1stvermont
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 891
You may disagree, but those are Aragorn's actual words during the Council of Elrond: that the task of the Dunedain is to keep the hobbits "simple" and, by doing so, keep them happy.
Keeping them ignorant and restricting their movements are two different things. Nobody said that their movements were restricted.
I agree with what you have said but differ on its meaning. Tolkien believed simple=happy, the ranger's job was to keep them happy and protected and allowed them to maintain a simple agrarian, libertarian society much as the one Tolkien was raised in. Because hobbits were happy, they lived in their own Eden-like existence and they did not care or desire to be troubled by the outside world. Bilbo was unique in this way and needed a push to even leave the Shire.
Perhaps I misunderstood. But I view the protection of the rangers as a service offered free of charge. So to me, it is not in any way of keeping hobbits ignorant since they can leave or do as they wish. No hobbits were restricted from gaining knowledge or moving beyond the shire. Did rangers prevent bilbo from writing books and telling tales of the wide world outside? No ranger kept Frodo, bilbo or the other hobbits from exploring ME, in fact, they continued to protect them wherever they went in ME. I think I just fundamentally disagree with the conclusion that protection is ignorance. When Boromir died trying to save merry and pip was he really just trying to keep them ignorant of Isengard, Saruman, and the torture they would endure? when Aragorn Gimli and Legolas followed the hobbits was it to keep them ignorant of the same? when Gandalf told Frodo to keep the ring secret was that to prevent hobbits from gaining knowledge about the ring? To keep things simple in Tolkiens mind was a good thing and not connected to keeping people ignorant.
Even if you think that was the right thing to do, it's only well and good as long as the rangers are able to maintain that level of protection. Unfortunately they weren't, due to the War, with the result that the hobbits were left vulnerable - more vulnerable than they would have been if they'd had some forewarning.
As for ignorance, they were unaware of the single greatest threat to their security in 3000 years! If that's not ignorance, I don't know what is.
I am a bit surprised you are taking the stance that offering one life with no reward and unknown [rangers -Tolkien held this up as honrabel] is in fact not a good thing.
This would be equal to saying having a military and police force are only good, so long as nothing bad ever happens. Besides if not for the rangers the hobbits would have never enjoyed there living. The takeover of the shire was short and dealt with soon. Tolkien was not a utopian, he believed in a fallen world here and in ME. Elrond wanted to send pip back to the shire foreseeing the evils that might come there, but Gandalf wanted him in the fellowship and that choice helped save ME. So the fate of ME or the Shire? if Me fell so then would the shire anyways. The rangers chose to go south and fight with Aragorn to help save the fate of ME. Yes this left the shire open but in fact saved the shire in the slightly longer run. The suffering that the simple [hobbits] suffered compared to knowledgable Gondorians, Roherim etc is not even close in comparison.
But if there's a chance that they might stampede, however small, wouldn't you want some warning?
The internet comparision doesn't work, because - in your words - you choose to be ignorant, and you choose what your children see. That's different from having the knowledge withheld from you. A better comparison would be to live in a society where the government controls the internet and the news coverage, so you only get state-sanctioned information. The state say they control the flow of information to "protect" you, but there could be any number of things going on in the outside world with the potential to impact your life.
As I said above, the hobbits' ignorance and naivety was necessary to serve the plot. But Aragorn deliberately kept them that way, and it was his conscious choice to do so that made them a pushover for Saruman.
Perhaps then I disagree with what was meant by Aragorn keeping them simple. Once more it is not like he went around controlling knowledge or stories of outside dangers from being heard at the Green dragon by traveling dwarves and elves. Its not like he barred hobbits from going to the prancing pony. The hobbits themselves did not like to travel even the folk of Buckland were "queer" and better ignored when your in Hobbiton. But when your in Buckland the reverse is true.
They were a pushover and Gondor was not, but who suffered more? besides as I said the hobbits were part of the takeover and it was not a military takeover but from within.
Note: hidden by mods due to unallowed content
In America we have many warning us of the socialistic and communistic takeover of government policies, but it is still we that chose it via voting. We are warned but we ignore. It was a steady takeover like in America done from within slow government exspansion, it was not a military takeover
In America we have many warning us of the socialistic and communistic takeover of government policies, but it is still we that chose it via voting. We are warned but we ignore. It was a steady takeover like in America done from within slow government exspansion, it was not a military takeover
Besides, the hobbits were ready to be roused when the heroes come back.
Last edited:
