. Please bear with me as this may be long.

Diamond18 -- I agree that sequestering the non-human races (if we define hobbits as non-human) makes their fading and disappearance from our own world more understandable. However, I see this as a "desirable" side effect in terms of Tolkien's writing rather than the main reason the author chose to structure his world in this fashion.

Lindil: I agree with your comment that different fates make it inevitable and natural that there will be separation between folk, and this will discourage closeness. I assume you are referring here to the issue of mortality vrs. immortality. This is a clear and constant theme when Tolkien discusses Men and Elves. However, this equation breaks down somewhat if we include dwarves and hobbits in the mix, since they share a similar fate to Man, at least in the sense that they are not immortal.

Helen --Thanks for the link. While I wouldn't use the term "patriotism", the author of the article does make a legitimate point about different folk having different styles, and not understanding or feeling comfortable with each other for that reason. I do think that's one factor, particularly in regard to the hobbits whose experience outside the Shire was strictly limited. But I think it goes beyond this, especially when you throw in the Elves.

Davem: Your own comments were the most thought provoking. I agreed with some, and strongly disagreed with others.

First, I do concur that Tolkien had to have been influenced by the models he saw in Norse, Finnish, etc. mythology. The old myths do indeed stress separate communities and peoples, each with their own traits and differing fate.

However, I've always thought of Tolkien like an onion, with layer upon layer of meaning. Just because we see and understand one layer, doesn't mean we should stop there. I think there is something more going on here than a simple adaptation or tweaking of the old northern myths.

I especially disagree with this statement:

The subject of 'gated communities' may have a great deal of relevance to twentieth century humans, but its one area where I don't think Tolkien has anything to say.

First, let's take the words "gated communities". It's obviously an anachronistic term. No one would dispute that. But Tolkien himself was very happy to use anachronistic terms when their underlying meaning suited his purpose. All the freight trains and umbrellas and fireworks in the Shire were there for a reason. They weren't just mistakes. At heart, they tells us something important about the nature of the Shire. And I would argue that the term "gated communities" can do the same in helping us get another perspective on the nature of Middle-earth and the free peoples who lived there.

You can use any definition that you choose. ( Bethberry's is a good one, I believe.) We're essentially talking about underlying attitudes, a desire to protect and preserve your own culture from outsiders, to hold yourself aloof and apart in some way.

By that criteria, the gated community is an important part of Middle-earth, both in what the author has to say and how he has his own characters respond. Just take two examples.

First, Lindil has already pointed to the example of the Elves who wanted to "embalm" their own society so they could have things stay the same through all eternity. In order to achieve this goal, or at least come close, the Elves had to create a gated community where outsiders were forbidden or at least discouraged from admission. There is a very famous passage in Tolkien's Letters where the author points out how destructive and limiting such an attitude can be.

Secondly, not only did the author personally address the issue of gated communities, he also had his own characters talk about them. Take a look at Quest of Erebor in UT (also reprinted in the last Annotated Hobbit). Gandalf states that the main reason he chose Bilbo was that, when he was younger, the hobbit was curious about Dwarves and Elves, and kept asking "questions about the wide world outside the Shire."

In telling this story to Frodo and his friends, Gandalf ironically cited the following interchange he'd had with Holman, Bilbo's gardener.

"Why I asked him where he [Bilbo] would be going, and when he would be back, and I don't know he says; and then he looks at me queerly. It depends if I met any, Holman, he says. It's the Elves' New Year tomorrow! A pity and him so kind a body. You wouldn't find a better from the Downs to the River."

I can't think of a better spokesman for the "gated Shire community" than Holman! So I feel that this particular term, admittedly anachronistic, does have relevence to Tolkien.

********************************************

I have more to say, but will be back later after a break for RL.

[ April 03, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[davem]

Child, I still can't see that 'gated communities' are feature of Middle Earth in a major way. Maybe the Shire under Elessar's rule, but that's in a way imposed from outside, as was the Ranger's protection of the shire. It wasn't really the Hobbits denying access to anyone, it was the Rangers. If anything it was outsiders keeping the Shire 'gated'. (trying to 'embalm' it?). Bree is a typical 'medieval' village. It would have been unusual for it not to have a gate or fence. As has been stated, closing the gate is like locking your door at night - you aren't trying to turn your home into a 'gated community'!
The Elven & Dwarvish realms are pretty much the same, to the extent they're 'closed off', its simply for protection. But for me the real issue, as I've said is deeper, & reflects the nature of each race & how they relate to the world around them. They each 'create' their environment, change it in a way that reflects their essential nature. Many of Tolkien's 'races', after all, are as different from each other as different species of animal - not to imply one 'species' is superior to another.
I can't see, either, that suspicion of strangers, or contempt, even, automatically constitutes being part of a 'gated community'.
The idea of a 'gated community' implies more than I can find in the books. I can't see the different races trying to protect their cultures from outside influences - their cultures are a reflection of themselves, their essential natures, rather than being 'constructions'.
Finally, I do think it was more than Tolkien being 'influenced' by Norse, Celtic & Finnish mythology, I think he was trying to get back to an 'original' Northern European world view, & re-create it, at least, that was his original intent. For me, that's why his work is so much more convincing than the work of most other fantasy authors, which is just 'influenced' by ancinet myths.

[Bill Ferny]

After reading this thread, I wonder if the term “gated community” should even be used. The term, itself, has been so convoluted by critics, eager to throw around the negative connotation toward whatever construct that they find personally loathsome, that it is dangerously losing any specific meaning. The above posts struggle to justify the use of the term predicated of certain social constructs, even though such predicating contradicts what we all experience in every day real life.

To clarify my point: in this thread the term is being applied primarily to social constructs that are both racial and national, i.e. the Shire or Lothlorian to name only two. But I wouldn’t call either of these, nor the dwarven peoples, nor the peoples of Gondor, etc., to be the type of communities that one can call “gated communities”; they are nations, nations with their own racial stock, cultural traditions, languages, and histories. It’s like calling France a gated community because the people of France refuse to dissolve their borders, give up their language, and forget their cultural and historical heritage. Seriously, can the term really be applied to France? Of course, not. So why apply the term to the Shire?

At any rate, Tolkien seems to go to extraordinary lengths to highlight the idiocy of isolationism. Even the woses are affected by world events and moved to action.

Perhaps the only true gated community in LotR would be Tom and Goldberry, and even then, should we consider two hermit like beings (that are, themselves, racially distinct from all others) as a community model, or just an oddity living in the woods near the Shire?

We're essentially talking about underlying attitudes, a desire to protect and preserve your own culture from outsiders, to hold yourself aloof and apart in some way.

Is this a bad thing? Should the whole world have but one culture? Aren’t individual cultures, languages and heritages worth preserving? Do we really want a brave new world?

[lindil]

Well, clearly there must be balance and boundaries in all things.

But I am curious Bill as to how you see Tom and Goldberry as 'Gated' and not Lothlorien?

It seems to me that Lothlorien goes way beyond the average [Non-Noldorin] ELvish isolationism, and that like Nargothrond or Gondolin or Doriath, woe to those who tryto enter unbidden.

Though I have always wondered about those docks and boats on the Anduin!

[davem]

I think its deeper. What we have is, in many ways, separate 'worlds'. There always seems to be some kind of 'crossing point', where travellers cross into another 'world/time/reality'. In the Old Forest, there is the journey down into the Withywindle valley, the drowsiness that ensues. Then along comes Tom, & they're in his 'world'. Even time seems to move differently there. The Hobbits lose all sense of time. Same thing happens in Lorien. In fact, Tolkien originally planned for no time to pass in the outside world while the company were in Lorien. Even in Moria there's a loss of the sense of time. Tolkien even manages to convey this sense of 'no-time' with Frodo & Sam's trek through Mordor.
Its like, when the enter the Old Forest they enter the 'world/time/reality' of british folktale. Goldberry is the daughter of the 'river-woman'. In folklore these figures are quite common. River hags, like 'Jenny Greenteeth', were figures of terror for travellers, who they would grab & drag under water. In fact, this is what Goldberry does in her first encounter with Tom (in 'Bombadil goes boating'). Tom overcomes her & marries her ('Tom he is the master' - master of wild, uncontrolled nature, which he overcomes & domesticates - though never totally - Goldberry returns regularly to the river). This is something Lewis & Currie go into in 'The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien'.
With Lorien the company enter the 'world/time/reality of ancient Celtic myth. Frodo even says entering the wood feels like stepping into the Elder Days.
Its almost more a case of 'Gated Worlds' than of 'Gated Communities'. What we find in the Celtic legends is this effect of time moving differently in Elfland, & outside it. Travellers cross into elfland, seem to be there only a few hours, but when they emerge, years have passed, or they seem to be in there for years, but when they come back into the 'real' world, its only a few hours later.
In both 'The Lost Road' & 'The Notion Club Papers' Tolkien explores the idea of entering other worlds/times/realities, which happens through dream/vision. We seem to be talking about crossing boundaries of a metaphysical nature rather than a physical one.
Its maybe significant that while the other three hobbits, on their return to the Shire, speak of it all being like a dream that they're waking from, Frodo says that for him, its more like falling asleep again. He has maybe crossed over into the metaphysical realm, 'Faerie', as Tolkien would have called it, & now cannot live anywhere else. Not all boundaries can be crossed both ways.

[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: davem ]

[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: davem ]

[Birdland]

It seems to me that Lothlorien goes way beyond the average [Non-Noldorin] ELvish isolationism, and that like Nargothrond or Gondolin or Doriath, woe to those who tryto enter unbidden.

Actually Lindil, though Tolkien suggests that Lorien is protected by supernatural forces, (centered around Galadriel and her Ring), in LoTR the author records that the kingdom preserves its isolation through mostly physical means. They seem to rely on single-strand bridges, inaccessable flets, and the vigilance of Elven warriors such as Haldir and his team.

It's odd that in such a "magical" land, the Orcs can freely wade across the Nimrodel, and that Gollum can penetrate the borders, even going so far as to climb the tree where Frodo and Sam are sleeping. It is only Haldir and his troop's assault that keep the enemy at bay.

Compare this to The Old Forest and Mirkwood, where the environment itself combats any interlopers.

Also it is interesting to note that the most secretive of races, in their most ancient and mysterious stronghold, will allow anyone to open the gate with the use of a one-word pass code: "Say 'Friend' and enter"!

[lindil]

It's odd that in such a "magical" land, the Orcs can freely wade across the Nimrodel, and that Gollum can penetrate the borders, even going so far as to climb the tree where Frodo and Sam are sleeping. It is only Haldir and his troop's assault that keep the enemy at bay.

A common misconception of Lorien is there was a Melian style 'Girdle' around it. The above mentioned orcs prove there was not.

I imagine that no orc WANTED to go into Lothlorien, it probably pained them in a way similar to Gollum's revulsion at things Elvish. But they could, when they had to.

Many communities Rivendell, BRee, Shire [prior to the edict] Moria in the days of Eregion, Laketown have established a nd reasonable means of entering. Other places such as Lothlorien [and in the first age Gondolin, Nargothrond, Doriath], Fangorn,Thranduils realm [to dwarves at least] Old FOrest do not. You risk your life to try and enter unbidden.

DaveM: have you been reading V. Fleiger's [sp?] book on 'Time' perchance?

[davem]

Lindil, yeah, I have read A question of Time, also Splintered Light. She & Tom Shippey, for me, are the greatest expositors of Tolkien's ideas, & should be compulsory reading! There's so much more going on in the Legendarium than many (most?) readers pick up on. Tolkien is writing on multiple levels. Of course, you can read it as a story set in an invented world, & talk about Lorien being protected by Elven warriors, & the magic of Nenya. But you can approach it on a deeper level, exploring Tolkien's approach to time/space & see the characters crossing between worlds/realities, which is an area which would be worth looking into.
LotR is a multi layered book. I suspect there's still a great deal no-one has picked up on, but Flieger's exploration of his use of Time, in Question of Time, & of the fragmentation of Language/Light in Splintered Light are incredibly important. But I've also been influenced by the studies of Celtic myth by Caitlin Matthews for instance.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

Of all the academics I've read, Flieger has always been my favorite. Months ago, when I did a thread on "The Light in Frodo's Eyes" that turned into a wonderful discussion, it was right after I'd finished re-reading the book on splintered light and that jump-started the thing in my head.

Several times, way back before I was a Shire mod and immersed in writing and RPGS, I tried to start discussions in Books focusing on studies like these. For the most part, they fell flat as a pancake with no one taking up the bait. It seemed to be more than simple disinterest. There seemed to be an active dislike or resentment of "scholarly studies", whatever you want to call it, on the part of posters. You see some of this same attitude on the part of at least a few folk in the thread that Lush recently put up.

I would love to see further discussion of both Flieger and Shippey in Books, or the articles contained in Tolkien's Legendarium or the Literary Resonances collections. If I'm not mistaken, Lindil also has an interest in this.

Bill Ferny - I don't think the term "gated community" is too extreme when applied to the Shire. In fact, it may not be extreme enough. Davem's reference to "gated worlds" is probably more accurate.

I am thinking specifically of the edict which prohibited all Men from entering the borders of the Shire. On the face of it, it's hard to believe this was the only way to maintain peace and order, now that the king had returned.

If peace had indeed been restored under Elessar's rule, then the Shire would be a safe place to live. If it had not returned, no amount of words on paper would keep the baddies away. So why enact a rule which makes a blanket assumption that the influence of the big folk must per se be bad?

In Bree, the big and little folk had lived peacefully for many, many years. For the most part, with only a few exceptions, they had managed this peaceful co-existence even during the time when the Shadow was expanding its power. This is really quite remarkable when you think about it.

Then, why was it so inherently impossible for there to be any contact between Men and Hobbits within the borders of the Shire itself, now that Sauron and Saruman had been ousted? This edict was obviously intended to be viewed as a "good" thing, not a "bad" one, a symbol of the Shire's independence and triumph over the Shadow. Why does the restoration of peace require the renewed imposition of the ideal of separateness, cutting off roads for travel, etc.? These are two branches of Men, not Men and Elves where their ultimate fates were so different that it required them to follow separate paths.

The only thing that makes sense to me is this. It is true that we can point to a few examples and places where ongong, long term cooperation between different free peoples is the norm. But these examples are vfew. Separateness seems to be closer to the norm---Davem's idea of gated worlds. People have talked about the practical need for military protection, the way human nature is in real life, and the mythic/faerie model which inherently requires separate communities, each with its own fate and culture. But no one suggested we push this argument one step further.

Perhaps, Tolkien's ideas on separateness and cooperation are heavily influenced by his personal views as a Christian, how there will be no lasting victory before the end ....only small ones, interrupted by continuing defeats. The separateness of the communities are a reflection of this. For a few moments, the free peoples are able to cooperate in a way they've not done before. But even with the overthrow of Sauron and improved conditions, there are hints that this kind of cooperation can't be maintained. In other words, you can manage to climb to the top of the mountain and see the wonders of the heights, but you can't live there all the time. Still, you are better for having seen it, even if you return to your gated world.

It seems to me that Tolkien is saying you have to leave the gated world to learn and grow. Once you do that, you are never the same. You know the one thing about Tom and Goldberry is that they are unchanging characters. They never leave their gated home and they never change. But Man has to change in order to learn and grow---even if that process is painful. Once Bilbo returns to his home, he had plenty of problems with his neighbors. Tolkien may be saying we can't change our gated world, not then and not now. We have too many limits on our soul. But what we can change, what we are responsible for, is our own attitude within that world.

I don't think it's coincidence that all five of the main hobbit characters in LotR end their life outside the Shire. It's not just Frodo--it's all of them. Merry and Pippin go back to Gondor before they die, Sam goes to the West, and Bilbo goes first to Rivendell and then the West. The four of them are not changed so much that they can't still live in the Shire for many years. But, at the end of their lives, they have to leave again, perhaps symbolic of the fact that they can live in a gated world, but their own attitudes have really grown beyond that.

And Frodo's growth, which was indeed more profound and soul shaking because of his confrontation with ultimate evil, is such that he can not return to the Shire to live at all but must immediately go beyond, both for the sake of healing and the fact that he can no longer fit in his gated world. The others just take a little longer to get to that same point of leaving the gated world, as they still have unfinished business in terms of learning and growing. (BTW, Davem, I think of this more in spiritual terms than in reference to "faerie", but at heart it is the same, I believe.)

sharon

[Bêthberry]

Child, for me as well that final gating/enclosure of The Shire marks a failure of vision, at least on Aragorn's part. And without necessarily resorting to authorial intention, I would suggest that this pattern reflects a primary condition of meaning in LOTR, the (allegedly) mutually-exclusive dichotomy of good and evil. This is the principle which to me structures Tolkien's work.

This dichotomy sets values in hierarchial opposition to each other, so that difference is emphasised rather than similarity. I might even argue that it produces a projection of negative qualities onto the Other which dooms the best efforts of those who would be good because they, consequently, cannot see error in themselves. To elucidate this any further would require a foray into those scholarly areas which tend to go nowhere here. At any rate, the paradigms which I would use do not arise from an interpretive endeavour (what is the meaning) but an interest to see how meaning is created, or accrues, in LOTR.

Respectfully,
Bethberry

[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[lindil]

I would love to see further discussion of both Flieger and Shippey in Books, or the articles contained in Tolkien's Legendarium or the Literary Resonances collections. If I'm not mistaken, Lindil also has an interest in this.

Synchronicity for sure.

I just yesterday posted an idea in the Mod Forum to BW re: having a reviews forum for exactly this kind of thing.

Any one with access feel free to second it.

Unfortunately time is in very short supply so I hope to get back to this soon.

[ April 05, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Orual]

I feel a little under-qualified for this thread, and for that and lack of time I'll keep this brief. The examples that were cited, as far as I can remember, were Tom and Goldberry's home, Lorien, Rivendell, and the Shire (of those in the Third and Fourth Ages). It seems to me that the one thing that connects these places were that they were all out of their time. Tom and Goldberry appeared, at least to me, as though they were like a rock in the middle of a stream. The world changed around them, but they stayed the same. It was much the same in the Shire, with the hobbits not taking much notice of the way the world of Men and Elves and Dwarves was changing, and going on in the way they had always done. Their culture evolved more than Tom and Goldberry's lifestyle did, but it evolved separately from the world outside. Lorien and Rivendell were both Elven communities, and, of course, the time of the Elves was ending. Soon it was to be that they would not be a part of Arda anymore. I suppose the best way to describe it would be that their cultural evolution had "wound down." They changed, and changed, and changed, as all cultures do, but they realized that soon it would all change, and they began to stay in their set ways, and stop changing.

I suppose that one could roughly compare it to traditional religious groups. They seem very isolated and almost elitist, because most people do not believe that way any more. Perhaps have forgotten how to believe that way, but that is for another debate. Because these religious groups have refused to change with the times (for better or worse, that again is another debate), they seem isolated and "out of place".

I hope that I made some sense!

~*~Orual~*~

[akhtene]

My two crumbs of cake that I'm chewing not to drop my face on the keys [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
I) (concerning Aragorn's decision to forbid Men enter the Shire) Contrary to some opinions here I do believe that Aragorn showed great forsight, knowing the expansive nature of men. Unlike elves or dwarves, hobbits had no means to withstand an inrush of 'helpers', fortune hunters or simply the curious, as soon as their whereabouts became common knowledge. On the othr hand, nobody locked the hobbits inside the Shire. So imho what they actually got is the freedom to choose their lifestyle - to go and see the world or to go on living the way they were used to.
II) (kind of question) It seems, to close themselves from the outer world seems to be modus operandi of the good and fair (it's more related to the Silm, perhaps). For most part the good seem to be on the defensive sending out hoards only when things become really unbearable. Isn’t it ironical that the greatest kingdoms perish because of treachery, strife or rashness – or simply being deserted? On the other hand, the evil seem willing to accept anyone – orcs, men, beasts, even elves (as prisoners; but… anyone read about an orc brought to a Hidden Kingdom – for studying or re-educating? [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] ) So why so much mistrust to possible allies? And how then do baddies always manage to fool even the wisest?

[Bill Ferny]

I think akhtene hits on an important issue: “what they actually got is the freedom to choose their lifestyle.” What makes the free peoples of Middle Earth free? The ability to freely discriminate their own destiny. We aren’t talking about gated communities or worlds, but the freedom of a people to direct their own destiny; it is the responsibility of all other free nations to respect a people’s sovereignty. In today’s world, such a lesson should be well heeded. Outsiders and their vested interests (achunoo) should take a backseat in the process of nation building.

Why does the restoration of peace require the renewed imposition of the ideal of separateness, cutting off roads for travel, etc.?

As has already been stated, the edict of Elessar was not an imposition on the Shire, but, as is made plain throughout the narrative, the actual will of its inhabitants. Hobbits preferred not to interfere in the affairs of the big people, or have the big people interfere in their affairs. The edict highlights the fact that the king does not rule the Shire, but the hobbits do. Elessar is simply respecting the sovereignty of the Shire.

It seems to me that Tolkien is saying you have to leave the gated world to learn and grow. Once you do that, you are never the same.

I agree with this.

Tolkien may be saying we can't change our gated world, not then and not now. We have too many limits on our soul. But what we can change, what we are responsible for, is our own attitude within that world.

I disagree with this only because it is contrary to the standard mythic model that I firmly believe is inherent in Tolkien’s story. The hero leaves home on a journey of maturity, finds elixir, returns home and uses elixir to better his or her home. What the main hobbit characters bring to the Shire from their adventure no doubt impacts the Shire and its culture and its people profoundly, and not just in the Scouring. Sam’s children are particularly pointed out in this regard. The Shire is irrevocably changed by what the main characters bring back to the Shire, and it is the hope at the end that seems to indicate that the Shire is the better for it.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bill,

As has already been stated, the edict of Elessar was not an imposition on the Shire, but, as is made plain throughout the narrative, the actual will of its inhabitants. Hobbits preferred not to interfere in the affairs of the big people, or have the big people interfere in their affairs. The edict highlights the fact that the king does not rule the Shire, but the hobbits do. Elessar is simply respecting the sovereignty of the Shire.

I totally agree that this edict was not imposed on the Shire. It was the product of the hobbits' own desire. That's what makes it particularly sad to me. It is an admission of the "fact" that when a large and mighty people meets a small and less mighty people, the end result is negative and destructive.

At least in theory, I believe it is possible to maintain one's cultural traditions and political independence, while still being willing to meet and interact with people who are different than ourselves. Do we have to put up huge blockades to define our culture and our lives? I hope not, but perhaps in this flawed world it is inevitable. However, I don't have to be happy about that, or see it as a virtue.

The edict supported by the hobbits makes the underlying assumption that the big folk were an inherent threat. Their very presence in the Shire is undesirable, and should be eliminated in all respects. This attitude is actually quite typical of the hobbit community as a whole right from the very beginning of The Hobbit. Tolkien makes the point in his Letters that those hobbits whom he writes about were the exceptional ones, those who could see beyond the usual limited atttudes. JRRT calls them "specially graced and gifted indviduals who were selected for ther task precisely because they were abnormal (Letter 281)." At the same time, he says that the hobbits as a whole are not to be recommended as an ideal (Letter 154).

Yes, after the Scouring, certain things did change in the Shire. There were more blond-haired children who looked a bit Elvish, the beautiful mallorn replaced the party field tree that had been cut down, and there was much rebuilding and regrowth, both in terms of knocking down the hated symbols of Sharkey and Sam's re-planting of the trees. Most importantly, the beauty of the Shire was protected and nurtured, and the values of family and growing things was again placed at the fore.

But did general attitudes actually change beyond those of the "extraordinary" hobbits who'd been chosen to go on the quest? Were the overall body of hobbits less insular than they'd been? I don't see clear evidence of that except in the case of Sam's own children who were obviously enamored of Elves and the stories Sam told (just as Sam himself had been!).

Nor do I think that most hobbits had a "choice" in regard to their own lifestyle, ie., that they could choose to remain in the Shire where there were no men, or travel outside the Shire where they could meet others. A choice implies that you have a clear idea about the options that are open to you. But, if you are blinded by insularity, how can you truly be said to have any choice? All you can see is one side. And most hobbits were apparently limited in this regard.

I don't think Tolkien saw hobbit insularty as a particularly positive trait. In Letter 246, he says that all hobbits at times irritate and even infuriate him. JRRT points negatively to the "mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to sum up all things from a limited experience..." This is, I believe, exactly the kind of attitude that produces hobbit insularity.

But the strongest indication of Tolkien's feelings are given in Unfinished Tales, Quest of Erebor. In the course of these two manuscript versions given to us, Tolkien has Gandalf clearly state about Bilbo, "I dare say he was 'chosen', and I was only chosen to choose him; but I picked out Bilbo." Gandalf talks extensively about the central criteria he used to pick Bilbo. Time and again, he refers to the fact that Bilbo had curiousity about thing outside the Shire. Bilbo kept asking questions about the Tooks who had "gone off" by running away to Sea. Again, Gandalf mentions Bilbo's "love of tales and his questions about the wide world outside the Shire."

The clearest statement comes in a conversation between Holman (Bilbo's gardener) and Gandalf. The former was explaining why his master wasn't at home"

Off again. He'll go right off one of these days if he isn't careful. Why I asked him where he was going, and when he would be back, and I don't know he says ; and then he looks at me queerly. It depends if I meet any, Holman...It's the Elves New Year tomorrow! A pity and him so kind a body. You wouldn't find a better from the Downs to the River.

Tolkien gives us a half-humorous look at Holman's inward-looking attitudes. But the author's own sympathies, and those of Gandalf, are clearly with Bilbo who does look out beyond his gated world. In fact, this seems to be the chief critera that the istari uses to "choose" Bilbo.

This is why I can accept the Shire as a gated world by necessity--the product of human nature with all its limitations, as well as the fact that we live in a 'fallen' world. But I can't accept this aspect of the Shire as an ideal, and I don't think Tolkien did either.

[Bill Ferny]

Hobbits are depicted as isolationists, intrinsically. Hobbits, after all, aren’t humans, and we should not impose on them human virtues, or 20th century human virtues for that matter.

In principle I agree with your arguments against insular communities or nations. In general I agree with Tolkien’s opinion concerning hobbits (how could I not?). Nor am I a big fan the culture police in Saudi Arabia. I do think some cultures are better than others (which, no doubt, places me on more than one PC relativist hit list).

However, I am a big fan of national sovereignty and the dignity of a people to define themselves. I am a big fan of preserving cultural heritage and historical remembrance.

There is no paradox in this way of thinking. The only way for peoples to truly define themselves is to perceive that which is beyond themselves, both horizontally and vertically, both in the past and the present. This perception, though, can not be achieved by the whole simultaneously. It is provided to the whole by the mythic heroes who bring back from their adventures various elixirs. In Middle Earth these heroes were hobbits such as Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pip. In our world these heroes are scholars, pastors, missionaries, innovators, scientists, teachers, artists, and warriors (conspicuously absent are politicians [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

Those societies that fail to produce the mythic hero are likely to go the way of the Shire, the elf, the dwarf and the dodo bird.

[Birdland]

akhtene - glad to find at least one other member who agrees with me concerning Elessar's edict. And, more importantly, I think Tolkien would agree with us as well.

In the little background that Tolkien gives us, he describes the Hobbits as being a race with no written history, no real fixed abodes, and frankly, no country. The author even describes them as an "aboriginal" people.

Now considering how peaceful and comfort loving Hobbits are, this suggest to me a survival mechanism rather than a simple choice to be wanderers. a race of 3 foot tall folk in a land of giants would have to rely on flight far more than fight in order to survive. And if we are to believe Tolkien's assertation that the Men of Middle Earth are "us", then it's not hard to imagine the response of most Big Folk to these Little Folk: amused condescension at best, active predation of the weak at worst. It is only when the Halflings migrate and settle in a land that has been abandoned by most of the Big Folk that Hobbits begin to develop and flourish.

Aragorn, as a Ranger and a student of Gandalf's, was probably very aware of how weaker races such as the Hobbits fared during those lawless days of the Third Age. With the threat of Sauron gone, and the Race of Man establishing themselves as the dominant people of Middle Earth, I think that Elessar could anticipate a time when expansion and competition would bring conflict, and perhaps even conquest into The Shire. His edict was his attempt to prevent this, or at least delay it. If you look at our own history, you'll see that such edicts and treaties seldom hold up for long. I believe the only thing the King could give the Halflings was a little more time.

As to Child pointing out that the Bree Folk and Shire folk had always gotten along: well, that is a puzzler. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Bree survived the chaos of the Third Age at all, while the more "noble", militaristic cultures around them were wiped out. Perhaps the Bree-Folk survived by keeping a low profile and avoiding conflict as much as possible. A sort of Switzerland of Middle Earth.

This seems like a very Hobbitish response. So perhaps the friendship worked because, out of all the races of Men, the Bree-Folk were the most "Hobbit-Like".

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I (along with Orual) feel way out of my depth in this thread, but I think that there's another self-isolating community in Middle-Earth that hasn't at all been mentioned, that fits so many of the characteristics that have been mentioned, that I think it should be brought up. So, here goes...

The community of ents in Fangorn.

They embody the timelessness that has been discussed in connection with Tom & Golberry and Lothlorien. In fact, the image of a rock in a river, which someone already brought up, was a comparison I had made of the ents. The world changes, but the ents do not.

Tolkien suggests that they had fellowship with the elves at one point (their language is a ent-friendly form of Sindarin, correct?), but that ended long ago, now they are suspicious and hostile toward outsiders.

They do fail to send representatives into the world, they fail to produce what Bill Ferny describes as a mythic hero who will procure an elixir. And, like the other races, they fade in isolation and eventually are lost.

There was more on the subject of ents in my mind, but my train of though has been disrupted, so if it comes to me later on, I'll edit in.

I thought the idea put forward by Lily Bracegirdle was worth more consideration than it has gotten:

I wonder if Tolkien didn't make the diffeent races so insular so that he could keep them culturally/linguistically distict when he wrote them. I don't believe he kept them apart because he thought different races *should* be separate. (Otherwise why would he have one of his major heroes marry a woman of a different species?) In other words, maybe when he set up the world he made separate languages for different cultures, and he didn't want to deal linguistically with cross-pollenation between cultures, so he made the different races physically separated.

There is remarkably little "cross-pollenation" between Tolkien's languages, which is something which would have complicated his own linguistic project immensely and this is partially due to the separation of the cultures from one another. While the elvish languages (notably Sindarin and Quenya) have grown from a common root and accommodated each other quite a lot, and other tongues have been influenced by these languages (ents' speech, most notably, also the Dunedain) There is remarkably little mixing between the elvish and the languages of men (except possibly Adunaic, though I think they stayed separate for the most part as well). And there was next to no linguistic influence on the dwarves, Khuzdul, since it was largely a secret language is probably pristine. Considering the great influence of language on Tolkien's mythology's development, I can't imagine it played no role in his decision to keep the cultures very separate.

Wow, that was longwinded for me. Apologies to the bored.

Sophia

[Rumil]

Hmmm, (Rumil unwisely dips toe into deep water),

I think some of the separation of races and nations in Middle Earth stems from the low population. There is more than enough space for communities to develop in isolation. Additionally, there is, if you like, a difference in ecological niche. The Rohirrim, while living close to Lothlorien would not consider a forest as a suitable place to live and raise their horses. Likewise the silvan elves wouldn't be interested in living at the Lonely Mountain.

As has been said, the lands 'in between' the settled areas were inhospitable and potentially dangerous. Rumours of Trolls would convince most to change their travel plans! An additional inducement to isolation could have been provided by the great plague of the previous millenium.

The 'isolationism' of the Gaffer illustrates a further point. In medieval times the vast majority of the population never strayed very far from their own parish, maybe as far as the local market town every once in a while. It would therefore be very unusual to meet somebody that you didn't know, a circumstance where trust in 'outsiders' would not be easy, perhaps.

From the point of view of an author, the lack of knowledge by the hobbits of the next place along the journey allows true wonder in the description of the place. If Elrond had told Frodo and co. (and therefore us readers) exactly what to expect in Lothlorien, the effect would surely have been destroyed. Therefore the isolation could be seen as a plot device.

As has also been said, the lack of contact between races makes the languages easier to sort out, which was Tolkien's great motivation. He does seem very sketchy on the 'economics' of Middle Earth, trade routes, agriculture, population sizes etc., undoubtedly because he wasn't very interested in this aspect.

[lindil]

He does seem very sketchy on the 'economics' of Middle Earth, trade routes, agriculture, population sizes

That is because JRRT wanted to give Michael martinez something to do! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Actually in UT and parts of Peoples of Middle-Earth you see quite a bit of development of the more mundane cultural aspects.

[davem]

Child, First, I suspect that For Tolkien 'Faerie' (as we see in 'Niggle') is 'the best introduction to the 'Mountains', if we understand 'faerie' in the way Tolkien himself understood it. Its the 'gated world' we step into first - as the Hobbits step into the Old Forest, the 'folk tale' world, before moving on to the 'gated world' of legend & myth, & finally on into the ultimate (& only truly 'ungated' world - because it contains all the 'worlds' that may exist within itself - the 'mountains', or The Undying Lands, West of West.
But, back to the plot! Maybe what we're seeing in all these 'gated worlds' is what Tolkien accused the Elves of - embalming. You bring your own little world to a state of (what you consider to be) 'perfection', then you want to 'embalm' that 'perfection', so it can't change. Is it really a fear of death? - Tolkien said LotR was about 'death, the inevitability of death' (which issue has been dealt with in another thread I started, so I don't want to go over old ground). Why the desire to close yourself off from the world? Is Elvish 'embalming' of the world a statement about their attitude to death, their 'contempt' of it, a way of 'casting it from their world'? The desire to preserve anything in a state of what we consider 'perfection' is to prevent its death. Maybe we're on this same ground again. Death is the great enemy, always coming, always needing to be watched & combatted. But Tolkien knew the truth (after the Somme how could he not?) that 'The Dragon' would come, inevitably, however bravely you fight to hold on to what you care about, & even that ultimately all you can do is fight it, in the right way, because its about how you live, not the fact that you'll die.
Perhaps what these 'gates' are intended to keep out is not 'men' or 'Elves', but 'The Dragon', Death. But the Dragon can't be kept out. I think its significant that by the end of Lotr, when we've read the Tale of Years, we've seen the death or passing of all the characters. From the Prologue we know that all the events of the book happened long ago, & all those people's & places have passed from the world. What I think Tolkien is saying is that, however big the wall, however strong the gate, it will never keep out the Dragon. But there is stil hope (even if it is, as Tolkien said, Hope without guarantees), & there is also the chance (or the obligation?) to live as well as we can, for as long as we can. We can fight, even if we're only 'fighting the long defeat'.
Finally, would everyone stop saying, they're not up to joining in this discussion! I didn't go to college, I'm just someone who's read a load of books & spent time thinking about the kind of subjects dealt with here. I'm far from being an intellectual giant! I just throw in a few thoughts which strike me. I'd hate to think there were people out there who are maybe keeping really interesting ideas back because they think theyre not 'smart' enough to join in.

[lindil]

Child, First, I suspect that For Tolkien 'Faerie' (as we see in 'Niggle') is 'the best introduction to the 'Mountains', if we understand 'faerie' in the way Tolkien himself understood it.

An extremely interesting point.

I do not think we have ever seen a serious discussion in regards to Faerie as way-station to heaven.

Also I think we need to keep the 'embalming' trait balanced with the incredible depth and profundity of the Eldar. The embalming tendency seemed to war constantly with the changefullness of their speech, dwellings [ you often see entire communities move: Oropher/Thranduil's - Celeborn and Galadriel - the Green Elves - The Vanyar from Tirion, etc.] It was the inertial component of all created things and Elves were not immune to it.

As far as Embalmers go, the Hobbits and Dunedain seem equal offenders, though the Hobbits of course seem to go about it in a rather semi-concious way compared to the Dunedain and Eldar.

Curiously enough I suppose the Avari wee the first embalmers.

[davem]

Lindil, I think 'embalming' is the way the Elves approach things, or rather, its what drives them. They see the world as being in a decline from a perfect state. Nothing ever really changes for the better. You have to work as hard as possible to keep things as good as they are now. They're always looking backwards.
Its not that there's nothing else to the Elves, but it is about what's going on with them 'subconsciously'.
I'd also like to see some kind of topic started on 'Faerie'. It was so important to Tolkien, but its a subject I'd have to think about a lot more before i could start the topic myself. If you want to start it, I'll join in!