Talk

Advanced search

to think the Hobbits of The Shire are just ignorant or oblivious?

(31 Posts)
AriBellle Thu 22-Jan-15 20:09:31

Ok so I only have the six films to go on.

The Shire is continually threatened throughout LORT, burning burnt to the ground etc.

When Frodo and gang return one of The Hobbits is sweeping his doorway and just gives them this look --> hmm

Do they actually know or give a shit about the world outside of The Shire?

Obviously lighthearted and my firstborn will be called Bilbo.

EhricLovesTheBhrothers Thu 22-Jan-15 20:15:14

No they don't. That's why Bilbo was so unusual to go off adventuring. Hobbits are parochial, small minded little folk!

atticusclaw Thu 22-Jan-15 20:18:24

DH genuinely wanted me to consider Samwise for our pfb!

Malabrig0 Thu 22-Jan-15 20:18:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AriBellle Thu 22-Jan-15 20:18:47

And what thanks did Bilbo get?

He came back to all his worldly possessions being auctioned!

BigDorrit Thu 22-Jan-15 20:24:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

nocoolnamesleft Thu 22-Jan-15 20:25:51

Um, actually, the books give a bit of a different perspective. What about Bandobras (Bullroarer) Took, who led the hobbits at the battle of the Greenfields, and struck the goblin chieftain Golfinbull's head from his shoulders (and down a rabbit hole, thus simultaneously ending the battle and inventing golf)? And I was rather miffed that by missing out the Harrowing of the Shire (and killing of Saruman way earlier than in the books) we never got to see the Battle of Bywater, where the hobbits rose up to overthrow the tyrants who had taken over the Shire.

kelpeed Fri 23-Jan-15 05:20:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CheerfulYank Fri 23-Jan-15 05:33:10

Atticus my pfb is Samuel and we call him Samwise all the time grin

borisgudanov Sat 24-Jan-15 01:05:29

Yes, YABU to interpret Tolkein's work from the films alone. If you want to do it properly you need to read The Silmarillion as well. The thing about hobbits is that they were so parochial, little and easily overlooked that it scarcely crossed Sauron's mind that a hobbit could be the Ring-Bearer, and so he didn't see him until he stood at the Cracks of Doom. You would expect someone like Aragorn or Boromir, so the Ring was set up to corrupt and expose someone like that (The Breaking of the Fellowship: Book I).

The other thing is that everyone no matter how small might have their part to play - even Gollum, whose life Sam spares on the Emyn Muil, and who does indeed yet have a part to play (Mount Doom: Book III).

A few things not in the films put into clear relief the relationship between the "small" hobbits and the greater universe. Tom Bombadil clearly does, he is older than the elves and one with the earth; and at the end conversely we see how low Saruman lies (The Scouring of the Shire: Book III).

This is complex and detailed story-telling which can only be filmed if one accepts a certain emphasis in the adaptation. For all that, the films are a great work of their genre.

elfycat Sat 24-Jan-15 01:29:58

DD1 is named after one of Samwise's daughter.

Hobbits are complex, but them who isn't?

kelpeed Sat 24-Jan-15 02:57:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FleurDeCassius Sat 24-Jan-15 03:25:52

borisgudanov

zzzzzzzz...

Thanks for the sleeping material.

I think the op was being lighthearted.

Good lord some people need to unclench

borisgudanov Sat 24-Jan-15 12:36:12

Fleurdecassiun

Did you mean to be so rude?

BatmanLovesBakedBeans Sat 24-Jan-15 12:42:56

elfycat I am sincerely hoping you called your daughter Goldilocks rather than Ruby or Elanor or one of the others grin

I would have loved to have seen the Battle of Bywater on big screen - the scouring of the Shire always makes my heart break a little bit when I read the books.

GretnaGreen Sat 24-Jan-15 12:46:38

I am too fond of the books to really appreciate the adaptations. In the book, the big people see the hobbits as sort of uncomplicated child-like funsters who represent the happy innocent side of Middle Earth. In fact the hobbits are a lot tougher than that, and they've been underestimated by pretty much everyone else (good and bad).

Also, in the book it turns out that the Shire was most definitely not unscathed/unaware of the war and the ending is satisfying but a lot more complicated than the film. I won't spoil it for you but it's worth reading.

Fleur, let me draw your attention to any one of the non-LOTR related threads on AIBU this morning if this one doesn't float your boat smile

Skatingfastonthinice Sat 24-Jan-15 12:57:25

I enjoyed your post borisgudanov , and I agree with it.
I also think that the hobbits were more resilient, stubborn and true to their nature than men, which is why the Ring failed to corrupt them as quickly or as thoroughly as the men it came into contact with. Hobbits are not driven by ambition or quests or a Vision. Frodo and the rest do what they have to do because no one else can, and because of the ties of friendship.
It's why Bilbo could give the ring to Frodo and Sam could give it back once he'd taken it. It was the right thing to do. Hobbits are decent and fairly uncomplicated for the most part.

GretnaGreen Sat 24-Jan-15 13:01:03

Might have to reread the book again.

gotthemoononastick Sat 24-Jan-15 13:10:25

I am old ,tired and astonished at how brutalised our little world has be come.Maybe all elderly people feel this.

Busy googling property in The Shire all the time.(worldwide)

Loved borisgudanov's post! Please make a blog for interested people to read!!

Skatingfastonthinice Sat 24-Jan-15 13:11:39

'Bilbo's ability to give up the Ring derives partly from the way in which it came into his possession, partly from the fact that he did not put it to bad use, and to a large part from his hobbitish nature.
The toughness of will is what allowed Bilbo to make the choice to give up the Ring, and enabled him, ultimately, to part with it without harm.'

That's a quote from a Tolkien forum. smile

DanaBarrett Sat 24-Jan-15 13:11:43

I always got the impression they were 'protected' possibly by Tom Bombadil? And so able to live in peace without worrying about the rest of the world?

Tanith Sat 24-Jan-15 19:37:37

I thought the reason why the hobbits were so oblivious of the dangers further afield was because of efforts of the Rangers like Strider. He says as much in the first book of LOTR:

"Strider I am to one fat Breeman who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his blood!"

Or something like that ��

And goes on to say that it's worth their contempt in order to keep their safety and simplicity.

thornyhousewife Sat 24-Jan-15 20:13:17

I love this thread.

The Hobbit was our working class bible when I was a kid.

elfycat Sun 25-Jan-15 10:36:13

Sorry Batman, while DD1 has golden locks she's named after the flower in Lothlorien. She's also likely to be the best part of 6ft tall when she finishes growing.

kelpeed Complex because they are resilient past the point of tolerance. The Shire is destroyed, and you know they will bounce back and within a generation it'll be an old story told in the pub, with laughter. They have a childlike innocence and are small and playful, but they are not children. They can hold onto the most evil item in the world (3 of them do) and while affected by it don't turn fully iffy (looking at you Boromir, Galadriel, Gandalf, Aragorn...). They want a small quiet life (something I can relate to) but can cope when life throws shit at them.

I find them as fully-realised as any of the other humanoid species in Middle Earth.

anonacfr Sun 25-Jan-15 10:46:48

You know what pissed me off most about the films? That Faramir decides to take the ring to his father.

I love Book Faramir.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: