|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laerasëa
Dor-Lomin
Jan 13 2009, 4:34am
Post #1 of 33
(2656 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Scouring of the Shire 2: More Hobbitses
|
Can't Post
|
|
Looking at some of the other hobbits today….(btw, I'm saving Frodo for a later post)
One thing I noticed was that it did not take much to get the hobbits roused. Merry raises the Horn-Cry, Sam runs over to Farmer Cotton, and when he gets back, “he found the whole village roused.”
A quote from Merry that sort of explains this a little bit:
"They all hate this, you see: all of them except perhaps one or two rascals, and a few fools that want to be important, but don’t at all understand what is going on. But Shire-folk have been so comfortable so long they don’t know what to do." - What would have happened if Sam, Merry, Pip, and Frodo had never come along? Would hobbits such as Farmer Cotton have ever gotten the others to rebel?
- Is Farmer Cotton a very big exception to most of the hobbits, do you think, in his desire to rebel?
- If anything, what do they think of the changes in Merry, Pip, and Sam? Are they mostly just grateful to have someone to “rescue” them?
Quote from Cotton:
Good, good! So it’s begun at last! I’ve been itching for trouble all this year, but folks wouldn’t help. And I’ve had the wife and Rosie to think of. These ruffians don’t stick at nothing.
Silly Bonus Question: What does Cotton mean when he says, “these ruffians don’t stick at nothing”? I must have read that line fifty times, in and out of context, but I’m not sure exactly what he’s saying. I’m sure I’m just embarrassing myself asking, but I figure I could get an answer here.
Quote about the Gaffer from Farmer Cotton:
They dug up Bagshot Row, and that was a sad blow to him. He’s in one of them new houses that the Chief’s Men used to build….but he comes around to me, when he gets a chance, and I see he’s better fed than some of the poor bodies. All against the Rules, of course. I’d have him with me, but that wasn’t allowed.”
Quote from Hob Hayward:
"All the stocks seem to have gone. We do hear that waggon-loads of it went away down the old raod out of the South-farthing, over Sarn Ford way. That would be the end o'lasst year, after you left. But it had been going away quietly before that, in a small way. That Lotho-"
"Now you shut up up, Hob Hayward!" cried several of the others. "You know talk of that sort isn't allowed."
I have this little idea that Cotton, Gaffer, and Hob sort of represent three different types of hobbits in the Shire: ones that quietly rebel, ones that chafe a bit at the Rules, but don't do anything against them, and ones that have been a bit defeated by all the Rules and have pretty much given up. Maybe Pimple could even represent another kind of hobbit, the ones that have completely succumbed to Sharkey's will.
- Do you think most hobbits are breaking the Rules under the table, like Cotton? (similar to question 1)
- Are Cotton, Hob, and Gaffer different from most of the hobbits? (this is where I would put the comment I just made about them all being representatives of different attitudes)
- Do most of the hobbits see Sharkey as evil? What about hobbits like Pimple and Sandyman?
- Are the hobbits weak for failing to rebel, and needing someone else to come in and call them to war? Or, on the contrary, are they strong for abruptly taking a stand the moment they hear the Horn-Cry? Or something else?
- Any other thoughts?
********************************
Traveling Journal Official Site
"Who needs drugs when you spend all your money on books?"
-Menelwyn
"A friend helps you find your Silmaril. A true friend helps you slay kin, cross icy wastes, battle your rellies, lose your hand to a Dark Lord and cast yourself into a fissure in the earth."
-Ataahua
"...But life has thus far failed to adjust itself to my liking, so I soldier on."
-Magpie
"I just thought I would share this story, because today is a great day."
-Hobbiton
"True nerddom/geekdom/dorkdom does not kick in until you are in your 50s taking a nerd/geek/dork test on the discussion board of an internet fan site for a fantasy novel/film."
-Squire
(This post was edited by Laerasëa on Jan 13 2009, 4:36am)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 7:54am
Post #2 of 33
(2244 views)
Shortcut
|
What would have happened if Sam, Merry, Pip, and Frodo had never come along? Would hobbits such as Farmer Cotton have ever gotten the others to rebel?
That's hard to say. The Tooks were already in open rebellion, but otherwise the ruffians seem in charge. Of course, if Aragorn is still King then eventually something will be done. But not before much more damage takes place.
Is Farmer Cotton a very big exception to most of the hobbits, do you think, in his desire to rebel?
No, he's just braver than most. His stock goes up after the Scouring, we learn later.
If anything, what do they think of the changes in Merry, Pip, and Sam? Are they mostly just grateful to have someone to “rescue” them?
If nothing had changed, the hobbits might have gotten a cold welcome, like Bilbo's at the end of The Hobbit. But as it is, they become heroes -- although not for what they did down south.
What does Cotton mean when he says, “these ruffians don’t stick at nothing”?
Just that if he rebelled the ruffians would gladly take it out on his wife and children. There's nothing they won't do.
Do you think most hobbits are breaking the Rules under the table, like Cotton?
No, I think most are cowed. Cotton is braver than most.
Are Cotton, Hob, and Gaffer different from most of the hobbits?
Cotton is different. Hob and the Gaffer seem more typical.
Do most of the hobbits see Sharkey as evil? What about hobbits like Pimple and Sandyman?
I'm not sure they've seen Sharkey at all. They still seem to think Lotho is in charge. And according to Frodo, Lotho is not evil, just foolish. But perhaps the hobbits do think Lotho is evil, since they mistakenly think he is in charge. I'm not sure they think about Sandyman at all.
Are the hobbits weak for failing to rebel, and needing someone else to come in and call them to war? Or, on the contrary, are they strong for abruptly taking a stand the moment they hear the Horn-Cry? Or something else?
They're pretty weak compared to anyone from Rohan or Gondor. They're stronger than they look, but they look pretty weak. They're civilians, not soldiers. They need military leadership. Even the Tooks need some help.
Any other thoughts?
Are you saving Rosie for later?
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 9:58am
Post #3 of 33
(2262 views)
Shortcut
|
Your question reminded me of an insult that Bill Ferny uses: 'I suppose you know who you've taken up with? That's Stick-at-naught Strider, that is!'
It's just a British idiom meaning you have no scruples or moral limits - you'll do whatever it takes, good or bad, to get your way.
I suspect it might originally have been about reckless horses (and riders) that wouldn't 'stick' at (i.e. get stuck at, refuse to jump) a dangerous fence or other hazard, so it doesn't have to be completely negative!
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 1:16pm
Post #4 of 33
(2247 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A few answers, some to the point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What would have happened if Sam, Merry, Pip, and Frodo had never come along? Would hobbits such as Farmer Cotton have ever gotten the others to rebel?
I'm afraid not. The King's messengers would have come back sometime, and I guess not all of the Rangers would find lucrative jobs down South, so some would return home.
But then, if Saruman didn't know they were on their way back, he might have tried to make the Shire into his "little kingdom" rather than being intent only on wanton destruction, as a mean and petty revenge.
And in that case - it would be even harder to get the Hobbits to rebel.
Is Farmer Cotton a very big exception to most of the hobbits, do you think, in his desire to rebel?
Well, he is a local leader, and he needs to do something - only he's afraid.
Others hate the situation as well, and are afraid like him - but not being leaders, they feel less the responsibility to do something, which makes passive acceptance easier.
And anyway - Farmer Cotton needs to be compared with Farmer Maggot. Which reminds me that we never learn who it is that Merry marries; did Maggot have single daughters?
If anything, what do they think of the changes in Merry, Pip, and Sam?
Tooks and Brandybucks are something different. Have alwas been.
But I bet some locals are gaping at the Gaffer's youngest son!
Are they mostly just grateful to have someone to “rescue” them?
At first, of course. Only when the danger is over and its memory fades, while the once-rescuers settle down in positions of authority, some will feel resentful of the upstarts.
What does Cotton mean when he says, “these ruffians don’t stick at nothing”?
A real bad answer? Cotton has an unmarried lass at home.
I'm frightened to think what happened to others, whose parents were less obedient.
Do you think most hobbits are breaking the Rules under the table, like Cotton?
No, they are snoring there. At least those who could get hold of some beer.
But seriously - everyone is doing a bit here and there, once they're sure nobody's watching and some near relative is concerned (the Gaffer is Marigold's father, and also the father of Rosie's boyfriend).
Are Cotton, Hob, and Gaffer different from most of the hobbits?
No - they are all Harfoots.
Do most of the hobbits see Sharkey as evil?
Do they all believe in Sharkey? Just think:
"Where you be a-going?" asks she.
"To Bag End," says they.
"What for?" says she.
"To put up some sheds for Sharkey," says they.
"Who said you could?" says she.
"Sharkey," says they. "So get out o'the road, old hagling!"
"I'll give you Sharkey, you dirty thieving ruffians!" says she. And if anyone, Lobelia should know.
What about hobbits like Pimple and Sandyman?
What do you mean - do Pimple and Sandyman believe Sharkey is evil, or do other hobbits believe Pimple and Sandyman are?
Pimple realises sometime, too late; Sandyman is clueless.
But other hobbits are only too likely to think evil of Pimple and Sandyman - they are local boys, so anything bad could be said of them! It is Merry who thinks them comtemptible.
Are the hobbits weak for failing to rebel, and needing someone else to come in and call them to war?
Yes.
Or, on the contrary, are they strong for abruptly taking a stand the moment they hear the Horn-Cry?
That too,
Or something else?
They're normal.
Any other thoughts?
If the closing of the inns didn't rouse them - I wonder how the horn could?
"A sign of affection, possibly" - Saruman
(This post was edited by sador on Jan 13 2009, 1:17pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 3:00pm
Post #5 of 33
(2242 views)
Shortcut
|
("Stick-at-naught Strider") seems to have something to do with Strider's travelling ways, rather than settling down in Bree. Of course, he may also imply that transients are untrustworthy and immoral (which is ironic, considering the source). But the ruffians have settled in, so I don't think Cotton is calling them transients or hoboes or homeless. Instead he's saying they'll stop at nothing to get their way. I think the insults are slightly different, although they do sound similar.
(This post was edited by Curious on Jan 13 2009, 3:01pm)
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 3:48pm
Post #6 of 33
(2235 views)
Shortcut
|
("Stick-at-naught Strider") seems to have something to do with Strider's travelling ways, rather than settling down in Bree.
I don't hear anything about transience or homelessness in this insult. To me, it implies that Strider is a rascal or a ruffian himself - he does have a "rascally look" after all. It's not Strider's travelling ways, after all, that Ferny wants to taunt the hobbits about, since they actually need a travelling guide. No, he's implying that Strider will think nothing of murdering them or betraying them once he has them out there in the wild. (Sam has similar suspicions himself at the start, and again briefly after the attack at Weathertop.)
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 5:36pm
Post #7 of 33
(2221 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why did the horn work when the absense of beer didn't?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because it's a magic horn.
(BTW, Merry eventually marries Esmeralda Bolger, Fatty's sister.)
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
(This post was edited by Dreamdeer on Jan 13 2009, 5:37pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 5:51pm
Post #8 of 33
(2216 views)
Shortcut
|
that Ferny is calling Strider untrustworthy, but I still think Stick-at-naught has a double meaning where Strider is concerned, and that the primary reason Breelanders (including Butterbur) don't trust Strider is because he is a transient. On the other hand, I'm having no luck Googling a definition of "stick-at-naught," let alone the origin of the phrase, so this may be hard to settle.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 5:51pm
Post #9 of 33
(2218 views)
Shortcut
|
I have always understood "stick-at-naught" to mean shameless, to have nothing that would revolt one to do. People suspected the Rangers of being criminals. They had no visible means of support, no known ties, and seemed tough as nails. You can tell when somebody's a fighter--they have habitual postures, ways of looking around them, always make sure that their back's covered, keep a clear path to all the exits, and something changes in the eyes of someone who has participated in violence. The Breelanders didn't know that what the Rangers fought were the enemies of Bree. A warrior in rough travel clothes looks like a thug, unless his officers demand abnormal haircuts and grooming patterns to set the soldiers apart. Civilians can't tell at a glance who fights for them and who fights against them without clear, socially established clues.
Besides, shady characters like Bill Ferny get that way by convincing themselves that others are worse. They always project their villainy onto other people. Bill more than anyone would misjudge Strider.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 5:54pm
Post #10 of 33
(2213 views)
Shortcut
|
Try "Stick at" or "To stick at"
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 5:59pm
Post #11 of 33
(2252 views)
Shortcut
|
stick-at-nothing a., that will hesitate or stop at nothing in order to accomplish his purpose;
1841 Dickens Barn. Rudge xxxix, Here’s a new brother,..a credit to the cause; one of the stick-at-nothing sort.
1915 Conrad Victory 118 A false, lying, swindling, underhand, stick-at-nothing brute.
(I hope you agree that 'naught' = 'nothing'.)
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Laerasëa
Dor-Lomin
Jan 13 2009, 6:08pm
Post #12 of 33
(2219 views)
Shortcut
|
Are you saving Rosie for later?
I was planning on covering her in another post, but feel free to put down any thoughts on her here, if you want to.
********************************
Traveling Journal Official Site
"Who needs drugs when you spend all your money on books?"
-Menelwyn
"A friend helps you find your Silmaril. A true friend helps you slay kin, cross icy wastes, battle your rellies, lose your hand to a Dark Lord and cast yourself into a fissure in the earth."
-Ataahua
"...But life has thus far failed to adjust itself to my liking, so I soldier on."
-Magpie
"I just thought I would share this story, because today is a great day."
-Hobbiton
"True nerddom/geekdom/dorkdom does not kick in until you are in your 50s taking a nerd/geek/dork test on the discussion board of an internet fan site for a fantasy novel/film."
-Squire
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 6:27pm
Post #13 of 33
(2204 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that Stick-at-naught means shameless, but in Strider's case I think it has a double meaning connected with, as you say, his lack of visible means of support or known ties, i.e. his transience. Strider is assumed to be shameless because of his transience, and not because he has actually committed any known crimes. Similarly, someone who is shiftless might be considered untrustworthy and unsavory because they do not hold a job.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 6:51pm
Post #15 of 33
(2200 views)
Shortcut
|
I edited out the definitions and examples for two other phrases that were grouped with it. Here's the full entry:
stick-at-it colloq., a plodding conscientious person;
stick-at-nothing a., that will hesitate or stop at nothing in order to accomplish his purpose;
stick-to-it-iveness colloq. (orig. U.S.), dogged perseverance. Also stick-in-the-mud.
1909 H. G. Wells Tono-Bungay ii. ii. 162 I’m a boiler-over, not a simmering stick-at-it.
1805 Lamb Let. Hazlitt 10 Nov., The stick-at-nothing, Herodias’-daughter kind of grace.
1841 Dickens Barn. Rudge xxxix, Here’s a new brother,..a credit to the cause; one of the stick-at-nothing sort.
1915 Conrad Victory 118 A false, lying, swindling, underhand, stick-at-nothing brute.
1867 in E. B. Custer Tenting on Plains (1889) xvi. 520 With the stick-to-it-iveness of a fox-hound when once on a trail.
1908 Daily Express 15 May 1/4 Success..is mostly hard work. It’s work and it’s stick-to-it-iveness. You’ve got to keep at it all the time.
1934 J. A. Lee Children of Poor i. 19 With the irresponsibility of my..father and my mother’s stick-to-itiveness, I can..fashion an edifice and then..set the whole show toppling.
1979 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 8 Feb. 10/3 This man who made his million apparently more by stick-to-itiveness than brilliance.
(By the way, I agree with you that Strider's shadowy, no-fixed-abode status is part of what makes the Breelanders suspect him of being a "stick-at-naught". I just don't think the phrase itself refers to this. It doesn't mean, for example, that he never sticks/stops/stays anywhere. Not as I know the phrase anyway.)
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 7:05pm
Post #16 of 33
(2276 views)
Shortcut
|
Could there be an implication that a stick-at-naught or stick-at-nothing is the opposite of a stick-to-it or someone with stick-to-itiveness? Again, compare it to shiftless -- and by the way, what does the O.E.D. say about shiftless?
Anyway, I'm willing to concede that stick-at-naught primarily means unscrupulous, in contrast with shiftless, which primarily means lazy. But I still wonder if there are secondary meanings for both words, creating some overlap in their meanings.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 8:13pm
Post #17 of 33
(2204 views)
Shortcut
|
shiftless ("SIftlIs), a.
[f. shift n. + -less.]
† 1. Helpless for self-defence; void of cunning or artifice. Obs.
2. Lacking in resource; incapable of shifting for oneself; hence, lazy, inefficient.
I found an entry for "stick at nothing" in Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms in Google Books:
One sticks at something to which he demurs because of scruples, especially scruples of conscience; the term is used frequently in the idiom "stick at nothing", which is another way of saying be absolutely unscrupulous...
This is from the entry on demur (the link is based on my search terms, which included the word 'horse', because I was interested to see whether there really was any link between this expression and the idea of a horse balking or jibbing at a fence - those words are dealt with under this entry but without any direct relation made between them and the "stick at nothing" idiom).
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jan 13 2009, 8:31pm
Post #18 of 33
(2219 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Boiled Frogs, Spartacists, and Hobbiton Farm
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What would have happened if Sam, Merry, Pip, and Frodo had never come along?
Same as happens in all history. The occupiers would have interbred with the occupied and we’d end up with short Men. Probably French.
Would hobbits such as Farmer Cotton have ever gotten the others to rebel?
Like most of the oldsters he’s got too much respect for authority.
Is Farmer Cotton a very big exception to most of the hobbits, do you think, in his desire to rebel?
He’s part of the reactionary oldsters. Like this guy:
“The last person they passed was a sturdy old gaffer clipping a hedge. 'Hullo, hullo!' he jeered. 'Now who's arrested who?'”
Most of the rest of the hobbits are boiled frogs. Conservatives like to warn about government boiling people like frogs. If you dump a frog in a pot of boiling water it will immediately rebel and hop out. But the thinking goes (dunno if it’s true) that if you put a frog in a pot of water with a comfortable temperature it will stay happily. Then as you slowly raise the temperature it will go into a happy torpor and eventually be cooked. Conservatives like to warn that creeping socialism/federalism/liberalism/communism/secularism/humanism/whateverism is slowly boiling the American people alive. I have to admit that the founding fathers would probably be horrified at the many regulations we have in the world today. Then again I think they’d be horrified at the world today, period!
If anything, what do they think of the changes in Merry, Pip, and Sam?
The height of Merry and Pip seems to impress them. Cotton seems to think highly of Sam already. But I think most important to the hobbits is the Gaffer’s thinking: That Frodo as Hobbiton gentry is the one with the “right” to usurp Lodo from Bag End. Needless to say, a less scrupulous Frodo could have become King of the Hobbits.
Are they mostly just grateful to have someone to “rescue” them?
I think things were just so drab under the previous administration that they welcome any excitement. Maybe if Sharkey had held regular parades with colorful banners and happy marching hobbit children the inhabitants wouldn’t have been so easily seduced.
Quote from Cotton:
Quote
Good, good! So it’s begun at last! I’ve been itching for trouble all this year, but folks wouldn’t help. And I’ve had the wife and Rosie to think of. These ruffians don’t stick at nothing.
Silly Bonus Question: What does Cotton mean when he says, “these ruffians don’t stick at nothing”? I must have read that line fifty times, in and out of context, but I’m not sure exactly what he’s saying. I’m sure I’m just embarrassing myself asking, but I figure I could get an answer here.
“These ruffians don’t stop at anything.”
I have this little idea that Cotton, Gaffer, and Hob sort of represent three different types of hobbits in the Shire: ones that quietly rebel, ones that chafe a bit at the Rules, but don't do anything against them, and ones that have been a bit defeated by all the Rules and have pretty much given up. Maybe Pimple could even represent another kind of hobbit, the ones that have completely succumbed to Sharkey's will.
There’s an even more despicable fourth kind, like Ted Sandyman, who wholeheartedly embrace the new regime. There’s always people who are happy that there are rules, rules, and more rules, and that there’s an iron hand of authority to punish non-conformists. As Robin Smallburrow says, “Most of them are in it against their will, but not all. Even in the Shire there are some as like minding other folk's business and talking big. And there's worse than that: there's a few as do spy-work for the Chief and his Men.” One has the impression that the stodgy provincial disposition of Hobbits would lean in that direction anyway, but in the past such rules were unwritten and the punishments were informal and social rather than formal and physical.
Do you think most hobbits are breaking the Rules under the table, like Cotton? (similar to question 1)
Like in most dictatorships I would assume they would have to in order to survive. There’s doubtless a thriving black market, which breeds criminality and disrespect for authority. Needless to say it’s not just the land that Sharkey is poisoning. The innocence of the Hobbits themselves is being lost. I wonder how high the Shire crime rate rose after the ruffians were tossed out?
Are Cotton, Hob, and Gaffer different from most of the hobbits? (this is where I would put the comment I just made about them all being representatives of different attitudes)
At the gate Hob is refered to as “old Hob”. ('Bless me! It's Master Merry, to be sure, and all dressed up for fighting!' said old Hob.) So these are all oldsters, like Tolkien suspicious of anything new whether good or bad. Which makes one wonder if that same reactionary conservatism would make them just as resistant towards the new ideas our four hobbit heroes are bringing with them, not to mention any changes wrought by the newly installed High King.
Do most of the hobbits see Sharkey as evil?
One wonders if hobbits even know what evil is. Sure, in the past they’ve been petty, spiteful, and provincial, but like Frodo says “No hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire”. The Shire is Eden, and Sharkey is the Serpent. The Hobbits really have no idea what they’re dealing with. But unfortunately they’re learning.
What about hobbits like Pimple and Sandyman?
I think Sharkey awakened and exploited their own relatively innocent concupiscence. I think in the end Pimple recoiled when he realized what he had been led to while Sandyman embraced it.
Are the hobbits weak for failing to rebel, and needing someone else to come in and call them to war?
I’ve heard it claimed that no conquered people ever re-achieved freedom without outside help.
Or, on the contrary, are they strong for abruptly taking a stand the moment they hear the Horn-Cry?
Usually discontent only needs a spark. Which is why dictatorships are so hard on any type of dissent. Of course that spark needs a direction, which is why in the absence of such many revolutions fizzle out. Watch Tom Cruise’s Valkyrie (2008). Everyone was willing to revolt, there was a window of opportunity, but there just wasn’t enough leadership to take advantage of it.
One is also reminded of the Spartacist Uprising in Germany of January 1919. Basically everyone wanted the government overthrown, the government expected to be overthrown, but after rousing the people into the streets, the rebel leaders dithered two days in a beerhall debating over questions of policy, procedures, and protocol. When the governent realized it wasn't going to be overthrown any time soon, it rallied itself, organized a counter-revolution, and captured and executed the rebel leaders. One has an image of that happening with the hobbits without the leadership of our four hobbit heroes.
Or something else?
I’ve heard it said that the vast majority of people are willing to live under oppression as long as they feel they can survive. A stable dictatorship depends on people feeling that only those who break the rules are in danger of being punished. Revolutions occur when oppressors become erratic and random, demonstrating that there is no advantage in following the rules.
Any other thoughts?
Besides pie? I'm thinking every time I read this chapter I'm more convinced it's Tolkien letting loose against socialism. It's like Animal Farm, only with Hobbits.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Jan 13 2009, 8:38pm
Post #19 of 33
(2206 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm thinking "stick-at-naught" also means "determined", which indeed is a true description of Aragorn. Which meant that Barliman was giving Strider an unintended compliment. I'm betting that the philologist Tolkien found this little twist delightful.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 8:41pm
Post #20 of 33
(2176 views)
Shortcut
|
I stubbornly cling to the idea that "shiftless" carries connotations of unscrupulous, even though it means lazy, while "stick-at-naught" carries connotations of lazy, even though it means unscrupulous. But I'll admit I have no evidence, except for the fact that the Breelanders concluded Strider might be unscrupulous primarily because he had no visible means of support.
(This post was edited by Curious on Jan 13 2009, 8:41pm)
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Jan 13 2009, 9:23pm
Post #21 of 33
(2189 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that this can be a compliment as well as an insult, in fact one of the OED's examples is positive ("Here’s a new brother,..a credit to the cause; one of the stick-at-nothing sort", from Dickens). I guess used this way it means fearless, and willing to do whatever it takes.
So it seems that Bill Ferny is unwittingly providing an accurate assessment of Strider after all! Thanks for pointing out the "unintended compliment" - not from Barliman as it happens, but from Bill Ferny himself, an even more ironic twist!
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 13 2009, 10:40pm
Post #22 of 33
(2193 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In the context of Barnaby Rudge,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
the Dickens novel in which that statement appears, it appears that one scoundrel is complimenting another in front of a crowd of scoundrels, assuring everyone that this fellow is a thorough and unrepentent scoundrel, not held back by any silly scruples. I'm not sure that's the type of compliment Strider wanted, or that it is accurate, even unintentionally.
(This post was edited by Curious on Jan 13 2009, 10:41pm)
|
|
|
ElanorTX
Dor-Lomin
Jan 14 2009, 3:04am
Post #23 of 33
(2170 views)
Shortcut
|
|
as Cotton specifically mentions females in reference to the ruffians "stick at nothing"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've always thought JRRT had in mind what we now consider "collateral war crimes" - direct sexual violence to Rosie and her mother
"I shall not wholly fail if anything can still grow fair in days to come."
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Jan 14 2009, 5:32am
Post #24 of 33
(2187 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Things would have gotten really nasty
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if the heroes hadn't come back.
Think about it: would Sharkey have stopped at just making everything miserable? No - this is only the beginning. Saruman would have made orcs out of the hobbits - either that, or he would have eventually killed every last one of them and left the Shire for his part-orc ruffians. Basically, the New Mordor. Before long, Bree would have been burned to the ground by armies flying whatever banner Saruman would have cooked up (I doubt he would have been so blatant as to fly the White Hand again).
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 14 2009, 12:33pm
Post #25 of 33
(2168 views)
Shortcut
|
If the hobbits hadn't scoured the Shire, the Rangers would have. What you describe is what life would have been like if Sauron had won.
|
|
|
|
|
1
