# The Shire: Simplistic Isolation?



## Meselyn (Apr 9, 2007)

I've decided to start re-reading _The Lord Of The Rings_ trilogy again and before I started a thought came into my head. 

The shire is a land of simplicity. They do the same thing everyday, and the only difference may be because someone is having a birthday. So are they isolated from the rest of the world? When Frodo asks about the happenings of the outside world, Gandalf doesn't directly refuse to tell him but never does answer his question.

So my question to you is, is the shire Isolated from the rest of Middle-Earth?


----------



## Maeglin (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

Well in a sense it is. Almost no one else in Middle-Earth knows of the existence of hobbits (remember the men of Rohan thinking they were just an old wives' tale), and no one ever bothers them. They isolate themselves from the rest of Middle-Earth because they just don't care about anything else and don't want any trouble. It could also be argued, however, that they are not isolated, because as Strider says at one point, "The Shire would not be safe were it not for the Rangers." Or something along those lines...don't have my book with me right now. You also have the Dwarves and Elves sometimes passing through the Shire. It seems that its really only men that are not aware of it's existence. So I guess it could be said that the people of the Shire (Hobbits) are isolated, but the land itself certainly is not.


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

Sure. Geographically, no, it isn't too isolated. Would be a great spot for humans to take over. Only wars and wishing to strengthen existing settlements, then probably the evil torturer Gandalf exerting some influence over the Ranging types to keep others out, just because of some silly idea that they could be useful.


----------



## Meselyn (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

I think that in a sense, they're naturally isolated. You think of the hobbits opinion of Gandalf and his part in the events of _The Hobbit_ I think it's a prime example that they like things the way they are and any change is frowned upon. They're just so used to not having much to do with the outside world that they've become accustomed to it.

Obviously they're not isolated Geographically. It's easily accesable if anyone wants to get there.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*



Meselyn said:


> I've decided to start re-reading _The Lord Of The Rings_ trilogy again and before I started a thought came into my head.
> 
> The shire is a land of simplicity. They do the same thing everyday, and the only difference may be because someone is having a birthday. So are they isolated from the rest of the world? When Frodo asks about the happenings of the outside world, Gandalf doesn't directly refuse to tell him but never does answer his question.
> 
> So my question to you is, is the shire Isolated from the rest of Middle-Earth?



It was, up until Gandalf set Frodo on his quest (and arguably even before, to the time when he set Bilbo on _his_ quest). To be clearer about it: The Shire's citizens didn't _want_ to have anything to do with the outside world. They were perfectly content simply living a bucolic life within their own borders. They didn't realize that they were _protected and sheltered_ by unseen forces: the Rangers. And of course as time went on — especially at the point where Saruman discovered (from Gandalf) that the Ring had been in the Shire and reported that to Sauron — that their protected status was broken until Sauron's defeat and Aragorn became King, and promptly published the edict that no Man was ever again to set foot in the Shire, not even himself. But The Shire never went back to its original innocence. Of course, there were hobbits so "out of the loop" as it were, that until Saruman invaded The Shire, they never knew anything was ever wrong — and once the Questors came back and set things to rights, they again went back to their simple pursuits.

Barley


----------



## Annaheru (Apr 10, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

The Shire's isolation is self-imposed. We find the evidence stated several times in FotR bkI: 
"They [dwarves] were the hobbits' chief source of news from distant parts--- if they [hobbits] wanted any; as a rule dwarves said little and hobbits asked no more. 

'. . . queer folk crossing the Shire, crossing it, mind you: there are more that are turned back at the borders. The Bounders have never been so busy before.'

_News from Bree_ was still a saying in the East-farthing descending from those days when news from North, South, and East could still be heard in the inn, and when the Shire-hobbits used to go more often to hear it."

From this we can conclude several things. 1) the hobbits did all they could to keep other peoples out of the Shire (and in this they were probably helped by the Rangers- though without their knowledge), 2) the hobbits of the Shire had no interest in hearing about the outside world when presented with the opportunity, and 3) this isolationist policy was becoming more pronounced with time.

In many ways this disinterest in others may be an inherent trait: consider the Bree-hobbits lack of concern over southern refugees (and their reasoning), and it may be mutual. Certainly the existence of hobbits was widely unknown in the world at large, but the Shire attitude towards their neighbors (the Elves of the Havens and the Bree-folk) is not welcoming.


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 10, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

Gandalf says he is the only Wizard with an interest in Hobbits, so it could be argued that orginally the outside world abandoned them rather than the other way around. 

But either way, the Hobbits managed to make an issolated homeland with a culture, manner of speach, and form of government that differed dramatically from everything about them. They had some form of represenitive government. Several times the "quaintness" of Hobbit speach is remarked upon. Radaghast didn't think much of them. Sarumen seemed to think of them only as easily exploitable. Unfortunately, once discovered, it would probably be Sarumen's pool of thought that would take dominence. They were unprepared for war. They were smaller (read weaker). A human occupation would (and was) disasterous for hobbits.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

I don't think it's a question of were, it's more why. Is it choice, or was it forced upon them?

As said many times, the hobbits did not approve of travelling/adventuring, and were happy to remain within the Shire for their entire lives. At the same time, most races were content to not intrude, although the belief was that the halflings were too simple to trifle with.

At the same time, the Rangers believed that they were worth keeping isolated. Because they couldn't defend themselves, and it was a place of peace where ignorance was bliss.

So the hobbits and the Shire were isolated, although they still had trade and some contact with Bree. They weren't completely isolated by everyone, but they also chose to be secluded. And it paid off. It was less affected by the war than other places. I'm not saying it suffered nothing, but it suffered less than it would have if they'd been involved more.


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

Also, it always seemed to me that the Hobbit society was slightly more advanced than the human societies of Gondor. Maybe this is just a faulty impression based on the familiarities of what they have (buttered toast and tea time) but a lot of the things hobbits put to use are in a later time period than the rest of the Lord of the Rings (buttons and mantel piece clocks). As I mentioned before, they have some form of represenative government (though this isn't a completely modern idea and there were some forms of it scattered about in ancient Greece and Rome, it is still associated with a later stage of a culture rather than an earlier one). 

Also, an advanced culture tends to move from necessity to pleasure (meaning, they can do things because they enjoy them as well as because they are necessary for survival) and the Hobbits have a very pleasurable society. 

Probably because A. They are protected from the wars and ravages that occasionally set their neighbors back. B. It's in their nature. They are good with tools and I would go as far as to say an entreprenual race (is that a word or did I totally butcher it?). C. They rule over a small area so transportation of ideas/goods/people is simpler. Instead of taking a month for news to spread all over the realm, it can be dispersed without much effort in a matter of days. 

So isolationism paid off in this case.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

I think if a person can get all his needs and wants met from within his village, so much the better, sez I! Reminds me of some of the tiny towns and villages in the Hawaiian Islands. They neither need nor want to set foot outside the borders of their local bailiwick. A situation to be envied, methinks!

Barley


----------



## Aglarband (Apr 11, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

It is because of their isolation that made the Shire so easily taken over by Saruman. However to say they were simplistic is kind of unfair, in some ways the Hobbits are no different from any other small town. Suspicious of new comers, and generally high on gossip.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*



Aglarband said:


> It is because of their isolation that made the Shire so easily taken over by Saruman. However to say they were simplistic is kind of unfair, in some ways the Hobbits are no different from any other small town. Suspicious of new comers, and generally high on gossip.


The reason Saruman got in so easily was the lack of Rangers. About 30 of the Dunedain had left for Gondor, including Aragorn and Halbarad, so there was less leadership, fewer Dunedain and therefore minimal defence. Saruman had the power of voice, so he could use that and he managed to overtake the Shire because his ruffians were semi-organised. Yes, the hobbits became more organised to defeat them, but they still had some idea.


----------



## Arvedui (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*

Perhaps it is a simple task to become and remain isolated when, like the Shire, the general area of the world is sparsely populated. After the Northern Kingdoms were destroyed, there were not a lot of people that could disturb the peace.
Furthermore, it might be argued that the longing for peace and isolation was what brought the Hobbits to the Shire in the first place. It sort of seems as they were trying to get away from the Big Folk all the time when they were moving west.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*



Aglarband said:


> ...to say they were simplistic is kind of unfair, in some ways the Hobbits are no different from any other small town. Suspicious of new comers, and generally high on gossip.



There's nothing wrong with a simple life! "Simple" connotes neither simplistic nor simpleminded. "Who is wealthy? The man who is satisfied with his lot."

Technological advances have brought us to the brink of tilting the ecosystem into an equilibrium which may not support human life, and weapons with which we can destroy ourselves. 

The questions arise: How much is enough? How far should we try to advance ourselves? To what ends should we strive? 

When these questions are seriously examined, I believe that it can be argued quite persuasively that the Simple Life as exemplified by the life of the average hobbit is no small thing.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 12, 2007)

*Re: The Shire: Simplistict Isolation?*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> I think if a person can get all his needs and wants met from within his village, so much the better, sez I! Reminds me of some of the tiny towns and villages in the Hawaiian Islands. They neither need nor want to set foot outside the borders of their local bailiwick. A situation to be envied, methinks!
> 
> Barley


I quite agree. Just think of the carbon emissions we'd save too. I've never been to Hawaii; the nearest bailiwicks to here are The Channel Islands, the smaller of which do not allow motor transport. Have you ever noticed how people who live a simple, country life never seem to be in a hurry, even to speak? I think the Hobbit longevity was a reflection of an unhurried, unstressful life - with no surprises!

I believe I remember Tolkien saying that The Shire was an idealisation of an England that was already disappearing when he was a lad. I can believe this. I look at old maps of the Wiltshire market town that I live in, and where red brick housing estates now stand, there used to be acres on acres of allotment fields. For those who don't know what these are, allotments are fields divided into small plots, often around 60ft (20metres) x 40ft. These plots can be rented for a nominal amount, for the growing of vegetables and flowers. A small hut is usually allowed for storage of equipment. Just imagine it socially - everyone within hailing distance, sharing knowledge, advice and excess crops; becoming friends. The Ol'Gaffer would be in his element. There are very few allotment fields left now. Now we get city folk moving into thatched village cottages and then trying to get court injunctions against the noise of the Sunday church bells.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Apr 14, 2007)

I think there is some merit in comparing the isolated nature of the Shire with certain images of England (or the UK as a whole). The UK is an island, and it's people can sometimes have a bit of an island mentality. Probably one of the most obvious contemporary examples of this would be the perceptions many Britons have of Europe. I think it can be argued that there is a certain sense in Britain of not being quite European, which is no doubt accentuated by the island nature of the country.

In a similar fashion the Hobbits live an an area that, although part of the continent surrounding it, is in a sense an island. Obviously I don't mean geographically, but rather socially, culturally and philosophically.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 14, 2007)

Whilst I think the "simple life" has its benefits, it is a limited form of life-I mean The Shire was hardly a centre of cultural activity was it? Like it or not, culture often only flourishes in cities, it has its drawbacks for sure, but the simple life has its limitations too, as does any life.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 14, 2007)

Inderjit S said:


> Like it or not, culture often only flourishes in cities.


You what? In petri dishes, maybe! Every way of life has its limitations. You have to go to Helston to see the Furry Dance (May 8th if you're making plans) and a favourite from my own childhood memories, the Grasmere Sports. Of course, you do get _some_ culture in cities - as illustrated in this short clip of Morris Dancers in Oxford.

Everything you see on these video clips is simple, uncomplicated country culture (except, perhaps, for Grasmere's Mahler background music). The Shire is alive and well. Idiotic, maybe, to outside eyes; but I can identify with it wholeheartedly. Scotsboyuk makes a good point. The Shire is an island culture, in that it behaves like one. And that's not a bad thing. As Barliman Butterbur (long may his froth float) points out:


> There's nothing wrong with a simple life! "Simple" connotes neither simplistic nor simpleminded. "Who is wealthy? The man who is satisfied with his lot."


----------



## Starbrow (Apr 14, 2007)

It seems that the Hobbits' inclination toward isolization is aided by the sparse population of the area. I can't imagine them remaining that way if there were cities of men just across the Brandywine.

I also agree with Elgee that the Hobbit society seems to be more advanced (circa 1800's) than the more medieval type of society in Rohan and Gondor.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 14, 2007)

Inderjit S said:


> ... the simple life has its limitations too, as does any life.



That's the _whole point,_ m'friend: _limitations!_ When you've lived as long as some of us have around here — when all you want is to park your false teeth in the night glass, take off your wig, take out your glass eye, remove your artificial leg, pluck out your hearing aids and just _slide into bed,_ you'll see that simplicity can be a blessed relief!



scotsboyuk said:


> I think there is some merit in comparing the isolated nature of the Shire with certain images of England (or the UK as a whole).



Hey, _Tolkien_ did it! Wasn't one of the chief reasons for The Shire being as it is was so that there be a living memory of what JRR was losing? Of what England used to be like? He wanted to save that earthly paradise, freeze it in amber, so to speak — so he (sub)created The Shire, thankfully!

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 15, 2007)

Yes-but all this comes at a price, of course. Races or people who lived the "simple life"-parts of the Sindar, the Green Elves of Ossiriand, the people of Bree and the Shire Hobbits were all protected by "cultured" city-dwellers, or warriors-the Noldor and the more war-like elements of the Northern Sindar and Men protected Beleriand and Gondor and the Rangers protected the Hobbits-I guess the relationship is somewhat dualistic and mutually beneficial, though I am not sure parts of the Noldor, or Gondor for that matter, would agree with that hehe.

p.s I never said, or never meant to say that Shire life was simplstic, or that its inhabitants were simple, just "uncultured"-nor that it was any better than other forms of life-each to his own, I guess!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 15, 2007)

Inderjit S said:


> ...Races or people who lived the "simple life"-parts of the Sindar, the Green Elves of Ossiriand, the people of Bree and the Shire Hobbits were all protected by "cultured" city-dwellers, or warriors...
> 
> p.s I never said, or never meant to say that Shire life was simplistic, or that its inhabitants were simple, just "uncultured"-nor that it was any better than other forms of life-each to his own, I guess!



Well, taking me as an example, I've been a "city boy" all my life, but now that I'm older, I more and more crave simple peace and quiet, and the older I get, the more I appreciate it. It is becoming more and more of a scarce commodity in this insane world we've created for ourselves. I wasn't thinking of the Elves, I was thinking in real-life terms. And yes, "to each his own" indeed, and _huzzah_ for that! 

Barley


----------



## Turgon (Apr 15, 2007)

City life in Middle-earth is not quite the same as city life in our world. Tolkien's cities, of which there a very few, seem just as simplistic as his rural settlements, and almost as isolated. Gondor is the only place which comes close to being (what we in our world would deem to be) a true country, and the denizens of Minas Tirith do not seem to me to be your archtypal urban go-getters.

Saruman's industrialisation of the Shire would have been just as ghastly if it had happened in Gondor or Rohan; and Gondolin seems every bit as utopian as the Shire.

Progress then is a double-edge sword? For certain it is one seldom wielded in Middle-earth. Is society at the beginning of the Fourth Age any different than that at the beginning of the First? If the Age of Man is to be the Age of Progress then the future looks pretty bleak for the hobbit way of life anyway?

Gah! I did have a point when I started, but I seem to have forgotten it. Iluvatar's theme seems pretty simple when you hum it, the moment you try and figure out the lyrics it all gets rather confusing.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 15, 2007)

Turgon said:


> Gah! I did have a point when I started, but I seem to have forgotten it.


Your point seems to be that all the cultures in Tolkien's world are uncomplicated. Hurry was always born of necessity rather than habit, except in the cultures driven by the desire to destroy the idyl (ie: the baddies). Saruman was said to have a mind of metal and wheels and could symbolise the Industrial Revolution (though I hasten to add that I don't remember Tolkien making that point); in other words, progress.

Barley, I didn't realise Bree had got so big that you regard yourself as a city boy. I almost became a city girl myself. As an April fool jest, I once managed to get it aired on local radio that Wootton Bassett was applying for city status, and there were some on the parish council who thought the idea should go ahead!


----------



## Turgon (Apr 15, 2007)

My feeling at the end of The Return of the King, was that with the passing of the Elder Days, and the beginning of the Age of Men, the stasis that had been imposed on Middle-earth was coming to an end. Progress was inevitable, the idyll would not be destroyed by those that wished it gone, but by those who had no care for it. It's almost as if the culture and ethos of the previous ages had an definite elven stamp on them. To the elves this seems quite natural, what is a few thousand years to them after all? The elves had been the teachers of many of the races of Middle-earth, especially those that shaped its history, the Numenoreans. 

We see during the glory days of Numenor, men turning away from elven traditions, a big step towards - not industrialisation exactly, but a more 'modern' attitude to the world around them, a more 'human' view. The consumption of vast tracks of forest to feed their industries back in Numenor for example. With the establishment of the Realms in Exile after the Fall of Numenor, that elven ethos comes back into play, at least for a little while. Three thousand years or so. Until the restoration of Elessar, the last King of this great tradition. With the passing of Elessar goes the tutorlage of the Eldar, and so slowly slips away the Idyll.

*Insert Idylls of the King crack here*

I'm a city-boy myself. From Manchester in fact, a city built and broken on the back of industry. Not the nicest place to live, practically impossible to take a walk here, between the concrete and the hoodies. So fair play to all of you who manage to live the simpler life. Like Frodo I'm content that it is there, somewhere off in the distance. For now at least. How long until the bells fall silent though? It's been a long time since I heard the chimes at midnight. Although that may just be down to the ever present hum of traffic.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 15, 2007)

Eledhwen said:


> Barley, I didn't realise Bree had got so big that you regard yourself as a city boy.



**chuckle** As the actors sometimes used to say on the old radio serials of the 1940s, I was "stepping out of the role" of Barliman Butterbur when I was talking about being a city boy, and was referring to my life in Los Angeles — a place which has many positive and negative aspects to it.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 16, 2007)

Turgon makes some good points about the Elven influence on mannish progress. I have often wondered how many generations it would be, from Elessar's death, before his edict would be forgotten. Would men invade The Shire, or would hobbits become more mannish (taller, like Merry and Pippin) and the distinction become blurred and eventually disappear? 

I am a northerner myself. I had to look Wiltshire up on a map before I moved here (knew it was 'somewhere down south'). I haven't really been to Manchester properly since the IRA blew a hole in the city centre, so my knowledge is old . You may have a few square miles of concrete and bricks, but you have the Peak District on your doorstep, and the Pennine Way. It's easier to be a Hobbit nowadays (spiritually, if not in stature), with the new Right to Roam legislation and high spec bivvies.

I didn't realise you lived in sunny L.A. Barley! My personal knowledge of anywhere in the USA is limited to a transit lounge at Washington Dullas Airport. Is simplicity an option where you are? Would a horse and cart be safe? Can you walk to a nice pub, and get home safely? A hobbit could say 'yes' to these questions, and so would be envied.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 16, 2007)

Yes, Gondolin was in idyllic city, but that was because it was safely seperated from the rest of the world for so long. 

Interestingly enough, Tolkien wrote a story about the Fourth Age entitled "The New Shadow"-men already began to disassociate themselves from Elves in the Third Age, and roughly a century after the fall of Sauron, in which men of Gondor begin to recede back into "occult worship" of one form or another.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Apr 16, 2007)

Inderjit S said:


> Whilst I think the "simple life" has its benefits, it is a limited form of life-I mean The Shire was hardly a centre of cultural activity was it? Like it or not, culture often only flourishes in cities, it has its drawbacks for sure, but the simple life has its limitations too, as does any life.



What are you defining as 'culture'? Does one need art galleries, symphonies, exhibitions, lectures, etc to have a flourishing culture? I'm of the view that culture can flourish just about anywhere people settle down, and it doesn't necessarily have to be institutionalised culture.

I would also suggest that culture is something of a relative term.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 16, 2007)

Eledhwen said:


> ...I have often wondered how many generations it would be, from Elessar's death, before his edict would be forgotten. Would men invade The Shire, or would hobbits become more mannish (taller, like Merry and Pippin) and the distinction become blurred and eventually disappear?



Well, looking back on Tolkien and his essential melancholy (see the short exchange between Gimli and Legolas in my sig, which to me says it all), I daresay that everything would start to run down and regress pretty much as it does in the real world. Civilizations are after all artificial constructs, and, like gardens, decompose if not well looked after and carefully tended. One can compare a cultivated flower to good and the growth of weeds the evil that comes through sheer neglect. "All that is necessary for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing." If you take a look at the present American government, you can see a horrifying example.



> ...It's easier to be a Hobbit nowadays (spiritually, if not in stature), with the new Right to Roam legislation and high spec bivvies.



Now you'll have to explain what "spec bivvies" are to this poor old colonial!



> I didn't realise you lived in sunny L.A. Barley! My personal knowledge of anywhere in the USA is limited to a transit lounge at Washington Dullas Airport. Is simplicity an option where you are? Would a horse and cart be safe? Can you walk to a nice pub, and get home safely? A hobbit could say 'yes' to these questions, and so would be envied.



Good God, Dulles Airport! I daresay your knowledge of the USA is more limited than you know! 

As for L.A. — I've lived here all my life. It's my home, and it would take finding something _significantly_ better to make me want to leave it. We're settled in a pretty nice neighborhood: lots of tony shops, bookstores, theaters, restaurants, and especially excellent medical facilities for us old dodderers. And of course it's _familiar_, I can drive almost anywhere without a map — and I have copies of the Thomas Guide, the map "bible" of Los Angeles. If you know how to read a map and have a TG with you, you simply can't get lost.

As for civility, we live in a very civilized (and yes, crime is here too) area: West Hollywood. But times change and demographics shift like desert sand.

Over the years everything "good" has come from east to west. Neighborhoods that were once good have gotten scary, and other neighborhoods have gotten better. "South Central" and "East L.A." have a lot of police action, as do areas in the valley. There is a strip of good stuff that starts in West Hollywood and, going west to the ocean, we go through Beverly Hills, Westwood, West L.A., and Santa Monica. Then up the coast to Pacific Palisades and Malibu.

There are indeed places where one can "walk to a pub safely and back," but in L.A. everyone drives, even if it's up the block to the market. Understand, we live in a totally urban area, a place where everything is very chi-chi and chic. But that's fun, even though we never shop in those places! However, there is Griffith Park, where indeed a horse and cart might be safe, where a hobbit might enjoy working his toes into the cool grass, and there are a few bucolic locales where simplicity is in the air and the order of the day. But you have to know where they are. And there are more once you get out of L.A. But you asked about L.A. There are pockets of peace that are jealously guarded.

On the other hand, we walk to the Bodhi Tree Bookstore, one of the most venerated "spiritual" bookstores in America. When I was heavily into studying Hinduism and also working on my MA in psych, I was in there all the time: quite literally it is a place of "bell, book and candle" as well as incense, tea, statuary, CDs and DVDs, rosaries, malas, pendants, magazines — all the things one enjoys in a bookstore dedicated to the development of mind, heart and spirit.

We also have a farmer's market that sets up right around the corner on Sundays, and that's fun too.

In Santa Monica there's a large British enclave and tons of British and Irish pubs. I don't know if they'd pass muster to a real Brit or Irisher or Scotsman, but they are heavily populated by ex-pats aplenty who yearn for home. 

Yes, I'd say there is a spot or two that would make a hobbit feel quite at home. And there are other spots too similar to Saruman's lair and the doings behind the Morannon...

Barley


----------

