[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 271 KB, 450x450, FF-Witch-King-port.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19264701 No.19264701 [Reply] [Original]

Was Samwise Gamgee the only major character who was a commoner in Lord of the Rings?

>> No.19264730

aristocrats are inherently superior to commoners

>> No.19264770

>>19264730
t. commoner

>> No.19264779

>>19264701
merry & pippin & gimli werent particularly special. same with frodo but he were rich so i’ll leave him out

>> No.19264892

Adventure is for blue bloods.

>> No.19264908

>>19264779
Gimli's dad was Gloin. The Tooks and Brandybucks were rich, landowning families The Gaffer was a laborer/gardener.

>> No.19264923

>>19264908
the gaffer also lived on the same hill as bilbo which was prime real estate if real estate it could be considered.

>> No.19264943

>>19264701
Bagginses were not nobility of any kind - Bilbo just got rich off his adventures and became a petit-rentier, with Frodo inheriting his business.

Merry and Pippin were pleb commoners just like Samwise.

Gimli was a remote descendant of Durin, but same as LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE DWARF.

Gandalf was a Maiar, not elven, dwarven or human nobility, and in terms of his race (literally angles) basically a lowest-tier.

So Boromir, Aragorn and Legolas were the only proper nobility in the Fellowship.

>> No.19264944

>>19264923
Owning one Hobbit hole at the bottom of a hill doesn't make you an aristocrat.

>> No.19264954

>>19264908
If we take Tooks and Brandybucks as a yardstick for "nobility", then we'll have to conclude that the Middle Earth is entirely populated exclusively by nobles, and therefore nobody is actually a noble.

>> No.19265168

>>19264954
Anon, these are two most ancient families in Shire, with their lines going back to early Thains of Shire. They ruled over their respective holdings for generations.

>> No.19265255

>>19264944
being part of a large family like the tooks and the brandybucks neither. nor does being son of gloin make one aristocratic

>> No.19265290

>>19264908
>The Tooks and Brandybucks were rich, landowning families
Being a freeholder and being rich are not the same as being an aristocrat. We don't know the statutes and privilegia of The Shire - if there are any.

>> No.19265295

>>19265290
there aren’t any real power structures. it’s good old peasant government, anarchistic but with strict unspoken customs.

>> No.19265401

>>19264779
Mery, Pippin, and Frodo were all Hobbit nobility.

>> No.19265502

Gollum

>> No.19265536

>>19264943
You do not understand Tolkien as much as you think you do

>> No.19265582

>>19265536
Of course. But you understand it even less.

>> No.19267073

>>19264701
I never really thought of it, but yeah everyone really is part of some noble ancestry. It doesn't take away anything from the story, but it calls into question the common "ennoblement of the ignoble" theme people always attribute to LotR. But it is questionable at the very least to consider any of the hobbits true nobility when they're just a bunch of farmers who are only independent because the norther kingdom was destroyed.

>> No.19267081

>>19264701
I always thought the Hobbits we're supposed to represent the commoners, far away from the rougher outside world.

>> No.19267108

>>19267073
Trying to craft some sort of argument in favour of aristocracy using Tolkien's characters seems dumb at best. You're reading the books real fucking weird if you think the hobbits are supposed to be noble in any way but spirit; Merry and Pippin being from large, relatively wealthy families doesn't really come into it. They're simple, comfortable country folk, as you say, and the most noble of them all is the fucking gardener.

>> No.19267109

>>19267081
They were, but hierarchies were so ingrained in Tolkein's mind that he couldn't imagine a society without landowners and their servants.

>> No.19267127

>>19267108
But it's wierd that he even chose to give them noble ancestries at all since they never really come up in the story at all. They could just as well have been peasants and nothing in the story would change. I think tolkien just liked making family trees desu.

>> No.19267142

>>19267109
Hmm I might have to re-read the books its been a bit. Are there any other Hobbits other than Sams family that more labor driven? I think there was Farmer Maggot, but I dont recall any others.

>> No.19267147

>>19267127
>I think tolkien just liked making family trees desu.
I reckon he loved it. Bloodlines and identity are quite important in Tolkien's world too, as they would have been in the old cultures he was inspired by. Everyone is the son of someone, and who that is matters, because that's how you know they're trustworthy in sparsely populated world with no passports or central authority.

>> No.19267165

>>19267142
Stoor Hobbits, as in Smeagol (Gollum) and Deagol, were fishermen.

>> No.19267194

>>19267165
They weren't around during Frodos time IIRC, but I'll take it.

>> No.19267217

>>19267194
>They weren't around during Frodos time IIRC
Correct. A better example would be the Shire's production of pipe-weed. Someone has to grow and harvest the pipe-weed and it wasn't the Baggins, Tooks, or Brandybucks.

>> No.19267220

it's just a story, who cares

>> No.19267240

>>19267217
There is a lot of farmland in the shire. Also with the amouny beer being drunk, someone's gotta be making all that.

>> No.19267261

>>19264943
I was going to say Gandalf myself but considering the fact that basically all the governments in the story recognize the Heren Istarion order of wizards as powerful beings, they might as well be de facto nobles. In fact they are superior even to human nobles, because their lineage is not mere aristocracy but from literal heaven.

>> No.19267885

>>19264779
pippin was a took.

>> No.19268277

>>19267240
>Also with the amouny beer being drunk, someone's gotta be making all that.
Like in the middle ages or still in the countryside, most households likely make it themselves.

>> No.19268291

>>19268277
There's pubs arent there? Or was that just a movie thing?

>> No.19268324

>>19264770
Even a commoner can see how self evident it is.

>> No.19268347

>>19267073
>>19267108
Wouldn’t the fact that they were comfortable be some implication of nobility? I mean, the shire is a pretty rich and fertile area in terms of production. It’s kind of an essential aspect that they are comfortable in their ways. Not dirt farmers looking for a better life, but content with their holdings.

There is an aristocracy there, but it is closer to the bottom rung rather than a huge distance.
I kinda get the feeling of a small but prosperous late Victorian English village of like 500 people. Not a factory town, but one where the local lord/rich guy is still on a names basis with everyone from the local baker to the local chimney sweep.

>> No.19268364
File: 13 KB, 311x320, 06E2BB0D-C0C1-4048-B025-98DE3004310B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19268364

>>19268347
In other words, for Americans out there, small time USA in a small but prosperous town. Maybe think the town from the Music Man. Everyone knows each other and are generally happy. Or that musical where those two modern guys stumble into the hidden old Irish village, forgot the name. Or postman pat or Thomas the tank engine.

Either way, an idealized small community setting in the late Victorian-early 20th century that seems to be a very common idea during the time of Tolkien. You still got your rich and your poor, but not alienated from each other, and everyone seems to know each other and live pretty good lives.

>> No.19268381

>>19268364
Or the type of ideal parodied in the Burn the WItch music video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI2oS2hoL0k

>> No.19269541

>>19267261
>In fact they are superior even to human nobles, because their lineage is not mere aristocracy but from literal heaven.
This just means that we automatically consider any differences or inequalities between individuals as hierarchies of power, and we could as well consider, say, any man who has better socks than others as "nobles", or taller people as "nobility" and shorter people as "commoners".

>> No.19269686

>>19269541
No offense, but it sounds like some fucking commie gobbledygook

>> No.19269875

>>19268324
If you're a servile self-hating faggot then sure.

>> No.19269888

>>19268381
it's the wicker man you kino illiterate faggot

>> No.19269893

>>19264730
Aristocrats are inbred retards

>> No.19269903

>>19265295
And that's what confuses me about the relation of power between Frodo and Sam. Why is their relation based on servitude? I don't see economic reasons for it, even less economic reason. I used to think it was some kind of friendship, but weirdly, reading it again, it doesn't sound like it.

>> No.19269907

>>19269903
even less social reasons*

>> No.19270805

>>19264701
Yes, Tolkien attaches a lot of importance to heredity. In a good family, a bad person can be born, but there was no case when something good came out of a bad family.
It is impossible to imagine that in Tolkien some simple Haradrim shepherd (I live in a yurt, graze sheep, love Sauron) became a hero of history.
For me, a resident of the post-Soviet society, this is somewhat annoying. On the other hand, it seems to me that in Britain everyone has at least a little bit of nobility in their ancestors.
Or at least when a person from a famous family achieves success, he invents or is invented for him some noble ancestor in the 10th generation. Every foundling can imagine himself a king's son.

>> No.19270808

>>19269903
Tolkien really valued servitude and thought highly of feudalism. As he said, "touching your cap to the squire may be damn bad for the squire, but it's damn good for you."

>> No.19270819

>>19269888
I am aware, But I am referring to the type of ideal rural village shown in the music video in specific. As a visual example.

>> No.19270831

>>19269893
>He said when probably worshipping aristocratic ideals and sensibilities.
Modernity is trying to elevate the proles to some Semblance of the aristocrats.

>> No.19270856

>>19270831
Your average modern person living in the west has far more in common with a medieval nobleman than they do with a medieval peasant.

>> No.19270863

>>19270831
>falling for the Wizard of Oz smoke and mirrors
There is no one at the wheel anon, they're as retarded as you and I.

>> No.19270878

>>19267127
All of his novels were worldbuilding exercises.

>> No.19270888

>>19270856
Yah, that’s what I just said.
>>19270863
I don’t think you got my point. I wasn’t saying they are innately superior or know what’s best or control the wheel, but that in modernity, Even the Prole can and does try to attain the aspects traditionally held by the nobility.

>> No.19270909

>>19270888
>traditionally held
Still no. Traditionally sought after, yes.

>> No.19270967

>>19270909
I would assert that a core element of aristocracy is contained within those things. Aristocracy does not necessarily mean wealth, but a superiority in rank. You can have an aristocrat that is still higher prestige than a more wealth commoner banker.

Esquing simplicity for erudition and superiority is becoming aristocratical. That superiority can happen simply by birth and the ethos that comes along with it.

>> No.19270983

>>19270967
Fair enough, that I can agree with.

>> No.19271815

>>19270967
Superiority over whom?

>> No.19271853

>>19271815
Over other humans.

>> No.19271886

>>19264701
Gollum.
>>19264779
Literally all aristocrats, Gimli belongs to the same dynasty as Thorin.

>> No.19272317

>>19269903
The age difference and status difference, to Sam Mister Frodo was an older male of a higher social standing and an object of admiration, Sam was a gardener so following a rich local celebrity around wasn't a huge stretch in the beginning before their friendship developed properly

>> No.19272982

The Orcs were basically the industrial working class

>> No.19274162

>>19272982
Top kek

>> No.19274194

>>19264701
All the Hobbits were commoners and the Baggins were oddballs in that community.

>> No.19274199

>>19264892
Pioneering is for absolute shitbirds, criminals and the anti-social. Adventurers might go along looking for a buck or easy pussy n treasure.

>> No.19274207

ITT: Amerifats obsessed with nobility because they replaced it with having money and that shit doesn't work

Jesus christ you dorks want to crawl under a mountain of caste system because it's cold out there in freedom land?

>> No.19275408

>>19274207
I think you are wrong.

>> No.19275437

>>19274199
NOt necessarily. Adventuring often was lead by energetic blue bloods, but with a cadre of misfits. See a captain Cook, or any naval expedition really. Or the Crusades. Or Cork Hat wearing Colonial Brit with his sidekick Raj from Bangladesh.

Settling was done by the common peoples. Who has the time to adventure when you just want a hearth out west or trying to find a scrap of gold to get by?

>> No.19275455

>>19264701
Gollum wasn’t nobility, was he?

>> No.19275459

>>19264943
Angels of any sort are not commoners

>> No.19275461

>>19265290
Do we know their tax policy?