On my first attempts at cracking this book as a kid, I bounced off this chapter. When I did finally read it, I wasn't much taken by it. On the reread, I'm surprised not just by how much is implied, but also by the point of view: the people of Hobbiton.
Bilbo is "peculiar" and the unnamed narrator [narrators?] focuses on Bilbo's disappearance and "unexpected" return. Apparently if you disappear, you aren't expected to return. Moreover, there's disapproval of his being "well-preserved" despite his generosity. One senses jealousy--perhaps Bilbo is only generous with the poor, not with the narrator.
There's a throw-away comment about Frodo "still in his tweens, as the hobbits called the irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three."
This is a curiosity that can play a number of ways. They have a comparatively extended childhood. Do they need the longer childhood? Or do they have that simply because they can? Is it a comment on our extending childhood where earlier generations were expected to be adults at younger ages?
If we map this on to our own lives, we can divide the ages by, say, between 1.4 and 1.8 to get an approximation of translation of what the human ages might be. If "tweens" = teens, then 1.5 is probably the best choice, but it would depend on what Tolkien's age thought "coming of age" was. 18 is the age where one can drink alcohol and join the army, so does 33=18 (then ~1.8)?
The human age would put Bilbo between 55-70 when he decided on an heir and in his 60s or 70s for his grand party, so that would be a little odd to see some looking like a younger man at that age.
But it's also odd to be jealous of someone else's good fortune as these villagers seem to be. The village's comments are as much a comment on themselves as on Bilbo himself. Those who make negative comments tend not to seem aware that negativity can reflect back on themselves.
[SIDE BAR: As I perform the calculations and compare them to the comments, I'm now leaning toward an age-converting factor between 1.6 and 1.8, so that Bilbo seeks an heir between 55-62, and throws a party between 62-70--when his youthful appearance might seem peculiar but perhaps not too shocking. However, Bilbo plans a permanent exit, so would that be 62 (1.8)? 70 (1.6)? or 79 (1.4)?
A little research reveals that life-expectancy for men in 1950s England [when and where the novel was finished] was around 65, so maybe 1.7 or 1.8 is the proper conversion factor. You'd want to exit before people think it's too strange (62-65). Choose an heir between 55-58. Come of age at 18 or 19. Become irresponsible from about 11 or 12 until coming of age. These feel about right. [ETA: Except when you get to Old Took who lives only to 130, which would only be 72, which doesn't seem an impressively old, so perhaps 1.4?]
However--and this could be just an invented cultural thing--the 111th birthday sounds like the quinceañera, a commonly and publicly celebrated birthday (along with Frodo's coming of age at 33), so while it may be near the end, it seems many do get to celebrate this age.]
All of this talk of prolonged youth brings up a question that isn't properly addressed: How do hobbits live so long? What or who protects them?
I've always felt the villagers were the rubes back home that never left to fight in a world war (as Tolkien had, reluctantly, in WWI) and now looked upon the youth returning home with disapproval--not just at war, but their venturing into the grander world for any reason. Peter Jackson addressed some of this in his WWI documentary, They Shall Not Grow Old:
No comments:
Post a Comment