WHAT THE HECK ARE HOBBITS ???Cimmerian
The Sentinel!
Chief Magistrate
posted January 13, 2003 06:46 AM
What the heck are Hobbits?
A hobbit is an original creation of J.R.R.Tolkien, unlike Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Dragons and Men which already existed in the realms of fantasy fiction. Why did he create a creature like the hobbit?
Was it to symbolise the magnitude of the task of destroying 'the one ring'? Would a creature as small, as insignificant, as inept and incapable as a hobbit make the task appear more challenging, daunting, impossible?
Wouldn't Lord of the Rings work if instead of a hobbit, the ring-bearer/hero would have been a simple, peasant human upon whom such a task was thrust?
But then the precursor to LOTR, 'The Hobbit' wouldn't have been successful if it hadn't been for something as unique a creature as Bilbo Baggins, now would it?
Right, then how do we classify a hobbit? It appears by its description to be a miniaturised human, no different than a midget or a dwarf. A human with stunted growth. But such cases are anomalies within the racial structure of the human species. The Hobbits in Tolkien's world are a race by itself much like the Elves, Orcs and Dwarves are presented.
Why would such a race be significant in the structuring of the base of a story? Normally the heroes of many sagas, tales and songs are tall, handsome and very capable men and women of great bravado, prowess and heritage, often labeled as Mary-Sues, etc.
Why does a creature as miniscule and insignificant as a hobbit capture the imaginations of people?
~*~*~
Gayalondiel
Tavern Hostess
Inn Keeper
posted January 13, 2003 01:28 PM
Quote:
Was it to symbolise the magnitude of the task of destroying 'the one ring'? Would a creature as small, as insignificant, as inept and incapable as a hobbit make the task appear more challenging, daunting, impossible?
Certainly not this. LotR was, in both conception and composition, a LONG way behind the Hobbit. Starting out, Tolkien only intended a sequel to the Hobbit and, as he put it, 'the tale grew in the telling'. His letters show that some characters almost 'crept up on him', as it were, notably the black riders and Faramir. He actually had to re-write the chapter 'Riddles in the Dark' from the Hobbit to coincide with his new conception ofthe One Ring.
My own personal interpretation of hobbits is close to the image given in the Hobbit, of a normal man throw into a world he doesn't comprehend. They have been described as 'short Englishmen' and I think that's very true. They are not great warriors, or at least they do not start that way. They have not born into lineage, or destiny, or great powers and certainly not great stature. They are our link to ourselves, a character we can identify with who like the simple things, food and drink and pleasant company, who love their kin and abhor change. While many of us would prefer to say that at heart we are the great warriors or the powerful and mystic wizards or the graceful and magical elves, in all honest truth that age of the world is past and we live in a time of hobbits, or rather of hobbits gone horribly wrong.
The Hobbits could be seen as a symbol of hope, that true-hearted but naive characters who come through the fire and are, of all the characters in the book, closest to the world in which we, or rather Tolkien, find most preferable in the world today. Yet at the same time their world is our idyll: they have not yet spoilt their land with machine or waste or want, but live at one with the world.
In short (not very short, I know), they are everything that is idyllic about our world, that we could come so close to yet cannot wholly grasp, and they are the characters who connect most closely with us.
~*~*~
Cimmerian
The Sentinel!
Chief Magistrate
posted January 14, 2003 05:40 AM
SOme of what you say, Gaya, holds true. It is indeed an impossible task for a normal human to go around saving the world, as shown in movies. In that case, yes we can relate to a hobbit-like persona as presented in LOTR.
But ofcourse it would be ridiculous to say that I am like a hobbit in nature. I'd sound like a fool. Where as if I say, I am a barbarian merc, or an elven princess, etc. That's cool!
Tolkien intended to write 'the Hobbit' as a kid's tale and then the sequels sort of blew out of proportion and became the Lord of the Rings and the Sil. Now here Tolkien could have used a differing central chararter race than a hobbit, but I guess like using the term elf, he banked in on his creation, the hobbit.
Yet, if 'the Hobbit' had failed and JRRT still went on to write LOTR and the Sil, woud he then feature a simple hobbit as the central character or go for the more appealing sort?
Hobbits as a race are insignificant to the scheme of things. To qoute Dexter, "I am a Hobbit... I dig holes!"
~*~*~
Gayalondiel
Tavern Hostess
Inn Keeper
posted January 14, 2003 11:49 AM
Quote:
But ofcourse it would be ridiculous to say that I am like a hobbit in nature. I'd sound like a fool. Where as if I say, I am a barbarian merc, or an elven princess, etc. That's cool!
Cool it may be, Cimm, but that's not my point. I did not say that you cannot have the spirit of one of these beings, or that you cannot aspire to the soul of a great barbarian warrior or an Elf, but that's just not the way the world is. We are not creatures of the ancient sagas, duelling and battling evil and being enchanting and stunning. We are simple creatures, living in comfortable houses with plenty of food, chatting in pubs or on the internet, wearing comfortable clothes and surrounding ourselves with creature comforts. One may easily think to one's self "I was born into the wrong era" - I frequently do myself. But in purely physical, human, basic characteristics, we are the hobbits. We do not go on quests for noble goals, we aspire to educate ourselves and find a job which provides money, security and essential services to others. That is not the role of the barbarian mercenary, nor the mystic elf.
As for would he have use another creature, I don't think we'd have developed the story. JRRT intended to publish the Sil (which, of course, does not include hobbits) but due to preessure from his publisher and the enthusiasm of his many fans, he decided instead to write a sequal about hobbits. It started off as another tale about Bilbo Baggins, the tale grew in the telling, and the rest is history. Had JRRT chosen not to write a sequal that involved hobbits, I don't believe it is likely that he would have come up with LotR at all, but instead he would have returned to the Sil and the tales of Numenor.
Incidentally, the Sil was in construction way before the Hobbit was written, and was in almost constant revision for the rest of JRRT's life. I is not a sequal, the Hobbit is a spin-off of it.
~*~*~
Elentari
Town Local
posted January 14, 2003 02:05 PM
*woah, I can tell i haven't been on for ages! pop up post! It takes AGES to load....*
My quick, easy Hobbit diffinition:
Little short people how are adicted to smoking with large, hairy feet.
Aragorn and Legolas went now with Eomer in the Van - Van???? Hmmmmmm....
~*~*~
Cimmerian
The Sentinel!
Chief Magistrate
posted January 14, 2003 09:11 PM
Gaya, when I say 'It's cool!" I mean that is the general overview of the average fantasy reader. By 'Average fantasy' reader I mean those of us who read almost all kinds of fantasy fiction, for pure entertainment alone and have more than one favourite story, depending on our states of mind..
I agree with the point that at our present state of evolution, humans are quite like the hobbit in spirit and nature, living lives of comfort and contentment. I speak of the fortunate ones like us who live in big cities, etc. There are also people on earth who are still esconded(sp) in the hunter-gather mode of lifestyle. For them every day is a challenge of survival.
We may live in our heated houses, and fresh baked food worlds just like the hobbits but we wouldn't(in general) relate ourselves to the hobbit. Not all of us can go and save the world like Conan the Barbarian or Xena, the warrior princess, but to the average fantasy reader these are the personas that arrest their fancy, make them dream, and role-play and write fan-fiction. Not some miniscule little bumbler like a hobbit.
I disagree that without 'the Hobbit' Tolkien wouldn't have written LOTR. It's true that he dreamed up and perfected the world of ME for many, many years, even before he wrote the hobbit book, but if he had such an enormous databank of potential brewing inside his head, I'm sure he would have written the Lord of the Rings without hobbits as central characters (if Bilbo's story had flopped at the market). He could have used average humans, peasants, etc.
And I believe, he would have needed a grand adventure like LOTR to reach his reading audience before he could launch his masterstroke, the world of the Silmarillon. Which I'm sure wouldn't find many readers if they hadn't been esposed to LOTR. How can you talk about the history of a new world and its society without having some form of saga to precede it.
We all read 'Conan of Cimmeria' before we got to read 'The Hyborian Saga' because Conan generated the interest in his readers to find out where he came from and the world he lived in. The same thing happened for LOTR and the Sil, and preceding it all, as a publishing, was 'The Hobbit!" A tale about an insignificant, dimunitive creature that stole the hearts and imaginations of people.
Elentari, you views are most welcome, but I suggest that you read into the topic and not just the 'rhetoric' title, before you commit yourself to post.
~*~*~
Gayalondiel
Tavern Hostess
Inn Keeper
posted January 25, 2003 07:55 AM
It all really depends on how one defines relating oneself to something else. In my posts, I was thinking of how the stories relate to what we are, whereas (presuming I understand correctly) you, Cimmy, are discussing our relating to what we aspire to. Incidentally, I think the point about less fortunate persons than ourselves is somewhat moot, as I don't imagine people in the third world have had the opportunity to read LotR. I'm not discountin people in this situation, far from it, but they cannot relate to a book if hey have not read it.
I don't think it's entirely accurate for you to say that we wouldn't (in general) relate ourselves to the hobbits, for I personally, and I know several people of his persuasion, would choose, given the option, to be the normal person thrown into the bleak situation, like one of the five main hobbits. There one can show one's strength, whilst still retaining a quality of groundedness, and not getting stuck with being a great warrior hero at the end of the day. Not the bumbling hobbit, not the great warrior king, but a normal guy that just happens to get caught up in things and is essentially good. For myself, I identify readily with that, and would aspire to act after the manner of Sam Gamge, especially, should the occasion call.
~*~*~
Cimmerian
The Sentinel!
Chief Magistrate
posted January 26, 2003 09:48 PM
The mainstay of my topic here is why make a central character of such inferior and obscure nature for an epic saga. In tales of valour and adventure mostly it is the heroic warrior kings, elegant elven warriors and wizards who rule the roost, so to speak. They inspire the reader and give substance to the gravity of the adventure. I haven't yet read a story where creatures similar to the hobbit in stature and if not nature, like gnomes, brownies, imps, midgets, etc are the central character. They at best provide supporting parts and comic relief.
As I stated above, in the beginning, was it because of the dimunitive stature and nature of the hobbit that the task at hand would appear even more daunting and compelling. If that be the case Tolkien has stolen the element of suspense from the tale because he narrates it like he was reading a book of records rather than a tale. In certain places he hints that the character will go on to become a great king, or bear a scar to the end of his days, etc etc. But that's beside what I was trying to say.
Yes, you are correct, Gaya, that the people who have not read the book cannot relate to it, that's common sense. My take was on the human race as a whole, and I meant those people who live lives in primitive fashion, are hardy and tough people and could whip us about in a game of survival.
Allright, hobbits are based on human characteristics, in fact all creations of fantasy are. That is the base essence, it attracts the reader, it allows the reader to relate. But I wouldn't aspire to refer to myself according to the starure and nature of a hobbit. The normal person could be a human, not necessarily a hobbit. Is the hobbit more endearing to the reader then, owing to the general success of LOTR?
The manner of Sam Gamgee? Not the basic characterristic but the views he held on to throughout the journey. He was represented as a rationalist, rather in a more simpleton kind of way. I'd say the characater of Gamgee was like the glue that held the others together. Frodo being the dreamer would often go overboard, and Sam was there to anchor him, to keep him in the reality of things. I wouldn't normally try to be that way, I'd rather approach the game more in the manner of Boromir, but if I were to choose one of the hobbit's characteristics, it would be that of Pippin. Pippin's character is almost akin to that of Boromir's, though in a far sublter mode, more in hobbit fashion.
I posted this discussion also at Minas Tirith, and there the majority of the responses seemed to be in accordance with the story. They, barring a few, didn't quite get the fact that I was trying to look at things from outside the book, from the perspective of a writer and not a reader or even the story.
Conan the barbarian is a normal guy, whose main aim is to survive in a savage world. The fact that he one day becomes king is owed mostly to his indomitable spirit as a survivor who takes what ever little life offers him and makes the most of it, sometimes even more than the most. He never starts off as a great warrior king, he fights for it all the way.
~*~*~
Gayalondiel
Tavern Hostess
Inn Keeper
posted January 27, 2003 09:02 AM
I wouldn't say that Sam was just a simple anchor. To me, Sam Gamgee represents unconditional love and care for those about him, and that's what I aspire to. So I don't think it's fair to say that people in general wouldn't aspire to be like the hobbits, Cimm, I only think you can say that you personally wouldn't. That's not a criticism, but I can't find any character in LotR who represents the qualities to which I admire - love, service of others, a sense of right and wrong and a love of nature. I don't think being simple is necessarily a bad thing anyway, Sam comes out with some quite profound stuff by looking at the world in his simple, innocent way.I'd love to be like him.
~*~*~
Cimmerian
The Sentinel!
Chief Magistrate
posted January 27, 2003 10:26 PM
Yes, I would never aspire to be a hobbit. In my view they are insignificant creatures whom Tolkien created because he wanted to make a race all his own without having to explain why he wrote them differently from preexisting norms as he has done for the elves. Hobbits as a race would not be answerable to the fantasy-fictional community as opposed to say humans or anyother pre-exisiting creations had he chosen to incorporate them in his tale.
But when I started this topic, it was not only just on my personal views alone but after some research. Look at all the fanfics and RPGs done on the fields of Fantasy, not just LOTR but on the various other legends - A majority of people in general write tales about Powerful ELves, Great Warriors, Royalty and larger than life adventurers, they also prefer to role play as such too. After observing this trend I asked these questions.
In conclusion, of this post and not the topic, I'd like to state, without any offence to anyone, that the people who find inspiration from the Hobbit characters of LOTR have a certain amount of negative, loser quality about them when it comes to relating. That is why they are content to measure up to a hobbit and find hope in them. Love, companionship and help are common everyday tasks and anyone can achieve them without difficulty. But saving the world, being a hero, swinging the fabled magical longsword, unleashing the enchanted arrows, slaying mighty red dragons, seizing the jeweled crown and getting the pretty girl. Ah, these are the wonder that is fantasy!
~*~*~
Thain
Master of Bree
Chief Shirriff
posted January 28, 2003 05:37 PM
To me Hobbits are not an insignificant race but a peaceful land-loving race that are one with nature far from being losers. From my point of view hobbits are a metaphor or message that any one large or small can accomplish anything if they set their mind to it. If a small hobbit could save the world than why can’t you? This to me was why he created Hobbits.
~*~*~
Gayalondiel
Tavern Hostess
Inn Keeper
posted January 29, 2003 10:07 AM
Quote:
Love, companionship and help are common everyday tasks and anyone can achieve them without difficulty
I beg to differ. If love, companionship and help are everyday and easy, then why are there wars? Why is there racism, violence, corruption, a will to dominate others and such a desire among most of the human race to look after themselves above all else. Why, in the recent London Underground derailment were people pushing young children out of the way to get themselves to safety? If love is common and easy to achieve, why do one in four marridges in the UK alone end in divorce? Real love, real loyalty and kindness are rare indeed in this world, and the type of person represented in Sam Gamgee, the selfless, loving and giving person, are rarer still.
~*~*~
Cimmerian
The Sentinel!
Chief Magistrate
posted January 29, 2003 11:01 PM
Excellent point, Thain! For that indeed was JRRT's vision, to portray the most insignificant and undesirable of human characteristics triumphing over a task no mere mortal would ever concieve of accomplishiong. Which takes me back to my original query - Was it to symbolise the magnitude of the task of destroying 'the one ring'? Would a creature as small, as insignificant, as inept and incapable as a hobbit make the task appear more challenging, daunting, impossible? -
The answer is a resounding yes; from a writers point of view this gives the story a unique and never before seen dramatic quality, alomst of mythic granduer. But the base of my questioning is - why create a race of little people? Wouldn't those qualities that were represented in Bilbo, Frodo and Sam be present in normal, everyday humans as it was the case in so many tales of adventure and fantasy. Did Tolkien do so as a literary gimmick?
I am not critcising Tolkien here, for his world is among the best that can be fantasised. I am stating my dissapproval about the Hobbit!
Gaya, those are pretty strong emotions there, and I beg your pardon to have affected you at that level. The human race, the human mind and psyche is too complex to discuss in detail here on this forum. I didn't intend this topic to take that direction. When I stated that 'Love, companionship and help are common everyday tasks and anyone can achieve them without difficulty', I meant that such virtues can be achieved by anybody, any human being, any living creature as a whole, individuality differs and sometimes self-preservation makes people do the things that you mention.
When I say "loser" mentality, I ask from the point of the psyche of the fantasy reader. Hobbits as a race are not losers, but they represent the basic human characteristics that are simple and achievable. Why aspire to be so unless one has an inferiority complex? Besides the description, way of life and attributes of the Hobbit race are hardly desirable for one to emulate as opposed to the elegant elf, the adventurous human and even the daunting dwarf. Frodo is basically portrayed as the reluctant hero, needing help from everyone, especially Sam, and even from the likes of Gollum. I don't want to be that way.
As a fantasy reader, I would want to relate to the grand, larger than life, winner takes all hero, kind of like the "mary-sue syndrome', as is the case among most fantasy readers and writers.
I would rather read about and wish to emulate the exploits of Tyndal the Elf and Brak the Barbarian, than Frodo the hobbit.
~*~*~
Sister Bigfoot
The Artist
Shirriff
posted June 11, 2003 09:31 PM
Hobbits to me are the ideal human model.
Tolkien suggests that Hobbits and humans use to be the same. That we were related, but something happened to change Hobbits (Hobbits continued to change even after the events of LR. They became shyer of man and they shank in stature).
Physically we are different, in that they are smaller. Other than that we are pretty much the same or as similar as Europeans are to Asians or Negro’s. Our differences are mainly found in character. Hobbits, although they have been infused with all the same characteristics of the human being, are more cheerful and more pessimistic. One could even go as far as saying that hobbits are more innocent and pure. That not to say that they are perfect, just that compared with humans, hobbits seem more ideal in their behaviour (as a whole).
It’s due to this that hobbits were able to resist the power of the one ring for longer than a human being.
I think Tolkien wanted the Hobbits to be the same as humans so that when he did compare their differences, we would more appreciate the character flor in human beings.
Tolkien wanted man to be more aware of his faults, so that he could aspire to be more like a hobbit and thus be a better human being.
Thus the hobbit embodies all that is ideal in a human, and should be aspired to.
Maiden du Mystique
Posts: 74
(3/18/04 7:25 am) Reply
Re: WHAT THE HECK ARE HOBBITS ???
(HTML and formatting edits made for easier reading)
-Mym
Home is behind, the world ahead, and there are many paths to tread.
Through shadow, through the edge of night, until the stars are all alight. Mist and shadows, cloud and shade, all shall fade, all shall...
...fade.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies