Otho and Lobelia Apply for a Mortgage

[alatar]

Been rereading The Fellowship of the Ring as part of the hundredth reread. What struck me as odd this time through, though maybe it's just me, is that when Otho and Lobelia try to burgle Bag End from the 'there and back again' Bilbo, Otho is only 31 and Lobelia is 23 years in age. Didn't Hobbits come of age at the magical number of 33? Was Otho premature?

Also, oddly enough, though Otho was 8 years older than Lobelia, they both expended exactly 102 years on this Middle Earth. Quite a coincidence, or just convenient?

[Inziladun]

I would guess that the Hobbit's Coming of Age at 33 wasn't yet conceived by J.R.R.T at the time of The Hobbit.
He didn't know he would one day be writing a sequel, and I'm sure that when he did get around to writing FOTR he probably never considered the ages of Otho and Lobelia to be overly significant, minor characters that they were.

[Bêthberry]

They probably applied for one of those subprime mortgage specials. Not only did they not need a large down payment, they didn't have to be at the age of majority and that led to all kinds of delinquency.

[Lalwendë]

Maybe a Hobbit 'coming of age' just meant something different in The Shire than it does to us. It's not as if they have longer childhoods or much longer lives anyway. The traditional British 'coming of age' point, at 21, is pretty meaningless anyhow as most things you need to be an adult to indulge in become legal at the age of 16, 17 and 18. I can't think of anything which is or ever has been legalised at the age of 21?

[Inziladun]

I can't think of anything which is or ever has been legalised at the age of 21?

Well, in many parts of the USA 21 is the legal age at which one can purchase alcohol. Other than that, you're right. It's largely symbolic: a number that says you are now an adult, and are expected to act as one.
It would appear that "33" for Hobbits was similar: a status change and a sign that the standards of conduct demanded by society were now different.

[Morthoron]

I would say this is another example of Tolkien having to forcibly marry two dissparate stories into the semblance of a single seamless narration. One doesn't get the impression that the Sackville-Bagginses are giddy teen newlyweds in The Hobbit.

[alatar]

Thanks all for posting.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I would say this is another example of Tolkien having to forcibly marry two dissparate stories into the semblance of a single seamless narration. One doesn't get the impression that the Sackville-Bagginses are giddy teen newlyweds in The Hobbit.

Ahh...you have identified the reason for my discontent. This pair seems old (and miserable) beyond their years when they first appear in the Hobbit, and yet years later still haven't been shown the border.

On the other hand, I have known some newlyweds that hadn't given up their avarice even for the wedding day.

That and I'm sure that the Professor never dreamed that one day someone would see a conspiracy behind having these two hobbits die after exactly 102 years...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Maybe a Hobbit 'coming of age' just meant something different in The Shire than it does to us. It's not as if they have longer childhoods or much longer lives anyway. The traditional British 'coming of age' point, at 21, is pretty meaningless anyhow as most things you need to be an adult to indulge in become legal at the age of 16, 17 and 18. I can't think of anything which is or ever has been legalised at the age of 21?

21 used to be the voting age until 1970, the age of consent for homosexual men between 1967 and 2001, and for a while it was the age at which you could marry without parental consent (1751-1822) -it reverted to 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy until 1929!!!!!

However I imagine it would have been the legal majority and voting age that surely Tolkien was thinking of.

Personally 21 wasn't meaningless for me since my family were traditionalists and I got some serious jewellery

[alatar]

That all said, then why is Frodo's 33d birthday such a big todo?

[Mithalwen]

Well I just think it is a scaling up of the traditional 21 coming of age to fit the significantly longer Hobbit life spans. Centenarians were a rarity when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit and LOTR.

http://healthlongevity.blogspot.com/...cord-high.html

But for Hobbits a hundred was relatively unremarkable and Bilbo and the old Took surpass even today's oldest of the old by a decade. Hobbits seem to have approximately a life span up to 50% longer than the human traditional threescore years and ten

This gives an extended period for Hobbit youngsters before they were expected to take on full adult responsibilities. Sam is clearly at an age when he is expected to settle down whereas Pippin and Merry aren't quite . They may of course grow slower than ordinary mortals (the secret of their tough fibre?) and presumably female hobbits had correspondingly longer childbearing years (poor old Rosie). Don't have the appendices on me to check just now. I think the ages went through a few variants in home and it may be, prosaically that the ages were so Tolkien oculd make his "gross" joke.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

That all said, then why is Frodo's 33d birthday such a big todo?

Yes, and why do the young Hobbits, Merry and Pippin, behave often childishly in LotR when they were well past 21 (in fact, Merry was 36 at the start of the story). And why did folks like Elrond suggest they were too young for the Fellowship?

Yet Otho and Lobelia were old farts at 21?

Anachronistic and asynchronous simultaneously if you ask me.

[Lalwendë]

Merry and Pippin are upper class though, and upper class boys never grow up until....well, they just never grow up! You only have to look at Boris Johnson. I'm sure so many people voted for him just because he's amusing and a buffoon

Otho and Lobelia are nouveaux riche though, a bit like the Posh and Becks of The Shire. The sort who would think nothing of decking a child out in Gucci and diamond earrings so he/she looks "all grown up". So they might have been raised from a young age to be materialistic.

Bilbo and Frodo on the other hand are traditional middle class and all that kind of thing is "stuff and nonsense". Harumph. *shakes Daily Mail in disgust*

[Lindale]

Unless I'm dreadfully mistaken, Otho was also a Baggins, quite respectable (and I assume, also part of the middle class); Lobelia related to the Bracegirdles who had pipeweed farms? Unless pipeweed farms are not that well-off, though.

*runs in a corner and hides*

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lindale

Unless I'm dreadfully mistaken, Otho was also a Baggins, quite respectable (and I assume, also part of the middle class); Lobelia related to the Bracegirdles who had pipeweed farms? Unless pipeweed farms are not that well-off, though.

*runs in a corner and hides*

They're definitely not 'traditional' middle class despite their more solid relations - if they were they'd never have dreamt of making such a fuss about gaining Bag End, and they're always struggling to gain 'status'. Plus Tolkien did write them with a satirical eye on the 'metropolitan middle classes' and aesthetes of the early 20th century; it's no mistake that they are called Sackville Bagginses. If he'd been writing today they might have been called the Blair-Bagginses or the Rushdie-Bagginses

[Lindale]

Oh, my bad.

Yeah, I read those bits on LotR too. Something about silver spoon obsession. And remember Gandalf with the Dwarves commenting that Hobbits don't usually have silver spoons.

Maybe I got confused with calling them "traditional middle class." Language barriers; in my university-sick mind, that may be translated as the bourgeoisie, and like Lal said, the S.-B.s are the noveau riche, with the Tooks and the Brandybucks as the aristocracy. I get it now! Thanks Lal.