• cmbabul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does Hobbiton have any sort of government that I’m forgetting about or otherwise unaware of? I’ve always thought of it as an anarchists paradise

    • mellowheat@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      “The Shire at this time had hardly any ‘government.’ Families for the most part managed their own affairs. … The Thain was the master of the Shire-moot, and captain of the Shire-muster and the Hobbitry-in-arms, but as a muster and moot were only held in times of emergency, which no longer occurred, the Thainship had ceased to be more than a nominal dignity.”

      Sounds like night-watch libertarianism that had declined to something even more minimal. Which ironically was easily run over by a smooth-talking old man with a broken staff and a pretty small bunch of ruffians. You had one job.

        • mellowheat@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I think at that point all he had was smooth talking.

          Like if we could imagine a president who tried to regain his power by usurping, failed and lost all his power, and then somehow is allowed to try again. Aren’t we glad LOTR is just fantasy, that’d be horrible.

          • Exocrinous@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            I would argue Gandalf uses not smooth talking, but fast talking. He does whatever he wants before the hobbits have even mustered up the indignation to say no. That’s what happens at the beginning of the Hobbit. The book says most of the respectable hobbits hated Gandalf and only the children and the adventurous liked him, and nobody respected the adventurous hobbits all too much, Bagginses and their wealth not withstanding.

    • Exocrinous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Hobbiton is definitely capitalist or feudalist in some idealised fantasy manner. Samwise is employed as Frodo’s gardener because Bilbo’s dragon treasure made the Bagginses rich.

      Tolkien was a wonderful man personally, but he struggled at thinking outside of the paradigms he knew, which were based on catholicism. Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally christian story in a lot of subtle ways that have had negative ramifications on the entire genre of fantasy in the decades since. I will say that Tolkien believed in the selfless, loving christianity that Jesus was talking about, and that’s pretty good, but it’s not perfect. It leads to blindnesses like the fact that the only governments present in Middle Earth are feudalism (hobbits, men, elves), theocracy (orcs), and just literally being one with nature (ents). Jesus may have said to give a poor man the cloak off your back, but by the 20th century those ideas had been filtered through Rome’s horrible point of view and England’s worse one. The possibility space for what a devout christian can conceptualise had been reduced, even when reading the words directly from the bible.

      Anyway if you’re curious about the more significant problems with Tolkien’s worldbuilding, the big one is the racial controversy surrounding orcs that arose when people started moving an explicitly christian myth into realist settings, and to a lesser extent there’s the “fallen empire” trope that I just find really annoying in everything except Halo and Warframe (this is because both of those games state that the fallen empire sucked and were destroyed by their own hubris, which is just so juicy. Those games are antifascist as fuck).