 by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 18:46:01)
|
|
Hello, Everyone:
This thread invites a discussion of one of the major decisions Aragorn made as King in the Fourth Age, and specifically whether the decision that he made was the best option in the long run. That decision was the one to close the area of The Shire to all human traffic, including himself.
The Shire was, of course, originally a land grant from Aragorn’s predecessors, the Kings of Arthedain. As a result of a plague and the wars against Angmar, this area was depopulated of humans; the only significant presences were the Rangers and their kin, and the human settlements around Bree. One of the reasons why the Halflings developed their insular culture devoid of any significant central authority was the fact that they did develop in effective isolation. The Elves ignored them, the Dwarfs viewed them with disdain and regarded The Shire mainly as a place that was passed through between the Blue Mountains settlements and points further east, and they were unknown to most men and all Orcs.
Of course, the events of the War of the Ring changed all that. Most significantly, Saruman used a combination of economic pressure, and later, gangs of human goons to take over The Shire. Eventually, as soon as the nascent rebellion found a few leaders, the goons and their leader were disposed of rather quickly.
Aragorn was quite familiar with The Shire; in fact, it was in part through his efforts that its isolation was preserved as long as it was. After he restored the Kingdom of Arnor, aware of the fact that the old Arnor heartland north of The Shire would once again be settled by men, pronounced a travel ban applying to all humans.
Now, the reasons for pronouncing a ban are reasonable at first glance, and obviously stem from the very best of intentions. The Shire had suffered at the hands of Humans, albeit directed by Saruman; protection for the inhabitants was an important concern for the new King. The influx of humans coming in from the South could overwhelm the Halflings in their own country; The Shire could become human country, with its earlier inhabitants crowded out. Moreover, implicit in the ban is a statement that the culture of The Shire is both worthwhile and fragile: it should be preserved, and too much human influence would contaminate its unique nature.
However, were there unintended, potentially negative consequences to this total ban? And, could a less stringent solution have been crafted to protect the interests of all involved?
In the Fourth Age, much of what was once important and special was destined to fade. In the area surrounding The Shire, Rivendell is the most important of these (Lindon will necessarily continue on longer, as the final port of departure for the Elves; moreover, it was not maintained through use of one of The Three, so it would expect to diminish more slowly). However, other locales can expect to experience a renaissance. More than any other location, the old heartland of the realm of Arnor could expect to be in the second category. From desolate ruins, the old settlements at Fornost and Evendim would become the core of the new kingdom.
So, is it possible that, by allowing The Shire to remain isolated, Aragorn is also condemning it to be a provincial backwater, existing only to deliver pipe-weed to more prosperous neighbors? As its neighbors grow and advance, The Shire stagnates? Finally, the less than glorious vision of the future of the Halflings as portrayed in “The Hobbit,” where they become a small, rare, reclusive folk avoiding all contact, comes to pass? Aided in part by a well-meaning but in the long run erroneous decision?
Of course, the next obvious question is: what alternatives were there at the time that this decision came to pass? The worst-case scenario (human goons take over due to superior organization and a determined leader) seems unlikely. Despite the ban, The Shire is still part of the restored Kingdom of Arnor. Accordingly, it seems highly unlikely that any organized takeover attempt would last for any length of time. First, the Halflings proved that, given proper leadership, they could take care of a gang all by themselves. Second, even if a well-organized, professional force tried to take over the area, they would have to deal with the full might of Arnor, possibly reinforced (at least at first) by Lindon.
Another possible fear is the “Humans overwhelm Halflings in their own land” scenario. A legitimate fear, granted, but does the remedy fit the nature of the problem? Rather than a complete ban, would some lesser measure (prohibiting humans from owning land in The Shire; restrictions on movement rather than an outright ban; an entry tax on humans) protect this interest while also keeping The Shire more tightly bound with the rest of Arnor?
The option which would most likely justify a complete ban (in my opinion) would be the “cultural contamination” argument: essentially, human contact needs to be severely restricted in order to preserve the unique nature and institutions of The Shire. While this justification would justify the Ban, it also puts the lawmaker (Aragorn) in a very difficult position. He, more than most humans, is aware of the unique forces which created The Shire as it existed at the time of the War of the Ring. He, more than most humans, had a hand in disturbing that equilibrium; after all, he restored Arnor. So, by restoring Arnor and yet trying to have this event not affect The Shire, isn’t he essentially trying to unring a bell of his own making? And, by doing so, is he willing to accept stagnation and eventual diminshment of the Halflings as the price to be paid to temporarily preserve a portion of the old world that he helped to unmake? And, had he been aware of the possible consequences, was it his place to make such a decision? Is it his place to stop the natural, organic changes that would be expected to occur (on both sides) as a result of increased Human-Halfling interaction on a commercial and social basis?
Or, maybe he was just trying to keep pipe-weed from corrupting the youth of Arnor…
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Aragorn is well aware of the nature of men, and his decision is the only one that would protect the Shire. Simple non-ownership of land wouldn't prevent an enterprising man from exploiting the hobbits.
Also, he banned men from going to the Shire, he did not ban hobbits from travelling abroad, so he has not condemned them to stagnation as you suggest. It is in the nature of Hobbits not to seek adventure, but there are exceptions as we well know, so Hobbits would still be free to travel and have commerce with others, but at their own discretion.
Remember also that Aragorn is not immortal, he has to make laws that last longer than he does. He doesn't know whether the next king will have the same desire to protect the Shire, indeed Aragorn owes his position to the hobbits, but the next king would not necessarily understand that.
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 19:29:26)
|
|
A point well-taken, and which may be the proper justification for Aragorn's decision.
However, there is one implication in your position I would like to respectfully take issue with. Your position seems to assume that average, garden-variety non-adventurous Halflings are too naive (I do not think you would say stupid) to deal with humans on a level playing field without being exploited. Isn't this a rather paternalistic view of the situation, and an equally paternalistic answer? And, after the events of the War of the Ring, had the Halflings not learned a lot about taking care of themselves and handling outsiders? Along that line, the question I would ask you is: after the events of the War of the Ring, would The Shire still be ripe for the picking? (as it was for Saruman), or would its people be better able to deal with the odd human or three who tries to exploit them? (Note: I do not think you are arguing from a "Humans overwhelm Halflings with superior numbers" argument, but a "few evil men with bad intent" argument. Am I right on that point?)
Of course, I see that if you answer my question "yes," your argument does carry a lot of force. I am still concerned about the paternalistic quality of the rule, but you may be correct that it could be the only, albeit not the most desireable, decision.
And, if we assume that: 1) A small percentage of Halflings will become adventurous merchant/ explorer types, and 2) The rest of Arnor does become a vital, prosperous kingdom, is it still possible that The Shire could be left out of the major trading and commerce flows, and thus still subject to stagnation?
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
You read me correctly, average garden variety hobbits are indeed too naive and un-worldly to deal with humans. Aragorn and the other Rangers obviously believed this or they would not have protected the Shire in secret long before they were aware of the threat from Sauron. From whom were the rangers protecting the Shire? Definitely not from Elves or Dwarves or even orcs. That only leaves one race as a potential threat. Men.
Also, only Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin were capable of any defense of the Shire, and hobbits don't live that long. I believe Aragorn took a longer view, knowing that Frodo was gone, and that the other three would only live another 60 or 70 years.
The Shire is a special place. Obviously Tolkien gave it much more significance than any other place in Middle Earth. Aragorn gave specific orders to protect it and no other place, Galadriel gave only one gift that wasn't related to the quest, and this was Sam's box, she gave nothing that affected the future of any other place. The Shire was the only land that she left anything for. Its as if Tolkien is saying to us "Move forward and progress if you like, but don't lose touch with your past. Don't sacrifice what is old and good just for something that is new".
I agree it is a paternalistic rule, but Aragorn spent most of his life protecting the Shire without their knowledge, so a paternalistic attitude to the Shire is consistent in my view.
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 19:51:57)
|
|
So, if I understand you right, The Shire really was not changed in the long run by the events of the War of the Ring? And, because things will quickly enough return to their antebellum status quo, a heavy degree of paternalism is necessary?
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
No, the Shire wasn't changed by the events of the war, apart from the obvious Sharkey incident. Sam spent his time rebuilding the Shire, returning it to its antebellum condition, not progressing it to a new postbellum state. Remember that Aragorn had a pre-existing paternalistic attitude to the Shire (see my previous post re the rangers protection) and later a debt of gratitude to pay. I don't know if Aragorn made his decision based on his own beliefs or if he asked himself what he thought the hobbits themselves would want, but he would be well aware that his own and his fellow rangers presence would not be possible to provide the protection they afforded in the past.
Paternalsim is not precisely the word I would use, but I can think of no other more suitable, but in any case, Aragorn is now king, and paternalism towards his more vulnerable subjects is in his job description.
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Tue Jul 8 06:39:34)
|
|
I can see your point re: Sam's (and Aragorn's) desire to return The Shire to its antebellum state. I don't know if there is any symbolism in including the (foreign) Mallorn tree in the restoration, but that is probably splitting hairs.
A remaining question would be: can the people of The Shire return to their previous isolationist mentality, even if some want to? For better or worse, the outside world has made its presence known to the Shire-folk. Looking at your position, I must assume that your answer would be that the Shire-folk, as a whole, did not have their perceptions of the outside world changed significantly, for better or worse.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Interesting, CTS. 
Maybe he was simply allowing the Shire to grow and develop at its own pace. Yes, the Shire certainly didn't make too much progress pre-War of the Ring, but after they were exposed to the evils of Saruman and his gang, they surely must have realised what they were capable of doing...
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 19:53:53)
|
|
You illuminate I point I mentioned above with Nasty (and your comment has some relevance on that thread): how has The Shire, and its inhabitants, been changed by the events of the War of the Ring? And, can things ever be really the way that they were?
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Do you want me to seriously respond to those questions, or to regard them as rhetorical questions?
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Please respond, I've had my say, so has CTS. The more opinions and ideas on this the more it will open up, triggering more thoughts and opinions, so please, respond!
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 21:50:16)
|
|
This is by no means a settled topic. Tell us your insight!
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Far from settled, CTS is patiently accepting my prattle without comment. I have this nagging feeling I'm being set up, and I have a faint itch between my shoulder blades...
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Tue Jul 8 06:31:16)
|
|
That's good...
Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of "Leters, Vol. 3," where I pull out an on-point letter from Tolkien which caves your entire argument...
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
| by -
Lady-Eowyn
(Tue Jul 8 07:01:02)
|
|
 UPDATED Tue Jul 8 10:46:37 |
Okay, but I have to do it later. Much, much later... I'm going to a funeral in fifteen minutes, and then shiva (Jewish custom) till 9 pm.
All right, turns out I have two hours before Shiva. Ought to be enough,
eh?
how has The Shire, and its inhabitants, been changed by the events of the War of the Ring? And, can things ever be really the way that they were?
Well, for one thing the Shire - the land itself - has been changed. I'm relying on memory here, but I recall that many great trees were felled, quite a few beautiful hobbit holes were replaced by ugly houses, and the clean air was polluted by Ted Sandyman's new (and unnecessary) mill. How was this caused by the events of the War of the Ring? Yes, Saruman - who was hardly involved in the War - was the gangleader, but the ruffians had begun their work before he arrived to avenge himself upon whoever. One can argue that the Dúnedain, who were called to war, all left their posts about the Shire, thus leaving the land unprotected and vulnerable to ruffians. When Saruman arrived, quite a lot of the damage had already been done; he only took advantage of the situation and made himself the leader.
The Hobbits were, in turn, affected by the changes in the land and in their daily lives. They could no longer go on with their daily routines, since so many old customs were uprooted with the features of the land. Besides that, after years of peace - and therefore vulnerability - they were easily bullied by the ruffians, and didn't know any better to resist. The ruffians' lies and tricks made them suspicious and terrified of their new oppressors; thus, as someone once explained to me, they were experiencing what happened in distant lands because war affects everyone.
No, things could never be the same again. And that could be for the better. Yes, Sam planted trees and the harvests of the following autumn were rich and plentiful, thanks to the dust of Lórien; but it is my private belief that nothing could heal the hurts of the land, not even Galadriel's soil. And even if Sam's efforts restored the Shire to its previous condition, the shape of the land itself would not be the same for many years. I think I remember reading that the landscape changed; it took many years of hobbits living comfortably in the Shire for the landscape to develop the way it did, so I believe that it would take many years again for the landscape to restore itself.
Why do I think these changes were for the better? Well, for one thing, I think the Hobbits were getting too comfortable and settled in their ways. They isolated themselves from the world because they were too content in their happy little Shire. The Scouring was a major wakeup call, to which the Hobbits responded admirably only after the Travellers arrived. They were exposed to the cruelties of the world, and were thus involved in the rest of the world again. Also, I recall that more Hobbits went travelling outside the Shire, so they learnt new things from other peoples and lands. This helped curb their blatant ignorance and general mistrust of foreign ideas; they might also have been inspired to improve the working of the Shire in general, by the innovations of other peoples.
As changes for the better, regarding the land itself - well, as I said, I don't think it ever really recovered. But because the Hobbits worked so hard to restore the land, they raised themselves to take the challenge. It's a good sign that they rose to the challenge; I think that had the Scouring waited for another few centuries, the Hobbits would have been as soft as putty and would not have dared resisted to the ruffians at all.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
"I sit beside the fire and think
of all that I have seen,
of meadow-flowers and butterflies
in summers that have been;
Of yellow leaves and gossamer
in autumns that were,
with morning mist and silver sun
and wind upon my hair.
I sit beside the fire and think
of how the world will be
when winter comes without a spring
that I shall ever see.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood in every spring
there is a different green.
I sit beside the fire and think
of people long ago,
and people who will see the world
that I shall never know.
But all the while I sit and think
of times there were before,
I listen for returning feet
and voices at the door."
Even though Bilbo sang this, I think it could go for many of the hobbits after the scouring. They have learned more of the world outside their doors, they may venture outside and may be curious of the outside world, but they are still anxious for those that venture outside. And those outside are anxious to return home. There isn't any place they are as at home as in the Shire. Aragorn's law helped protect this--whether or not it caused stagnation, I don't know. But I think the events before the war caused them to learn more about other races and also about themselves and what they are capable of.
I'm a study of a man in chaos in search of frenzy.
|
|
|
Wow! Great connection there, UB!
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
I really liked what you said above--the scouring was a major wake-up call for the hobbits. And the wake-up was needed (although the lesson was a little harsh).
I'm a study of a man in chaos in search of frenzy.
|
|
|
Why was the wake-up call needed? Is it wrong to want to protect those incapable of protecting themselves?
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
No, it's not wrong. But, as Merry said that the Ents are part of the world too, and they need to be part of the world's troubles. The same goes for Hobbits. If Sauron is Middle-earth's enemy and the Hobbits live in Middle-earth, they, too, must suffer the consequences that other lands must.
Besides, as we saw, the Hobbits were capable of protecting themselves. They just needed the wakeup call (the Travellers gathering them) and the motivation (the Travellers' determination).
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
The Travellers don't live forever, how are you going to lead the Shire in rebellion against evil in future if you don't have Merry or Pip around? The answer is that you have to send others out to learn how to become leaders, battle tactics, etc etc. With hobbits like that around, the Shire loses its innocence, don't have them around its vulnerable. What's the answer? Keep them innocent and protect them by other means, hence Aragorn's decision.
Look for the girl with the stars in her eyes and she's gone
|
|
|
Well, perhaps the Hobbits didn't know what they were capable of doing - in this case, defending themselves - until they had the inspiration. After the Travellers inspired them, they knew that they were able to protect themselves and their homeland, and I don't think that knowledge died. Merry and Pippin also probably "trained" a few Hobbits should trouble inside or outside the Shire arise again... kind of mentoring them, as Bilbo did Frodo.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Thu Jul 10 17:35:45)
|
|
I take it then, Lady Eowyn, that you would agree with the premise that the Shire could not, nor should be, as insular as before. And thus, that Aragorn really was trying to "unring the bell."
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Yes, exactly. Though, I'm not sure what you meant by "unring the bell"...
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Fri Jul 11 16:08:26)
|
|
What I mean is that Aragorn is, in effect, trying to unmake changes which cannot be unmade. That The Shire's encounters with the outside world, and perhaps more importantly its new-found ability to deal with outside interference on its own, would necessarily change the outlook of the Shire residents to the point where going to be changed, and perhaps, are now more capable of handling outside pressure.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Hmm... I disagree with you there. I think that Aragorn just wanted the Shire to be protected against any potential invasions, such as the ruffians'. He wasn't trying to unmake the Scouring. Once the damage was done, it was done. There wasn't anything Aragorn could do about it but to let the Hobbits heal the land and calm their nerves and to prevent such an invasion from happening again.
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Sat Jul 12 11:40:23)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Jul 12 11:41:57 |
Well put, but I thought that the entire point behind the Scouring was to show that the Halflings, once led and made aware of their own potential, could deal with goons and ruffians on their own, without protection.
And, as far as a full-blown invasion, the fact that The Shire is part of the reconstituted Kingdom of Arnor should rectify any issues about an organized foreign power attempting anything. Leaving aside the question of what foreign power would be willing or capable to attack The Shire, an attack on The Shire was an attack on the Kingdom of Arnor, and would be dealt with as such. Since the kingdoms were united, it would also be considered as an attack on Gondor. No external power could attack The Shire without serious consequences.
In addition to that, the ban obviously only would be followed by those who recognized Aragorn's authority to make such a ban. So, the ban does not really apply so much to ruffians or outside invaders as people who abide by the laws of the Kingdom of Arnor.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Well... perhaps Aragorn didn't want to take a risk that would damage the actual Shire (the land). But in any case, now that the Hobbits knew what they were capable of, they knew they could go travelling outside the Shire and be able to deal with any danger they might meet on the Road, whether or not within the borders of the Kingdom of Arnor.
(oops, I forgot that the Shire was part of Aragorn's reign... my bad  )
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
Eowyn pretty much said what I was going to. While I think that pride in one's land or society can be good, the hobbits took it to the point of xenophobia. I think it was important for them to realize that they weren't the only ones in Middle Earth who had a worthwhile culture and that they were part of the bigger picture and couldn't always remain blissfully unaware of what was going on outside their door.
I do agree that Aragorn was right in protecting them, but it could be good or bad. It could have led to them settling back into their old xenophobic days (although I'd like to think that they learned something and didn't do that).
I'm a study of a man in chaos in search of frenzy.
|
|
|
There is something that goes with their innocence, and that is safety. During the scouring, a couple of hundred angry hobbits managed to run off a few dozen undisciplined men, but I can't imagine the hobbits protecting the Shire from a proper attack. The Elves are going, Gandalf is gone, the Rangers no longer roam the Shire's borders. Who knows, the moral dilemma of right and wrong of protection for the Shire may have given way to the sheer practicality of keeping them safe.
Look for the girl with the stars in her eyes and she's gone
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Wed Jul 16 18:10:26)
|
|
While it is true that the old order is fading, The Shire is still a protectorate of the revived Kingdom of Arnor. Therefore, would not an attack on The Shire be treated as an attack on both Gondor and Arnor, thereby causing the attacker lots of trouble?
And while it is true that Rangers no longer patrol the borders of The Shire, what about Arnor border guard detachments?
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Destruction of a culture can happen within the borders of the realm, and by its own subjects. Are you familiar with the story of the land of Languedoc?
Dobby likes me.
Dobby's a *beep* fag.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Wed Jul 16 21:19:56)
|
|
| UPDATED Wed Jul 16 21:21:11 |
Indeed, cultural desecration need not be foreign. But I was under the impression that you were arguing from an "oppression from foreign forces" viewpoint. I'm not being facetious here, but trying to pin your point down and I think I might have reached an incorrect conclusion based on over-emphasizing some language you used. Are you arguing that contact with humans will be a cultural contaminant, ruining Halfling culture and traditions? Or that Halflings, by the very nature of Halfling-human interactions, are bound to be oppressed and get the short end of the stick? And if the latter, how does that square with the fact that Humans and Hallflings lived in close proximity in Bree without that sort of oppression?
Or, possibly, that citizens of Arnor might try to use force against the Halflings?
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
I don't think I was being that specific, so any interpretation you put on it is a possibilty. Thinking back to that post, I'm pretty sure I was thinking about from internal sources, rather than an external invasion. I think arguing any human contact will cause cultural contamination is a bit strong, however uncontrolled access may have undeterminable results, so perhaps he's just being cautious?
Dobby likes me.
Dobby's a *beep* fag.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Thu Jul 17 08:28:28)
|
|
You have put your finger at what I was driving at. Is it possible that there is a "middle ground" between uncontrolled access and complete exclusion, that would both protect the Halfling's interests and yet not isolate The Shire from the rest of Arnor?
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
I don't think the Shire would stagnate. It might have if the Shire hadn't been changed during the absence of Frodo and the others. I think the Scouring had a lot to do with changing the Shire forever. I think that Aragorns ban simply slowed the change that the Shire was bound to under go. As was said before hobbit could come and go as they chose, the ban possibly kept them from a full scale invasion of sorts. I think there may have been more human/halfling interaction eventually.
However I don't think Tolkien wanted that interaction. Are hobbit not supossed to still exist, hidden from Humans. I think that is why he had Aragorn impose the ban. To reach the conclusion he wanted. In that aspect I think you are right, CTS. That's why we never see Hobbits.
"I forbid you maidens all...To travel to Carterhaugh, for young Tam Lin is there"
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 19:57:34)
|
|
I think it is interesting that everyone who has responded has hit on the "Has The Shire Been Changed" issue. I don't pretend to have the definitive answer; that was why I thought this might make for a good (and, my goodness, on topic) debate.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Mon Jul 7 20:04:22)
|
|
So, is it possible that, by allowing The Shire to remain isolated, Aragorn is also condemning it to be a provincial backwater, existing only to deliver pipe-weed to more prosperous neighbors? As its neighbors grow and advance, The Shire stagnates? Finally, the less than glorious vision of the future of the Halflings as portrayed in “The Hobbit,” where they become a small, rare, reclusive folk avoiding all contact, comes to pass? Aided in part by a well-meaning but in the long run erroneous decision?
I think the hobbits were happy just the way they were before the war of the Ring. I don't think they'd mind at all if they're society became permanently 'fixed' where it was. I think what Aragorn realized is that the hobbits as a race were perfect just as they were, and thus decided to protect them.
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless 
|
|
|
I've heard before the idea that Tolkien based the Shire off the town he grew up in before the factories took over. Perhaps by segmenting off the Shire it was his way of rewritting that piece of history...to make it possible to go back to his home before the industrialization through the Hobbits. Maybe Frodo represents the part of himself that realizes that he can't ever really return to the home of his youth.
As Sinaes mentioned, the Hobbits seemed pretty content in their ways. Who's to say they wouldn't prosper in the way they like, without the technology of the Men. They'd be changed by the Scouring, but it probably only made most of them more wary of outsiders and willing to return to the old ways.
I fear not the shadows of Men
|
|
|
We keep talking abut the hobbits in generic terms as if they were all the same. At least one hobbit, Ted Sandyman, embraced the new technology, he was quite happy to get his hands dirty and run the new mill, pollution and all. Tolkien made it quite plain that Ted was a "bad guy". It is possible, even probable that Sandyman only reacted this way as a reaction to previous treatment, he saw it as his opportunity to thumb his nose at his detractors, but nevertheless, there was one hobbit who wasn't afraid to abandon the old ways and embrace the new technology.
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 20:36:15)
|
|
You are definitely right there. But, I think Aragorn was not particularly worried about either Sandyman or Merry, but more concerned with his duties to the hypothetical "middle of the bell curve" Halfling.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Middle of the bell curve? You don't think Aragorn emplys actuaries, do you?
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 20:51:30)
|
|
Well, he is the King. They might have been called "soothsayers" back then, but have the mathematical modeling techniques changed much since the "slaughter the pigeons and read the entrails" modeling method?
Could be worse. At least he didn't hire insurance adjustors. 
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Please don't start a thread called "Economic Rationalism in Middle Earth".
That's not flying, that's falling, with style
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Mon Jul 7 21:10:46)
|
|
"Economic Rationalism in Middle Earth???"
Aagh!!
Thanks for the nightmare fuel, dude...
I will save my energy up for the sequel: "Marxist economic determinism in the Middle Earth monarchies."
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
well, of course there are the exceptions to the 'simple life' routine. Merry and Pippin understand things much differently than the norm as well, and Sam to a degree. But this is how they are mostly described. The same is done to other races in Middle-earth.
If Sandyman or others like him wanted some tech though, it'd just be a short trip outside the Shire, since they are not confined within.
I fear not the shadows of Men
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by an administrator
|
|
|
Fun topic!
I don't think the Shire was changed by the War of the Ring because the Hobbits have an amazing ability to ignore outside events. Consider the four Hobbits' reception when they return to the Shire. Even those closest to them wonder why they got "mixed up with foreigners."
The Hobbits have a seemingly inborn ability to be close minded and clannish. The Shire Hobbits think of the Bucklanders as freakish, and the Hobbits in Bree think of the Shire folk as "Outlanders."
With that type of culture, being cut off seems crucial. Kind of like the Deadly Desert around the Land of Oz.
While we know that some of the Travellers' offspring go on journeys outside the Shire, I don't think there is anything written on what happens to grandchildren and great-grandchildren. But you can assume that they stay at home and that the events of the War become as hazy as the First World War has become to us.
A good example of the Hobbit mind: Frodo's mithril coat goes right back into the museum!
But there may have been one small change: that they no longer take their way of life for granted. Remember Frodo's parting words to Sam -- to take the story of the War of the Ring and keep it alive so that the Hobbits will love their country even more.
"I hope that the forgotten people will not have forgotten how to fight."
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Tue Jul 8 06:40:46)
|
|
Well phrased- thank you for your contribution!
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
| by -
mowen
(Tue Jul 8 07:07:10)
|
|
Excellent post by the way CTS.
I won't begin to analyse it in the depth you have so I'll just summarise my thoughts.
When I first read the book, this was the one part that really jarred with me. I had thought that if the war of the ring had taught the peoples of ME anything, it was that they could not carry on with their heads in the sand oblivious to the concerns of others. That a "little England" approach (if you will) was not an option any longer. Of course no-one wanted to see the Shire corrupted but that it is quite a leap from almost total isolation.
I took great joy from the parts of the book that spoke of Legolas and Gimli tasting the other's culture and expanding their horizons. In contrast I found it quite depressing that men should have no real contact with the halflings. It was almost as if the ring had, in a way, won after all.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Tue Jul 8 19:38:44)
|
|
Very well put, and you have put your finger on one of issues which made me pose the question: can The Shire ever really go back? And, even if it is possible, is it desireable.
It seems that you answer both questions "no," and your position has a lot of visceral appeal to it.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
I'll toss in my 2 cents as well...
It is difficult to judge whether a decision was right/wrong, good/bad, because what follows is what we know as history. When we look back through time and see the "blunders" of people before us, we can say "well, they should have done this instead." But, what we don't consider is the fact that everything in the past has lead to where we are now. If one person in history had done something differently, made a "good" decision instead of the "bad" decision they did make, we might still be living in little thatched huts. Or maybe we'd have colonies on the moon. Who knows. Looking at Aragorn's law, I in some aspects it seems like a perfectly good solution, in other ways it has some characteristics as a blunder.
The law protects the Hobbits from the outside. Since Hobbits have always been isolationists, this would seem the perfect way to keep them this way. Let the Hobbits be the ones to break the isolation, if they so wish. Especially after the War of the Ring, when the Shire had just been beaten, robbed, and smacked around, it definitely needed time to heal its wounds.
The law also allowed Hobbits the luxury of dealing with the outside on its own terms. While most Hobbits enjoy the isolation from the rest of the world, some did enjoy adventuring into the world and seeing new things. This gives Hobbits the best of both worlds. They have their own world where it remains untouched by other cultures and races (exactly how they want it), and yet can go and see what others have done and how the world has progressed.
But the law does not allow the Hobbits the opportunities to grow. Hobbits did not enjoy technology (for the most part) and advancement in that area did not particularly catch their attention. But many advances in the world could have helped them, and with the mixing of Men and Hobbits, there may have been a mutual ground in which the Hobbits advanced but the Men did not push too many advances on them.
And, the law further increases the Hobbits' desire to remain isolated. While they enjoyed their isolation, it also made them ignorant. They had stereotyped other races by the few that they had known or seen, and most of what they thought about the other races was wrong, negative, and misinterpreted. By continuing to isolate Hobbits, it only furthered to cement ideas that they had about other races. Very few Hobbits knew anything about the outside world, and most of them were considered "queer" or "odd" by Hobbiton standards. So their views would only continue, forcing them to shun the outside world more and more until they had to go into hiding and begin avoiding humans (and other races) because they knew nothing about.
In the end, I think it needs to be remembered that the 4th Age is the Age of Men. That means that the power shifts from Elves to Men as Elves fade from ME and Men begin their habitation en masse. Its not the Age of Dwarves or Hobbits. Men begin their rule, and all other races fade. It was foretold. Aragorn's law wasn't going to stop that from happening, but it did allow for the Shire to remain how the Hobbits wanted it for much longer. Its like Turin Turambar. His doom wasn't wrought by Glaurung or Morgoth, it was already set in place long before he was conceived. What was going to happen did happen and will happen. Eru has set a plan, and when all is done, we will then understand our part in the whole scheme of it all.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Wed Jul 9 20:40:32)
|
|
Thank you for clarifying so many issues surrounding the effects of this decision. CTS
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Great post. It made me realize something that's sort of at odds here. An external reason for Aragorn's decree could be that Tolkien loved the lifestyle of the Shire and the idea of it being untainted by the outside world would constitute a happy ending from his perspective. Yet I think we can safely presume that isolated from the rest of ME, the hobbits will live on as they always have, content but unchanging.
What is at odds with this 'ideal' is that Tolkien described a flaw of the Elves being their aversion to change and their active efforts to remain static. Doesn't it seem a contradiction to denounce the static (and isolationist) nature of the Elves as a flaw, but that this is a virtue with the Hobbits?
Of course I'm presuming that Tolkien condoned Aragorn's ruling, but I think it's fair to say that he put it in there as a 'good' thing.
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood. 
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Fri Jul 18 19:27:54)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Jul 18 19:28:11 |
Tolkien did seem to view the Elves' lack of change and emphasis on preservation in the Third Age as proof of decline.
Reasonable minds on this thread have differed on what I consider to be the key underlying question: do the Halflings need this level of protection? And, if so, why?
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
| by -
athene-5
1 day ago (Sun Aug 3 18:06:02)
|
|
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
