Hobbits as Tramps?

[Andorinha]

I was just chatting with another "deep-reader" of Tolkien, and she was wondering whether the "hole-digging" tramps in FotR chpt 9 "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony," p 206, was meant to imply that there were vagabond hobbits running about near the Shire and Bree. Or is Tolkien referring to the Big-folk ruffians that are found in "The Scouring of the Shire?"

Personally, I always felt that the passage meant hobbit-tramps, considered "Outsiders" by both the settled Bree-folk, and the Hobbits of the Shire.

"There were probably many more Outsiders scattered about in the West of the World in those days than the people of the Shire imagined. Some, doubtless, were no better than tramps, ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it suited them. But, in the Bree-land at any rate, the hobbits were decent and prosperous, and no more rustic than most of their distant relatives Inside." (FotR, p. 206)

So, are these "tramps" hobbits, or "ruffian Men?

[Stormrider]

I would say that any race of folk can have people who are just scraping by in life and although Hobbits seem like a pretty well oriented people, they could very well have had some who became down on their luck and are what we call "homeless" today:

"ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it suited them."

This reminds me of people living in a box or under a bridge.

But this paragraph you speak of may just be referring to any tramp or homeless person from anywhere, man, dwarf, elf, orc, or hobbit. I don't take it particularly to mean hobbit tramps. I think it is any tramp in general wandering around the countryside. At this point in FOTR, times were beginning to get rougher and people all over were most likely experiencing events in their lives that forced them to be like this.

[Andorinha]

Re Stormrider's -- "I would say that any race of folk can have people who are just scraping by in life and although Hobbits seem like a pretty well oriented people, they could very well have had some who became down on their luck and are what we call 'homeless' ..."

Yeah, despite the underlying "fantasy" genre of his Middle-earth, JRRT tries to make his societies as real as possible, and as all the societies we know have groups of hermit-like "loners," the "deserving" poor (people down on their luck, temporarily homeless), and even a criminal element (Bree has its Bill Ferny and the squint eyed southerner) so, I assume -- if the hobbits are to be realistically "human"-- the Shire folk must also have its "undesirables." Some just down on their luck, others (poor or rich) with a nasty streak to their personalities, like Ted Sandyman the Hobbiton miller and the entire Sackville-Baggins gang.

But I always got the feeling that JRRT was specifically referring to Hobbit Outsiders here, hmmm, will do a little research...

[Andorinha]

I never had much trouble here, I always assumed that JRRT was indeed referring to a Hobbit subclass of Outsider when he penned this passage. Especially if one looks at the context of the relevant sentence with the next following:

"Some, doubtless, were no better than tramps, ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it suited them. But, in the Bree-land at any rate, the hobbits were decent and prosperous, and no more rustic than most of their distant relatives Inside." (FotR, p. 206, my emphasis)

To me, this second sentence makes it clear that we are talking about hobbits only, not Men, but, I must admit Tolkien did not add a specific note at this point to ensure there would be absolutely no confusion. So, while I am convinced that the tramps (hole diggers too) are meant by JRRT to be rustic/ uncivilised outsider hobbits, others may not be so sure.

So just who are the "Outsiders?" Tolkien makes this a bit complex by altering the meaning of the term "Outsider" according to the one using the term. For Shire hobbits anyone living outside the boundaries of the Shire was an "Outsider," consequently all of the Big-folk/ Men were outsiders, whether Bree-men, rangers, or Southerners. Dwarves were "Outsiders," as would be even the Elves and such itinerant wizard types as Gandalf. Included among the Outsiders, from the Shire perspective, were all the hobbits of Bree. For the Breelanders (both Bree-hobbits and Bree Big-folk) the Shire-hobbits would be classed with the Outsiders. Additionally, for both the Bree-folk and the Shire-hobbits, all those hobbits who were not accepted as resident-members of the Shire communities or the Bree village complexes were yet another group of Outsiders. So, from the Shire-hobbit point of view there were two groups of Hobbit Outsiders, 1) the settled/ civilized hobbits of the Breeland villages and farms, and 2) the rustic/ uncivilized "tramping-hobbits" to whom the passage quoted from p 206 FotR must refer.

There is yet another mention of Outsiders in LotR that should, I think, help us to see that the wandering/ nuisance tramps included at least a number of "vagabond" hobbits:

"The Shirriffs was the name that the Hobbits gave to their police, or the nearest equivalent that they possessed. ... There were in all the Shire only 12 of them, three in each Farthing, for Inside Work. A rather larger body, varying at need, was employed to 'beat the bounds', and see that Outsiders of any kind, great or small, did not make themselves a nuisance." (FotR, p 31 my emphasis)

"At the time when this story begins the Bounders, as they were called, had been greatly increased. There were many reports and complaints of strange persons and creatures prowling about the borders, or over them..." (FotR, p. 31)

I think we can accept that Tolkien consistently uses the terms "great/ large" as synonymous with his Big-folk Men, and "small" as a designation specific to the Hobbit-kind. If this point of definition is acceptable, then we have a situation where official Shire-police interactions are taking place with Outsiders, both Big-folk (Men) and Small-folk (hobbits). So, both Men and those Hobbits who were not recognized members of the Shire's settled community life were considered undesirables; and both the large and the small Outsiders (Men and Hobbits) were turned away from the borders by the Shirriff-Bounders.

But, if this does not convince die-hard skeptics, and, as I said earlier, the exact connection may not be pellucidly clear in the published version of LotR, is there any other source that might allow us to further support the proposition that the tramps of FotR p. 206 were meant to be seen as hobbits? Yes, I think so! We are lucky here to have several early versions of this material. So, this involves us in a check of the preceding draft versions where we might hope to find further clarification of the issue concerning the existence of "tramping-hobbits."

Back again later with "goblinish hobbits" and "wild hobbits"...

[Stormrider]

Ok, with all your back-up quotes and dazzling commentary you seem to have swayed me into believing JRRT was referring to hobbit tramps in this first passage on page 206 (which is not the same page as my version of FOTR!).

But I am confused here: "Some, doubtless, were no better than tramps, ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it suited them. But, in the Bree-land at any rate, the hobbits were decent and prosperous, and no more rustic than most of their distant relatives Inside." (FotR, p. 206, my emphasis)

Are the Bree-land hobbit tramps decent and prosperous Why would they be digging holes in any bank and stay for only as long as suited them? They must be eccentric hobbits who have itchy feet and just want to be free spirits and able to go where they want and move were they want on the spur of the moment. If they are posperous, they can afford to do what they want when they want. So technically they aren't really tramps in the trus sense of the word but just living the way they want.

gobblinish and wild hobbits? what next?

[Andorinha]

Re Stormrider's -- "Are the Bree-land hobbit tramps decent and prosperous???"

No, what JRRT is saying here, by my interpretation, is that there are two groups of "respectable," "decent" "settled" hobbits -- those of the Shire communities, and those of the Breeland communities (like the hobbits Frodo met at the Inn). Then, scattered along the boundaires of the Shire, and along the boundaries of Breeland are many vagabond hobbits.

So the sentence -- "But, in the Bree-land at any rate, the hobbits were decent and prosperous, and no more rustic than most of their distant relatives Inside." -- refers to the fact that inside the Bree settlements, there were hobbits just as civilized as those in Hobbiton. But, in the more wilderness-type zones outside Archet, Combe, and Bree itself, and in the wild tracts between Bree and the Shire there still lived many "nomadic," wandering hobbits. Some of these "wild" hobbits ranged far to the east, perhaps beyond Weathertop, out towards Rivendell.

Does that make sense?

In addition, among the "less prosperous" vagabond-poor hobbits, I think you are rightly seeing another social element of the hobbits, those who might be quite capable of becoming "prosperous" in the communities IF they wished to follow that lifestyle. I get the impression from Trotter that he was VERY intelligent, capable of long, hard disciplined work at whatever task he chose to do. He could have been a prosperous farmer, merchant, or even a hobbit mayor of Bree. But Trotter's personality led him further into the Wilds. He actually enjoyed hunting, camping, exploring, and seems not to have much minded fighting as well. His choice to be a "ranger" hobbit seems not to be a mere response to his poverty, but an answer to his personal wanderlust. I imagine among the "vagabonds" there were quite a few such adventure-minded hobbits, individuals who simply found the "prosperous," settled village life of both Bree and the Shire boring.

LOL, so I guess we have a very realistic social situation here: some hobbits were perhaps misfit types who were failures, people who could not hold a long-term job and wound up being marginalized, and even driven away from the "respectable" settlements as poor vagabonds. Then there were some hobbits (who might still have money gained from their travels, like Bilbo) who simply preferred a roaming lifestyle to settled existence in the towns and farmlands, like Trotter. Trotter, while not considered "respectable" among the settled Bree folk, both Big and Little -- was nonetheless welcome in the tavern as long as he could pay. He seems quite able to pay his way there, so he must be somewhat prosperous, even as a wild hobbit ranger?


Maybe the next installment on Wild and Goblinish hobbits will help...

[Andorinha]

Those Wild, Wicked Hobbits!

In the four volume The History of the Lord of the Rings, especially volume 1 The Return of the Shadow, (RotS) chapter VIII, "Arrival at Bree," Christopher Tolkien presents us with two early versions of the material found in FotR, "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony."

In the first version, the description of Bree outlines a very small community of 50 houses and an Inn. This village of Bree was built by the Big People (Men) though a number of hobbits had moved there at an undetermined time in the past. So far the published version in FotR and this one are in agreement -- but there is a significant alteration in this Early Version One that does not show up so clearly in FotR. On page 132 The Return of the Shadow, Tolkien stops talking about the general, mixed population of Bree and launches a discussion specifically about the hobbits:

"There were hobbits about, of course -- some higher up on the slopes of Bree-hill itself, and many in the valley of Combe on the east side. For not all hobbits lived in the Shire by any means. But the Outsiders were a rustic, not to say (though in the Shire it was said) uncivilized sort. Some were in fact no better than tramps and wanderers, ready to dig a hole in any bank, and to stay there just as long or short a time as it suited them. So the folk of Bree were, you see, familiar enough with hobbits, civilised or otherwise..." (The Return of the Shadow, chpt 8 pp 132-133 my emphasis.)

Here, in Early Version One, "Outsider" by context simply means Hobbits dwelling outside the Shire, and the term Outsider is not as all-inclusive as it is in LotR where Outsider means all peoples, Men, Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, and Hobbits living outside the Shire. So from the very beginning in this early version, JRRT meant the Outsider-Tramps who dig temporary holes to be Hobbit outsiders, not Men.

Later, JRRT seems to have made the decision to "hobbitize" his narrative even further. In Early Version Two, all mention of Men, or Big-folk is dropped, and even Strider/ Aragorn (called Trotter here) and Barliman Butterbur (called Barnabas Butterbur) were hobbits.

"It will be seen at the beginning of this text that the presence of Men at Bree had been temporarily abandoned, and the description of their appearance in the rejected passage just given is now applied to the hobbits of Bree-land; the innkeeper is a hobbit, and The Prancing Pony has a round front door leading into the side of Bree-hill." (Chris Tolkien note, RotS, p. 133)

What does not change in this hobbitized version, is the existence of a rustic/ uncivilised group of Outsider hobbits to whom the passage now refers specifically and solely:

"Not all the hobbits lived in the Shire by any means, but the Outsiders were a rustic, not to say (though in the Shire it was often said) uncivilised lot, and not held in much account. There were probably a good many more of them scattered about in the West of the world in those days than the people of the Shire imagined, though many were indeed no better than tramps and wanderers, ready to dig a rough hole in any bank, and stay only as long as suited them. The villagers of Bree, Combe, and Archet, however, were settled folk (in reality not more rustic than most of their distant relations in Hobbiton) - but they were rather odd and independent, and belonged to nobody but themselves." (RotS, "Arrival at Bree," pp 133-34 my emphasis).

To be "related" to the Hobbiton hobbits, these villagers in Breeland, must also be hobbits, so the above quote refers strictly to the halfling kind. At this point, I would say, we can see that Tolkien meant the "tramps in rough holes" to refer to hobbits from the beginning of his composition, and by the time he arrived at the final published version (LotR) there are still enough strong "hints" left in the narrative to make it "fairly" certain he still meant us to see these "hole-dwelling," outsiders as hobbit-tramps, not as Men.

Further along in the extended Early Version 2, the one that has no Men at all in the Breelands, we find that both Bill Ferny and the "squint-eyed southerner" are hobbits. When Bingo (Frodo in the published version) falls off the table in the inn and accidentally gets the Ring on his finger we have the following narrative:

"The local hobbits sprang to their feet and shouted for Barnabus [Barliman Butterburr in LotR]. ... There was one swarthy-faced fellow who stood looking at them with a knowing sort of look that made them feel uncomfortable. Very soon he slipped out of the door followed by one of his friends: not a well-favoured pair.13" (RotS, p. 139)

A bit later, in note 13, Christopher Tolkien reminds us that these two, who are Men in LotR, are here in RotS, hobbits:

"13 As the people of Bree were conceived at this stage, the ill-favoured pair would presumably be hobbits; and indeed in the next chapter Bill Ferny is explicitly so (p. 165). His [swarthy] companion here is the origin of the 'squint-eyed Southerner' who had come up the Greenway..." (RotS p. 142)

So here, we have definite evidence that there was a class of undesirable hobbits, some of whom were quite willing to betray Bingo Baggins (Frodo) and the Ring to the Black Riders. Nasty hobbits indeed! Again, these "nasty hobbits" break into Bingo/Frodo's sleeping room to attempt murder, but only get to ruin the bolsters. More effectively, these "horrible hobbits," Bill Ferny and his gang of cutthroat halflings, do steal the ponies from the Inn. (see RotS, pp 161-63)

Later as the five hobbits (including Trotter the ranger-hobbit) leave the Inn on the way to Rivendell, "Bingo saw a squat sullen-faced hobbit (rather goblinish, he thought to himself): he was looking over a hedge. He had black eyes, a large mouth, and an unpleasant leer ... Trotter turned round quickly. 'Bill Ferny!' he said. 'You put your ugly face out of sight, or you'll get it broken.' ... With a sudden flick, quick as lightning, half an apple left his hand and hit Bill square on the nose." (RotS, p 165, emphasis mine)

So, at this point, we not only have Outsider hobbits who are vagabonds, but also some down right nasty hobbits capable of pony stealing, and attempted murder, as well as selling information to the Nazgul. This seems to give us a very realistic spread: hobbits can range from the noble/ decent types like Bingo/ Frodo to the annoying like Ted Sandyman and even to the felonious like Bill Ferny "the goblinish-hobbit."

A bit further on we find out more about the Outsider-hobbits among whom are classed a number of "wild hobbits." Some of these wilderness ranging hobbits were probably the vagabonds mentioned on p. 206 of the published version LotR. Others seem to range even further into the deep wilds like Trotter himself, east to Weathertop and beyond. Some are friendly to Trotter, others may be as bad as the malevolent goblin-like hobbit, Bill Ferny:

*"Trotter also had a notion that if he came across any of his friends among the wild hobbits, one that he could trust, they might send him on ahead on the pony to Weathertop." (RotS, p. 166, my emphasis)

Trotter further underscores the fact here that even hobbits can be nasty when he warns: "There are even some of the rangers that on a clear day could spy us from there [Weathertop], if we moved. And not all the rangers are to be trusted, nor all the birds and beasts." (RotS, p. 167, my emphasis)

So here we have a definite statement that Trotter was not the only wide-ranging, wild hobbit, outdoor living hobbit, and that halflings in some number were living far outside the bounds of the respectable, settled hobbit communities. Very realistically then, hobbits included "civilized" and "wild" types, both good and bad. Given all the above evidence, a group of vagabond hobbits living scattered throughout the region in temporary holes (FotR, p 206), becomes quite understandable.

_______________________________

*The terms "wild hobbit" and "ranger" are often used as synonymns in the early versions of The Return of the Shadow. In the index, p, 496, Chris Tolkien has, under Wild Hobbits -- "see Rangers." On page 489 under Rangers we have a list of "wild hobbit" references.

p. 173 From a letter from Gandalf to Bingo/ Frodo left with Barnabus at the Inn of Bree we learn more about Trotter/ Aragorn: "Don't be out after dark or in mist. Push along. Am so anxious that I shall wait two days for you .... Weathertop hill. If you meet a ranger (wild hobbit) called Trotter, stick to him. I have told him to look out. He will guide you to Weathertop and further if necessary. Push along."

p. 174 JRRT wrote the following notes to himself for developing the story: "Trotter takes them to a wild hobbit hole, and gets his friend [who lives there] to run on ahead and send a message to Weathertop [where Gandalf is waiting] by pony..."

p. 175 Regarding the "hobbitized" version of the story, Chris Tolkien remarks:

"The narrative runs in a narrower dimension in any case, from the fact that there are no Men in the story: Butterbur is a hobbit, the wild 'rangers,' of whom Trotter is one, are hobbits. Bill Ferny is a hobbit (p. 165) -- though it is true that the range of hobbit character is greatly extended by these 'Outsiders' who live beyond the Shire's borders."

p. 176 Chris Tolkien further comments: "In a 'chrysalis' state are the 'Rangers,' wanderers in the wilderness, and Trotter is a Ranger, grim and weatherworn, deeply learned in the lore of the wild, and in many other matters; but they [the rangers] are hobbits..."

[Stormrider]

oh yes, yes! The original start of JRRT's writing of LOTR where hobbits were very predominant! Good source of hobbit tramp info.

Fosco Took was also a wandering hobbit and a possible origin of Trotter the wandering hobbit. Chris Tolkien's #6 comment in the Queries and Alterations chapter of The Return of the Shadow:

Rangers are best not as hobbits, perhap. But either Trotter (as a ranger) must be not a hobbit, or someone very well known: e.g. Bilbo. But the latter is awkward in view of 'happly ever after'. I thought of making Trotter into Fosco Took (Bilbo's first cousin) who vanished when a lad, owing to Gandalf. Who is Trotter? He must have had some bitter acquaintance with Ring-wraiths &c.

Then it goes on to say:

Bilbo's first cousin Fosco Took has not been mentioned before; possibly he was to be the son of Bilbo's aunt Rosa Baggins, who married a Took, according to the little genealogical table described above (p222). The ascription of Fosco Took's vanishing to Gandalf looks back to the beginning of The Hobbit, where Bilbo says to him: 'Not the Gandalf who was responsible for so many quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures?'

From this, Gandalf was the cause of some of those wild natured hobbits who were adventurous and fancy free.

[Andorinha]

Ah, Thank You, Stormrider! More good research data to be collated!

Yes, this gives us yet one more sub-group of wandering hobbits, those like the Old Took's Three Remarkable daughters; his son, Hildifons Took -- who went off on an adventure and never came back; and Isengar Took, who went to sea. It is interesting that all these 5 adventuring Tooks were in the same generation and family. Gandalf must have been very busy "meddling" in Shire affairs during the 1240 - 1260 period (Shire reckoning, see appendix C Took family, p. 475 RotK). Don't know if any of the Brandybucks went off as well, so far looks like Tooks only, even Bilbo was half-Took. Though Frodo was more of a Brandybuck than a Took, wasn't he? And the Fosco you quote, was, like Bilbo, half Took, half Baggins. From the chart on 474 RotK, Frodo seems to have no clear Took ancestry, just Baggins, Boffin, Hornblower, Bolger and Brandybuck -- so maybe he got his adventurous spirit from the Brandybucks and just associating with Bilbo? LOL, considering the hobbit taste for genealogies, I'm starting to feel most hobbitish tonight.

So there are a number of part-time, well-to-do "wild hobbits" recruited from the settled families of the Shire for "there and back" style adventures -- going out into the foreign, wilderness zones, maybe even visiting the Grey Havens, or seeing Rivendell? These, like Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, all return to settled, civilized Shire life after their adventures, supposedly the better for having had them (except poor Hildifons who never came back). So we have a class of wealthy, civilized but "temporary Wild Hobbits" to deal with here! LOL!

[Stormrider]

Wouldn't you know...I am without reading material, so I started looking in FOTR and began with the Prologue "Concerning Hobbits" and then I just kept reading from there! I am now at the "Council of Elrond".

I found a couple of things about hobbits and Outsiders. There is definately suspicion among hobbits about those from other places than their own home.

The Hobbits of The Shire considered Bilbo odd because of his disappearance, unexpected return, wealth, the odd visitors, and his unchanged appearance. So Bilbo and Frodo who came from Buckland were great topics for discussion, speculation, and distrust. However, since Bilbo had settled back down to being mostly respectable again and was very generous with his money, they were able to "forgive him for his oddities".

Old Noakes of Bywater mentioned that Baggins is more than half a Brandybuck and that "folk from Buckland are so queer". Daddy Two foot said they were queer because they live on the WRONG side of the Brandywine River and right against the Old Forest. The Gaffer agreed the Brandybucks were a queer breed because they "fool about with boats on the big river" and that wasn't natural.

But the Gaffer was defending Bilbo and Frodo when Ted Sandyman, the Miller, said Bilbo was adding to his wealth because Bilbo has outlandish folk visiting him such as "dwarves visiting at night and the old wandering conjuror, Gandalf". Sandyman said that "Bag End was queer and its folk queerer".

In "A Shortcut to Mushrooms" while in Maggot's kitchen, "Sam sipped his beer suspiciously. He had a natural mistrust of the inhabitants of other parts of the Shire." While on the other hand, Maggot says to Frodo: "You should never have gone mixing yourself up with Hobbiton folk. Folk are queer up there."

"At the Sign of the Prancing Pony", we learn that men and hobbits from Bree are descended from "the first Men that ever wandered into the West of the middle-world" The many hobbit families also claimed to be "the oldest settlement of Hobbits in the world, one that was founded long before even the Brandywine was crossed and the Shire colonized". Also it says that there was Bree-blood in the Brandybucks.

Barliman also says that "they don't get Outsiders - travellers from the Shire, begging your pardon, often".

[Andorinha]

Hmmm, I think we have here, in the numerous quotes you've collected, Stormrider, a good case for viewing "The Existence of Xenophobia Among the Hobbit-kind." (my working title for the next theme!) Maybe also "Conflict Among Insider and Outsider Elements in Middle-earth" would do as well. For a fantasy work, where the author could shape his universe ANY way he wanted (including a totally "conflict-free" society) there is an enormous amount of conflict in Middle-earth. Makes for a more engaging story, I suppose? But all of Middle-earth mythology is heavily interlarded with violence, war after war -- a very contentious realm, this Arda of the Sorrows! Even JRRT's hobbits do not escape the consequences of division and conflict.

In many ways, I think JRRT portrays hobbit society as "clannish," "cliquish," with "in" and "out" groups. It is a "gossipy" society as well -- as shown by the (sometimes malicious) tales told in the Green Dragon. The Shire is fractured into many smaller "folk-units," with the Bucklanders "gossipping" about the Hobbiton folk, and the Hobbiton folk passing severe judgments upon the Marish hobbits, etc, etc. Each sub-group of hobbits seems to think of itself as the only "natural," "normal," and fully decent bunch -- all others are, to one extent or another, "Outsiders."

The hobbit obsession with genealogy also seems "suspicious." To know one's ancestry in great detail reinforces the sense of small-group identity, or clan-feeling. It automatically divides hobbits into "our group," vrs all "the others." I think an anthropologist would point out that there were deep social fractures among the hobbit-kind, fractures that could lead to the disintegration of Shire society under adverse conditions of social and physical environmental stress. "The Scouring of the Shire," shows a "roused" and lethal hobbit population, this time directed outwardly toward the "outsider" Men, but I wonder if hobbits who had "sided" with the Men, got labeled as "collaborators," and were later punished in some way for their betrayal of the general hobbit population?

I note that "in group" and "out group" feelings in our own culture have frequently erupted into great paroxysms of violence whenever the economy goes sour, it would be great to have data on how the hobbits coped with the Great Famine, The Great Winter, and the Great Plague. Did they fracture along "folk and family" lines, or did all pull nicely together?

I imagine, for Tolkien, this situation replicates the traditional English countryside where London folk consider themselves the center of creation, and look with distaste upon the Yorkshire folk far off to the north, while the "Jordies" of Newcastle return the favour when they discuss the strange "outsiders" with their "queer manners, those "furriners" who come up from the southern, capital city. There is a "fractal" pattern here in real life Great Britain, with layers of "outsiders," the folk in the next village are "near" outsiders, while the folk further off in the next county are even more "outsider-ish," and then the Welsh are very much "outsiders" to the English; and then the real "foreigners" would be even more "outsider-ish" like the French, who are at least fellow Europeans when compared to the vastly "outsider-ish" Japanese. The Hobbits replicate this situation, as we go further from Hobbiton the hobbits become more and more "outsider-ish," until finally there are Men, Elves, Dwarves as even more "outsider-ish" folk, and the farther one travels from the Shire, the more the "outsider-ishness" increases...

Of course, now I think on it, this principal of xenophobia, seems to play a very big part in his entire Middle-earth creation. In other books that feature dwarfs, elves, etc, the nonhuman characters are generally homogenized, all the dwarfs alike, though they differ from the elves and humans; and all the elves seem alike -- but Tolkien, almost from the beginning divides his elves into several "races," Teleri, Noldor, Sindar, Green Elves, etc. His dwarves are likewise, from the Silmarillion beginnings, divided into separate "houses," that function as different folk groups, or ethnicities. Sometimes we even have deadly combats among these folk groups, Noldor vrs Teleri, House of Durin vrs other dwarves... Of course for Men we have even more folk-group divisions that are elevated to the status of separate "races," sometimes based on cultural/ linguistic affinities like the differences between the Rohirrim, and the Dunedain; and sometimes old-fashioned "phenotypic" racism based on physical features like skin colour (Swertings vers Dunedain).

Even for the hobbits, Tolkien has some "physical feature racism," when he describes the characteristic appearances of his Stoors, Fallohides, and Haarfoots. I don't recall any actual combat among the hobbits based on folk-groupings, or "race," but such certainly occurs among his Elves, Dwarves, and especially Men (see the long-standing conflict of the Dunlendings and the Rohirrim). But, even without "race-conflict" among the hobbits, we do still have folk-group prejudices that must have been very hard to handle should some poor hobbit of the north find it necessary to move in with the Hobbiton gang...

_________________

LOL, just another semi-related thought here, murder among the hobbits: we have the archetypal case of Smeagol and Deagol to show us that hobbits could be nasty to their own kind, but perhaps we can see this as a Ring-induced act, not a hobbit characteristic? But certainly in the Green Dragon there was malicious gossip to the effect that an "outsider" hobbit murdered her Hobbiton husband, when Sandyman says that Dora Brandybuck--Baggins pushed her husband Drogo Baggins into the water, and he then pulled her in after him. While I do not for a minute believe Sandyman, it nontheless shows that hobbits could at least conceive the idea "hobbitcide." Does this presuppose other, darker examples among the hobbits where actual murders did take place?!

[Stormrider]

Why should hobbits be any different than other folk in their quircks and (as you say) "clannish," "cliquish," with "in" and "out" groups and gossiping? This is just human nature. They are more believable because of it.

But this comment of yours shocked me: "I think an anthropologist would point out that there were deep social fractures among the hobbit-kind, fractures that could lead to the disintegration of Shire society under adverse conditions of social and physical environmental stress." and your thoughts on hobbitcide and murder.

Ack! The hobbits have always seemed so peaceful and friendly. But now that I am reading FOTR again which I haven't done since the first B&N class and after years of discussing LOTR with all of you, I am picking up on all the little things that you have said about the differences in hobbit society (and other race differences) as I read along.

And thinking about some of your comments about the hobbits class clashes lined up alongside the Londoner comparison, I think well, why not? Why wouldn't hobbits or any race in middle earth deal with the same kinds of prejudices, suspicions, gossiping, back-stabbing, and possible intent to murder as any other people in the real world?

Look at Haldir's and Rumil's insistance that Gimli be blindfolded upon entering the land of Lothlorien because he is a dwarf. Frodo argued that Gimli was part of the company of the Ring and CHOSEN by Elrond and that should have been good enough to treat him the same as any of the other members of the Fellowship. However, Haldir still insisted saying it was their "way". Luckily all of the Fellowship went blindfolded into Lothlorien (even Legolas, although I think he was the most reluctant to comply just because he was an elf).

Legolas says: "Alas for the folly of these days! Here all are enemies of the one Enemy, and yet I must walk blind, while the sun is merry in the woodland under leaves of gold!"

Haldir replies: "Folly it may seem. Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him. Yet so little faith and trust do we find now in the world beyond Lothlorien, unless maybe in Rivendell, that we dare not by our own trust endanger our land. We live now upon an island amid many perils, and our hands are more often upon the bowstring than upon the harp."

JRRT took from real life and put it into his story to make it more real to us. I believe he has succeeded there! Look how many people love his books and have returned time and again to read them over and over and discuss them.

[Andorinha]

Hobbits as Human...


RE Stormrider: "Why should hobbits be any different than other folk in their quircks and (as you say) 'clannish,' 'cliquish,' with 'in' and 'out' groups and gossiping? This is just human nature. They are more believable because of it."

Yes, basic human nature, Tolkien never seemingly, got beyond it. All of his characters are "human," from his Elves to his Orcs, each of the many peoples of Middle-earth reflect what we call human nature. Other fantasist-romantic writers have gone to considerable lengths to depict non-human people, trying to show what a truly different race/ species would be like. Here, I think Andre Norton's "Iftin" show considerable "non-human" characteristics (including an innate ability to respect one another, respect nature, and work in smooth coordination toward social/ peaceful goals). But Tolkien stuck always (deliberately?) to the human model, so even when he had a chance to develop the hobbits, dwarves, elves, etc. along different lines, their underlying resemblances to the human model are ever foremost. This choice, to follow human outlines in assigning personality to "new" species/ races has both its strengths and its drawbacks. Tolkien's ME seems always "manlike" to me, even Old Man Willow, the Huorns, Ents, Eagles and Dragons. At times, I find myself longing for something truly other in ME, perhaps just one species that does not closely mirror the human? But, as you say, Stormrider, when an author does write about that which he/she knows best (humanity!), it gives a strong flavour of realism to the tale, and endows it with a richer "believability."

In this case, seeing the hobbits as "human-based," forces us, eventually, to come to grips with the consequences of that humanity: there will be, must be a wide range of hobbit personalities, and not all of them will be "cute-fuzzy-cuddly." Even though she (sort of) redeems herself in the end, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins and her clan were basically traitors to the established norms of hobbit society, and I think, had Lotho not been killed by Men already, we would have seen his trial and possibly his execution (or at least his expulsion from the Shire on the Gollum model of justice).

So, I agree completely with your conclusion: "JRRT took from real life and put it into his story to make it more real to us. I believe he has succeeded there! Look how many people love his books and have returned time and again to read them over and over and discuss them."

[Stormrider]

It did seem odd to me during my first read of LOTR that JRRT's elves were as tall if not taller than men rather than the little ones in most fairy tales and were not quite as magical as other storytale elves. That seemed to be fixed in my mind.

Was JRRT making his middle-earth a tale of how his England got its start? (on a fictional basis, that is) It seems to me I remember all of us discussing this in the past.

The Children of Eru were created to be manlike, however, the elves had never ending lives (unless they were killed), and very keen eyesight and hearing, and in some cases special insights like Elrond and Galadriel. They were to be in a world with the other children and would eventually run into each other so I think JRRT wished to make them more compatible and more alike for his tale.

It is also a telling of how these other races, hobbits, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. diminished and finally faded from middle-earth leaving Men to reside and rule. So I don't think JRRT's intention was to make his other races too different or far fetched.

[Andorinha]

RE Stormrider: "It is also a telling of how these other races, hobbits, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. diminished and finally faded from middle-earth leaving Men to reside and rule. So I don't think JRRT's intention was to make his other races too different or far fetched."

Yeah, I see what you mean, with the "historical/ folklore" background of his Middle-earth, Tolkien limits himself to pre-existing types ranging from goblins - pixies - leprechauns - dwarves - men - elves etc. Of course he could have used the pixie-type elf instead of his man-sized elves, and at first seems to have had no problem with pixy-elfs, but by 1925 he got all reactive against any other than "manlike" elves. I need to do some more reading here, your comments have opened up several new pathways of investigation for me -- back later!