Chapter VIII and IX: The Scouring of the Shire and The Grey Havens

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jammi567

Nice chapter summery to lead us out into the world of the......... Appendices!

Hee.

Originally Posted by jammi567

2) I think the most poiniant(sp) scenes is the bits where the hobbits kill Wormtail, because he really was just an innocent life gone wrong, and the re-organising of the Shire, because it shows and reenforces teamwork, and the rewards that can benifit from that. What i don't get is: why did the hobbits kill Wormtail in the first place, when he's just killed the one person who got them into that situation in the first place?

You bring up a very good point which has never occured to me in all my previous readings ; why in Middle-earth did the hobbits shoot Wormtongue? He did murder Lotho, but the situation plays out as if they aren't really getting revenge for Lotho by shooting Wormtongue.

Wormtongue, just like Lotho, was duped by Saruman. He wasn't quite a stupid as Lotho, but Saruman slowly made Grima dependent on him until he became so loathesome he became known as Wormtongue. At this point, I think he felt his only choice was to serve Saruman, though I feel this was not the case at all. Saruman effectively trapped Wormtongue's mind.

Anyway, why did the hobbits kill him? My theory is that they were so angry about the occupation, and keyed up after the battle, that they wanted to kill someone. Wormtongue did kill Saruman for them, but I think the four hobbits who shot him probably did so out of instinct since Wormtongue was trying to escape.

I'm sure there were more bowmen (bowhobbits?) in the army, but only those four had the reaction to shoot wormtongue.

Frodo especially, and most of the hobbits there, kept a much cooler and would not have killed them.

Oddly, after Saruman tried to stab Frodo he was thrown down, but after Wormtongue killed Saruman, he was shot. Maybe it's because Sam was the first to go after Saruman, and the other hobbits were following his lead? This would not have been the case for the shooting of Wormtongue.

Another possibility is that the four hobbits were so shocked by seeing Saruman murdered like that, that this led to their reaction of shooting Wormtongue. Saruman never directly murder anyone (though through his occupation, he was arguably responsible for every death in the occupation), but Wormtongue had murdered Lotho and Saruman. In some ways, he was more dangerous than Saruman, who never really had the guts to do his own murdering.

Originally Posted by jammi567

3) I wouldn't mind it being what happened to the other characters after the story finished. Like the 'Eplague' that was written, but cut out.

There was an epilogue? What epilogue? And why isn't it in the Appendicies?

Originally Posted by jammi567

4) Because i guess he had the most battle experiance of all four of them.

Oh yeah! I forgot he killed a Nazgul and stuff. Heh. (Not that Pippin was slacking off, killing that mountain troll and all, but I think Merry was also more confident because of this.)

Originally Posted by jammi567

1) I think he would've got to Rivendale, and be made to either say there to keep bilbo company, or be sent back to the shire, where he could remain 'safe'.

That makes the most sense. I think he would have been much better off in this scenario! That's way better than languishing in the Lockholes.

I like Fredegar, I wish we had gotten to see more of him.

Originally Posted by jammi567

2) I don't think so. To me, it seems as if everyone there is equal with each other. But the example you give sounds like the Baggin's: They became famous and well known throught the shire, instead of hobbition, or the farthing they're in.

Every hobbit is equal, but some are more equal than others. The Bagginses are referred to as gentlehobbits, and Sam is always Frodo's servant, even after their adventures. (Though he is equal to Frodo in my mind, but then again, I think about all of them that way.)

A class system and servants, etc. is something I probably will never comprehend.

Originally Posted by jammi567

5) With Gandalf there, the hobbits, in general, wouldn't have realized that sometimes, they need to sort their own business out, and thus, realize that they can do more then have six meals a day.

Ahaha, absolutely! I think the three of us are in agreement on this point.

I do wonder how a final showdown between Gandalf and Saruman would have gone, though. I think that neither Saruman nor Wormtongue would have died.

Originally Posted by jammi567

9) I'll post on this later. Sorry.

Don't apologise! You don't have to answer all the questions, just the ones you want to. And feel free to pose your own discussion points too.

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

There was an epilogue? What epilogue? And why isn't it in the Appendicies?

There was an epilogue that Tolkien wrote, that had Sam, years after the main story finishes, answers questions posed by his kids about what happened to the other characters. But as Tolkien himself said:

"...I could not devise anything that would not have destroyed the ending, more than hints (possibly sufficient) in the appendices."

For more details on this epilogue, read 'Sauron Defeated'.

[Nurvingiel]

Tolkien was wise, not to carry on the story long after it should have ended. (Everyone's looking at you Robert Jordan.)

The Appendicies are pretty rad though. There's a lot of good material in there.

[Serenoli]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Every hobbit is equal, but some are more equal than others. The Bagginses are referred to as gentlehobbits, and Sam is always Frodo's servant, even after their adventures. (Though he is equal to Frodo in my mind, but then again, I think about all of them that way.) A class system and servants, etc. is something I probably will never comprehend.

Yes, and the Tooks and Brandybucks also powers of positions that were handed down in the family. The Baggins were actually less respectable than the Tooks and Brandybucks, despite the fame and riches, and you'll notice Frodo treats Sam much more as an equal than Pippin and Merry, esp towards the start of the book.

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

The Baggins were actually less respectable than the Tooks and Brandybucks, despite the fame and riches

About the respectability, I disagree; about richness, it was the other way around - that is, until Bilbo went in his legendary quest.

Originally Posted by An unexpected party, Hobbit

They discreetly disappeared, and the family hushed it up; but the fact remained that the Tooks were not as respectable as the Bagginses, though they were undoubtedly richer.

[Butterbeer]

depends if you meant respected as in position of authority, power, Lordship / thainship etc, or respectability . If the latter then Landroval is correct. If the former than Nurv is.

Sam was never a 'servant' more paid 'help' and although there is a cultural system it is rather warm and fuzzy round the edges - i agree that merry and Pip see Sam more in this light than Frodo does, but they do so only to a degree and are on friends terms with him from day one which indicates no class system on the old fashioned English model of gentry or Aristocrtas - this is a post black death serf-free world and i can see no direct comparison with a class system that will hold any thorough examination or detailed investigation.


By the end, there can be no doubt that Sam is held in high esteem by Merry and Pip, and indeed he has grown above them, yet it is Sam himself and only Sam that does not see this, a character trait that makes us warm to him all the more.


Frodo would not lead any military action, he wished to raise no sword.

Merry and Pip of course would lead here, their's was a different path and self journey to that of Sam and Frodo, and who else would call up the Tooks and Brandybucks?

[Butterbeer]

3. Could any other hobbit or hobbits have raised the Shire against Saruman?

The shire was not totally taken, the Tooks and the BrandyBucks were still independent, if enclosed...

even without the famous 4, hobbits being hobbits with their slow burning courage they would eventually have overthrown the tyranny.

besides, at some point the King's messengers would ride north, and i doubt a few thugs would rate too well against the King's wrath.

But the whole point was that they now deal themselves with their own affairs, and that Frodo has gone full circle from wishing gollum dead and being prepared to sit morally in judgment on life and death to the ultimate cruelty of wisdom as saruman later reflects: "You have grown HALFLING"

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Serenoli

Yes, and the Tooks and Brandybucks also powers of positions that were handed down in the family. The Baggins were actually less respectable than the Tooks and Brandybucks, despite the fame and riches, and you'll notice Frodo treats Sam much more as an equal than Pippin and Merry, esp towards the start of the book.

But Sam is Frodo's servant. That implies that Frodo is of a higher class, or some similar nonsense.

The Brandybucks, Tooks, and Bagginses are all part of the upper class. The Gamgees and Cottons are members of the lower class. That's the impression I got from the books.

I'm sure I'm disagreeing with Landroval here.

(note: never argue with a giant eagle before breakfast)

[Landroval]

The Brandybucks, Tooks, and Bagginses are all part of the upper class. The Gamgees and Cottons are members of the lower class. That's the impression I got from the books.

Then again, we might have a misconception about what classes actually were for Tolkien; he amusingly notes about a discussion on England's classes he had with an American officer, in Letter #58:

He was impressed I think when I said that an Englishman's relations with porters, butlers, and tradesmen had as much connexion with 'Feudalism' as skyscrapers had with Red Indian wigwams, or taking off one's hat to a lady has with the modern methods of collecting Income Tax; but I am certain he was not convinced.

(note: never argue with a giant eagle before breakfast)

Please kindly bear in mind that this eagle will protect his feathers to his dying breath against your hunger

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The Brandybucks, Tooks, and Bagginses are all part of the upper class. The Gamgees and Cottons are members of the lower class. That's the impression I got from the books.

But even from the beginning, Sam was Frodo's friend, and the Gamgees are poor. So Frodo (or bilbo) feels sorry for him, and gives him a pernament job to keep the income coming in.

[The Gaffer]

I don't think it could be any clearer that the Gangees are "lower" class and the Bagginses, Tooks etc. are gentry. Sam constantly refers to Frodo as "Master". Remember also the scene right at the start when the hobbits sleep outdoors for the first night, and Pippin barks orders at Sam, jokingly, who doesn't realise that it's a joke.