The Sword and Laser discussion

Neo-mythopoeic literary critic and all-around Canadian Northrop Frye famously distinguished between the "mythic" quest hero and the "romantic" quest hero. While a mythic hero is a grand, unflappable, near divine incarnation of virtue, the romantic hero is...well, smaller. All too human.

Another key distinction is that while a mythic hero inspires, the goal of the romantic hero is generally more prosaic. Get the gold. Survive. And, repeating a common post-enlightenment trope, the romantic hero is usually an interloper into the divine, revealing the flaws and ridiculousness of sacred cows.

Some of the discussion thus-far has centered on the degree to which The Hobbit undercuts our expectations of a fully ' heroic' Middle Earth, populated by titans. Instead our elves are vapid or venal, our dwarves crabby and ineffective, even Bard is a washed-up anti-Aragorn. To what extent is that a function of having a"hero" who is almost completely unsympathetic to heroics, a merchant, an eater of breakfasts?

Is Bilbo a hero? Is he even admirable?

Is Bilbo a hero? If he, was Gandalf would say " we need a hero" and not "we need a burglar". We must remember the hobbit was written before WWII when heroes weren't needed as much as later. The hobbit's middle-earth is a peacefull land. Maybe Tolkien himself matured whith the course of events.. and his heroes gained the titanic status. The coward Bilbo is "too old" to fight the evil and his place is taken by four heroic hobbits that : choose to carry the burden of the one ring, stab a "little" spider and walk into an orcish encampment in Mordor, stab the nazgul king, and kill the troll that was about to kill Strider. Gandalf is no longer the busy-body and becomes a wise guide.

Kamil wrote: "....We must remember the hobbit was written before WWII when heroes weren't needed as much as later...."


Partially for the sake of argument, I'm going to take issue with two bits here, one historic, one interpretive. To the former, why would a post WWI Europe, fresh from the slaughter, be in less need of heroes than a post-WWII Europe? At least as much so, I should think.

As to the second: Frye differentiates the second heroic type as "romantic," since he saw it as a necessary outgrowth of the romantic period's general tearing-down of sacred cows from government to religion to the arts. I don't think he thought such figures were less effective, only that their aims were anti-institutional rather than pro. Shelley's 'Prometheus Unbound' is a romantic hero, though a titan, because he's opposing the status quo (Jupiter's power). Given that definition of heroism, how is Tolkien's "little guy" approach to heroism in the Hobbit less "mature" than his Let's-re-establish-the-hereditary-monarchy ubermensch fantasy in LotR?

I would side with the thought that Bilbo is a romantic hero. He is continually placed in situations beyond his skill, and yet he finds ways out of trouble. He is constantly pushed forward by the others and almost always in the most danger. But, he isn't there for the same purposes as the others in the party. He didn't come along because of a desire for gold, or to reclaim his home, or to prove himself and get glory. He came along because a part of him yearned to see the beauty of the world. He is a hero, and is called courageous by the end in one of my favorite lines from the book. (view spoiler)[ as Thorin lay bleeding out after the battle of five armies, he tells Bilbo that he was right to counsel against the battle and tells him "There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West. Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure. If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." (hide spoiler)]. Bilbo may not be going in and smashing religious cows, but he certainly is counter-cultural in reference to his attitude that gold and prestige isn't worth much, but friends and small joys are worth a great deal.

John wrote: "I would side with the thought that Bilbo is a romantic hero. He is continually placed in situations beyond his skill, and yet he finds ways out of trouble. He is constantly pushed forward by the ..."

but somehow he managed to bring home quite a fortune...

Kamil wrote, but somehow he managed to bring home quite a fortune...

But, (view spoiler)[ less than he was offered, and much less than was in the contract. He could have taken enough to set up a kingdom in the Shire, he was entitled to that much by the contract the dwarves wrote up. But, he said he didn't need a massive horde of gold and only took the amount he figured he would use and could carry back on his little pony. (hide spoiler)]

John wrote: "But..."

might want to add the spoiler tag up there.

Mohrravvian wrote: "John wrote: "But..."

might want to add the spoiler tag up there."

Sorry, didn't think it altogether spoilerish, but apologies for my lack of spoiler tag, it will be changed............ now (ish).

John wrote: "I would side with the thought that Bilbo is a romantic hero. He is continually placed in situations beyond his skill, and yet he finds ways out of trouble. He is constantly pushed forward by the ..."

(view spoiler)[Bilbo finds a way out of trouble, because "the providence's light" shines on him. He would never outsmart Gollum if He didn't stumble upon the ring, the trolls would eat the whole party for breakfeast if they didn't debate on how to eat them ... (hide spoiler)]

What about (view spoiler)[ rescuing the dwarevs from the spiders, and the elves, and finding the weakness in Smaug's armor? Bilbo finds ways out of trouble because he capitalizes on "the providence's light" (hide spoiler)]. You can disregard his personal impact in some of the adventure, but throughout the whole? You mentioned (view spoiler)[ the trolls and Gollum, but nothing after the first 5 chapters (hide spoiler)]. Are Bilbo's exploits throughout the rest on the 14 chapters to be chalked up to Tolkien writing a lucky character?

John wrote: "What about [spoilers removed]. You can disregard his personal impact in some of the adventure, but throughout the whole? You mentioned [spoilers removed]. Are Bilbo's exploits throughout the res..."

(view spoiler)[Bilbo is a hobbit and as such has something that distinguishes them from the other races : a hobbit's common sense. I'm not questioning his importance or his deeds, what I'm questioning is the attempt to confine Bilbo into the boundries of a role. He's not a hero, yet fullfills heroic deeds, he's not a demigod yet he faces great dangers, somehow he's also born under a lucky star. He uses the ring a couple of time, yet his cheerfull and friend-carring personality isn't affected by it as much as it would happen to others. He cares little for gold, yet he brings few vagons full of treasures and artifacts back to the shire. (hide spoiler)]

P. Aaron wrote: "To the former, why would a post WWI Europe, fresh from the slaughter, be in less need of heroes than a post-WWII Europe? At least as much so, I should think."

I'm no Tolkien scholar, but let me put forth the following analysis. Likely spoilers for both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings below:

The Hobbit was written and published during the interwar period. The carnage of World War I, which Tolkien witnessed firsthand at The Somme, was still fresh in everyone's minds, and represented a major failure of the establishment. Politicians got Europe into a brutal, destructive war, and generals sent a generation into death and dismemberment to no real end. After the war's end, the Great Powers on the losing side had all been broken up, ostracized, or militarily and economically castrated, and the winners received little but wartime deaths, debts, and devastation. It's no wonder so many former monarchies succumbed to the romantic ideals of fascism and communism in the interwar period, and even the capitalist democracies only survived by adopting some pro-labour and socialist policies. Bilbo as the reluctant, romantic hero in the face of all these corrupt establishments (Thorin, the Elf King, Smaug) is just Tolkien tapping the zeitgeist.

Meanwhile, Lord of the Rings was largely written during World War II, and although Tolkien steadfastly insisted it not be read as an allegory for the war, surely his writing was influenced by the wartime culture around him (his eldest son served briefly in the Royal Air Force, and the two exchanged many letters). During World War II, the establishment was the very thing defending Britain from German invasion: the King and Queen spent some nights of The Blitz huddled in bunkers with Londoners, in Parliament the ruling Conservative Party was in a coalition with the Labour opposition for most of the war and elections were suspended until Germany's defeat, Prime Minister Churchill had been one of the first to sound warnings about the Third Reich in the 1930s and of course made several famous inspirational speeches in the early dark days of the war, etc. Given that a major theme throughout LotR is good vs. bad/evil leadership (Gandalf/Aragorn/Frodo vs. Saruman/Sauron/Morgoth/Denethor) and good vs. bad/evil servants (Sam vs. Gollum/Wormtongue/Sauron), LotR leans more towards the mythic/classical hero restoring the noble establishment.

Even so, unlike many of the Campbellian Hero's Journey story that inspired it, LotR does keep the notion of the saviour hero being lowly, and goes a step further (view spoiler)[in that Frodo is damaged by his experiences, is not celebrated in his own homeland as much as his friends because of their role in the Scouring of the Shire, and basically retires from the hero business afterwards (hide spoiler)]. Later stories in this vein instead merge Frodo and Aragorn into a single Messianic saviour-king, so we can have our every man, our martyr, our badass warrior, and our benevolent tyrant wrapped up in a single wish-fulfillment avatar any nerd can pour themselves into. (Or possibly they're using Dune as their template, ignoring the fact Herbert wrote multiple sequels about how Messianic god-kings are bad news.)

There and Back Again is more than just the subtitle of the book. It describes Bilbo's transformation from mild-mannered hobbit, to heroic age adventurer, and then back again. I don't think he ever quite fits, that would have made the story less charming, but he acquires a wider perspective, and a more decisive nature. He's a better person for his adventure, and he enjoys life in The Shire more as well.

I think that's what any good fantasy story should do for the reader.

Daran wrote: "There and Back Again is more than just the subtitle of the book. It describes Bilbo's transformation from mild-mannered hobbit, to heroic age adventurer, and then back again. I don't think he eve..."

I completely agree. The Hobbit is the story of Bilbo's transformation: the little guy who has more going for him than even he knows himself. I mean, we are all little guys and can identify with Bilbo in over his head and finding his own way out. Dragons and dwarves not withstanding, that's the whole point of the story.

Maclurker wrote: "Daran wrote: "There and Back Again is more than just the subtitle of the book. It describes Bilbo's transformation from mild-mannered hobbit, to heroic age adventurer, and then back again. I don'..."

But, if the whole point of the story is the transformation of Bilbo, does he become the romantic hero? Through the adventure does he transform into a hero, not along the lines of Aragorn or Gandalf or any of the "titans" of the series, but into a hero along the lines of Jason from the Argonautika? The hero who becomes during the adventure instead of the hero who goes on the adventure?

I'm still putting Bilbo in my hero category.....

Does Frodo fit into the Heroes Journey as defined by Campbell? Yes. But Campbell had not published the theory yet. Jung, for that matter was not well known. I think that to those who studied myths and legends such a story device would have seemed a very old trope indeed.

I think Bilbo Baggins is a romantic character in mythic world. At need he becomes something more, and as a result, he never quite fits into his romantic world again.

Bilbo Baggins acts as a gateway character into Middle Earth. His sensibilities are very modern. His town has a post office, and a tavern, and a bakery, and people have business to go about, etc. All things that a modern reader can relate to. As Bilbo is thrown into a world of quests, and fights and dragons, he has the same reactions we would. And then he screws up his courage, and does something about his situation; which makes you think you could too.

If there's one thing the writers of fantasy got wrong in the wake of Tolkien it was to assume that the undiscovered hero could just be some cabbage growing farm hand, or milk maid--they're still very much a part of the fantasy world around them. Hobbits are easy to relate to because they're only a step or two removed from the modern reader.

The funny thing about The Hobbit as a fantasy tale is that none of the protagonists really set out to do heroic deeds, and (view spoiler)[for the most part they don't do any.

The dwarves aren't trying to reclaim their homeland, they're trying to reclaim their fortune, and they've hired a burglar precisely because they know they're not cut out for dragon-slaying.

Even with that approach in mind, they explicitly have no plan whatsoever beyond reaching the Lonely Mountain and its secret door. The dwarves expect Bilbo the burglar to take over from that point, and basically seem to think he'll be able to figure out a way to sneak several tons of treasure out from under the dragon that's sleeping on it.

I think Bilbo does develop a streak of true heroism over the course of the story. From the start he is deeply loyal to his companions, and once he stops relying upon the others he is both brave and resourceful.

Although he falls prey to the lure of the treasure in the form of the Arkenstone, when lives are at stake he's ready to give up all claim to any reward in order to avert a battle. His efforts don't go as he hopes, but they do serve to hold off hostilities and help bring the sides together against the goblins. (hide spoiler)]

New thought occurs, inspired by Markh comments, above: the Arkenstone is the junior home-edition of the One Ring, the training wheels version of the corrupting artifact trope Tolkien would develop later. Discuss.

P. Aaron wrote: " the Arkenstone is the junior home-edition of the One Ring"

Thats exactly what I was thinking. The ring itself is just a cool though overpowered "Ring of Invisibility" and possibly add +1 to luck