Taters to Taters - II

[Loslote]

Beorn - Maybe. I'd say more driven and motivated than energetic, but that might just be semantics.
Gondor - I'd say Gondor is the opposite of energetic, looking at its conduct without a king.
Butterbur - Far too forgetful to be the best choice, to my mind.
Thorin - Gold-hungry, ambitious, mighty, yes, but energetic? Mmm, maybe...
Wargs - Now this is a choice I can get behind.
Beregond - Yes, I'd say he fits the description.
Mayor Moneybags - A humorous choice if anything.
Sauron - Hmm. In more ways than one - a firey eye would consume a lot of energy, let along the energetic nature Sauron has as a character.
Bill Ferny - A different sort of energy than we've mostly seen, but energetic nonetheless, I'd say.
Varda - As Queen of the Valar, I see her more as an elegant, beautiful figure than an energetic one.

[Boromir88]

Alright, so I'm just getting back now, since I spent my day at a high school with a bunch of 9th graders. But it appears I'm not the only one having a busy weekend.

So, continue on this round for another day, and hopefully people get some more free time. Mmm...I need a nap.

[Gwathagor]

Drat. I forgot about this.

[A Little Green]

But it appears I'm not the only one having a busy weekend.

Yeah... Just back from the wilderness (it was cold). Anyhow, out of those, I'd probably go for Wargs - just love the idea of them described as energetic.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

All right-y. A bit of analysis coming from my part as well, then, seeing that there is time.

Beorn - definitely has lot of energy, that cannot be doubted.
Gondor - maybe in its prime, but I would go with Lottie that the latter Gondor was in the state of full enthropy and losing its energy.
Butterbur - as a pun, I think it's not funny enough, however, I think it is actually much better from the "serious" point of view. I mean, you probably need to have lots of energy if you are him... running around all day with trays of food and beer to the customers, talking to hobbits, providing them with ponies and bedrooms, and shoving off Striders and other strange folks...
Thorin - I think yes, and I would maybe pick him before Beorn or even the Wargs. There is something mentioned I believe in the appendices to LotR about fire of vengeance burning in his heart, and he organised the whole trip to Erebor...
Wargs - that probably can't be doubted, but just like Beorn, I think it's rather "basic". And, I would say, "energetic" is not the first word that comes to your mind when you think of Wargs ("carnivorous" or something would be better). I think it isn't that fitting by itself.
Beregond - I would say sometimes, yes. It is certainly an innovative view of him. It's a nice idea, in any case.
Mayor Moneybags - well... mostly not, I guess.
Sauron - he definitely was energetic, also if you consider him in his prime. Maybe in the First Age a bit overshadowed by Melkor, but especially during the Second Age he was - the true former Maia of Aulë (a pity somebody did not play him), participating in creating several Rings of Power, and of course the One... and the energy to wage wars and manipulate nations for two Ages straight...
Bill Ferny - we haven't seen enough of him, though he seemed to me always more like the "I sit in the corner and act opportunistically"-type. It is true he was Sharkey's "Big Man", but he did not really sparkle with activity.
Varda - maybe if you considered astrophysics, but then again, we learn that the stars were just dew, and the light from the trees etc. does not really seem to equal "energy" in Middle-Earth, but rather something different. She was also much more active in her prime, creating the stars etc., so that was the time of being energetic for her.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Drat. I forgot about this.

No worries, busy weekend for many and I was insanely tired yesterday.

Do have your energetic winner picked by 8pm today.

Welcome back to the land of the wights Greenie, Legate, et all.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Beorn - “Forceful” might be more accurate, but he certainly have bundles of energy, and is an entry that cannot be ignored.
Gondor – No Gondor was a stagnant culture, even in its youth it was merely a remnant of a glorious past. Now Numenor you could argue, had been an energetic (and innovative) society, but Gondor always seemed to be looking to the past, remembering what once was.
Butterbur- Definitely a contender, though “stressed” would be more accurate.
Thorin – Also a possibility, he definitely had his moments, he probably wasn’t special amongst dwarves, but he certainly was passionate about retrieving his stolen treasure.
Wargs – No, not really. They just seem wolfish.
Beregond – Yes in a way, again maybe “passionate” would be better, but he does display some qualities that might be described as energetic.
Mayor Moneybags - No
Sauron – I can see why some might pick him in this category, but personally I would never use that word to describe him.
Bill Ferny - No
Varda – I really have no opinion about this one

I did not actually forget about this, I just didn't really have time to sit down and have a proper look until now.

[Nogrod]

Back from the wilderness as well but facing a (too) early morning call...

So just a few comments.

I do agree with a few here about Gondor being rather stagnant than energetic.

Many of the choices share the same problem: you could say, in a sense, they are energetic, but that is in no way the first or obviously commanding feature that comes to mind thinking about them, and without a kind of an "aha!" - moment that comes from an innovative POV the picks areb mostly a bit bland...

What would that leave then?

Beorn - Right. Berserk rather, but no one can deny he's energetic when he so wishes.

Butterbur - Right. As someone said "stressed" or busy" rather, but you can't deny him being energetic when he has energy to be that way.

Thorin - Right. Even if you could find a more fitting red tater for him he does fit the description.

Beregond - Like someone said, a quite nice POV (to me the only one that kind of came even near something like an "aha!" -moment).

Mayor Moneybags - Well. Certainly made me smile. Kind of stands out in this company with it's hilariousness, being more or less the opposite in between the mostly mediocre candidates.

Sauron - Like many of the above: right, but yet not exactly energetic. Couldn't Sauron have waited for a better green tater?

[satansaloser2005]

My darling prince finds himself suddenly preoccupied for the bulk of the evening. We shall thus continue discussion on the current taters until his return.

[Gwathagor]

And the winner is:

BEORN.

[satansaloser2005]

Rune may now begin the traditional gloating period. At least it's not Menel again....

Boro will return to announce the next round when he deems it proper (read, when he is no longer otherwise engaged).

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I am generous in victory, the next round of lard is on me!

[Boromir88]

Thank you my dear for handling that on short notice. I had an unanticipated obligation late last night, and if only real life was as easy as only feeling responsible for yourself.

But, yes Rune gets on the board, and I'll post the next round at 8pm tonight. I didn't want to do it in the afternoon and only allow 7-ish hours for everyone to send me their choice.

[Boromir88]

Tally

Menel - 2 (Absurd, Handy)
Rune - 1 (Energetic)

----

ROUND 4

Green tater: Malicious (mean, hateful, spiteful)
Judge: Legate

[Boromir88]

ROUND 4

So, I have a feeling Legate is going to put his brain through the grinder to decide this one. Malicious:

Huorns
Dol Guldur
Dol Amroth
King of the Dead
Fellbeast
Grima Wormtongue
Mouth of Sauron
Gollum
Eol
Fangorn Forest
Glaurung
Ted Sandyman

(And I will send out everyone's new red taters soon).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Whoa, whoa! Some pretty malicious folks (and not folks) over here. What strikes me in particular (obviously because of its innovative approach) is the idea of Fangorn, and seemingly somebody had had a very similar idea with the Huorns (so we had the same idea of innovative approach here, it seems!). If we are talking the "dark heart of the woods", certainly it isn't that off. Otherwise, I very much like Wormtongue, Mouth of Sauron, Glaurung and Ted Sandyman, and I could be talked into Gollum or Eöl. If people come up with some convincing arguments for anything, I may be swayed - so, go ahead and try your own assessments of the list, I'm most curious about your perception

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Whoa, whoa! Some pretty malicious folks (and not folks) over here. What strikes me in particular (obviously because of its innovative approach) is the idea of Fangorn, and seemingly somebody had had a very similar idea with the Huorns (so we had the same idea of innovative approach here, it seems!).

That's what I thought too when I first saw the list. And personally I like these two choices the most. Probably because, as you put it, the innovative approach. But how innovative is it if two people gave practically the same answer?

Anyways. I like them both, but I think that Fangorn Forest is mostly malicious because of the Huorns. If you take them away, the forest doesn't want to choke every bit on life in it. But the Huorns do. And the forest used to be quite welcoming before certain things happened. But the Huorns are just Huorns, they're always dark and creepy and malicious.

But that doesn't make Fangorn less malicious when the Huorns are in it. After all, it was a fear to the Rohirrim, and even Celeborn was cautious about it. But in the end it's all because of the Huorns.


From the other answers, I think King of the Dead is my favourite. Just because.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Grima Wormtongue – Probably my favourite, I have no good argument, it just corresponds well with my own view of Grima.
Mouth of Sauron – Definitly a contender, he certainly seem to derive pleasure from others suffering.
Gollum – The obvious choice and I think malice works especially well with the Gollum we encounter in The Hobbit.
Eol – Perhaps, though he clearly dislikes a lot of people, I am not sure I favour him for this title.
Glaurung – Malice is definitely present in Glaurung, but it is almost to mild a term for such wicked creature.
Ted Sandyman – Starts out as just being a stubborn and narrow-minded person, when we first encounter him in the Green Dragon. However there is proper malice in his person, when we meet him again in the Shire after the war has ended. I think that his exchange with Merry and the other hobbits show this clearly.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Anyways. I like them both, but I think that Fangorn Forest is mostly malicious because of the Huorns. If you take them away, the forest doesn't want to choke every bit on life in it. But the Huorns do. And the forest used to be quite welcoming before certain things happened. But the Huorns are just Huorns, they're always dark and creepy and malicious.

Interesting. I had been actually favoring Fangorn over the Huorns, just because it seemed somehow cooler. But I realise I had been thinking of forests as they are. It is not, one has to say, always huorns. It is something bad in some of the huorns that might be considered malicious. Huorns are only awakened trees (or sleeping ents), which is nothing problematic by itself... but they can be bad. (The more I think about it, however, the less and less does the choice of the word "malicious" seem appropriate to me. Still however, the more interesting that two people have chosen it. That's probably what makes it the most intriguing )

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Grima Wormtongue – Probably my favourite, I have no good argument, it just corresponds well with my own view of Grima.

Gríma is perhaps, on second thought, not really that malicious. He is more like selfish, doing some things to reach his own goals. I am not sure if he takes any special pleasure in, say, putting Éomer into Théoden's disfavour.

Mouth of Sauron – Definitly a contender, he certainly seem to derive pleasure from others suffering.

I would say. I like Mouth of Sauron exactly because of this. He is a strong contender for me, one of the strongest.

Gollum – The obvious choice and I think malice works especially well with the Gollum we encounter in The Hobbit.

I never saw Gollum as really malicious, and even less so in the Hobbit. In LotR, there's possibly that one side to him, otherwise... he is a bit malicious, but sort of "petty-malicious". Just for further reference, somebody should have played some spiders for me on this account. They are malicious, I think, and I believe Gollum is likewise, but we do not really get to see it!

Eol – Perhaps, though he clearly dislikes a lot of people, I am not sure I favour him for this title.

The main thing about him is, probably, that he wasn't really intentinally malicious. He was bitter and all this, but probably not with much intentional malice. Again, had somebody played Mim for me, that could be what I might choose. Or Maeglin, rather than Eöl.

Glaurung – Malice is definitely present in Glaurung, but it is almost to mild a term for such wicked creature.

True. But for me, he is exactly the essence of malice. Like Smaug is a bit, too, but Glaurung is the essence of malice. For me, he is a very strong contender.

Ted Sandyman – Starts out as just being a stubborn and narrow-minded person, when we first encounter him in the Green Dragon. However there is proper malice in his person, when we meet him again in the Shire after the war has ended. I think that his exchange with Merry and the other hobbits show this clearly.

Well said. That's basically it. Another very strong contender for me. Effectively, any arguments especailly in his, Glaurung's or the Mouth's favor might make me decide.

Of the others - Dol Guldur is really out of question, the place itself was in no way malicious (its master would be a different matter!!). Dol Amroth I would not have expected here, or I would perhaps if Aganzir had been playing or something, then perhaps I could see some logic behind it. Fellbeast I like really a lot, but I think it was just, well, an "animal", not really malicious by itself. And King of the Dead, not really. In the movie, he acts a bit like that, but you know what I think about the movies.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Effectively, any arguments especailly in his, Glaurung's or the Mouth's favor might make me decide.

I would say that Ted Sandyman does not seem particularly selfish to me. Close-minded before Frodo leaves the Shire and drunk with power afterwards, maybe, but I don't know that he best fits malicious.

The Mouth of Sauron could definitely be seen as malicious, but is limited to what his master commands. He does not have a name nor, it seems, much of a sense of self (beyond apparently desiring to be Lord of Isengard), so I don't know that he could achieve as much maliciousness as possible.

Glaurung, on the other hand, is about as malicious as they come. He had the opportunity to kill Turin, but instead played games with him. He also, discovering Nienor's availability, actively sought her out to, again, play malicious games with Turin and Nienor. He, destroyer of armies, had no need of this underhanded trickery, so the fact that he used it indicates that he enjoyed it - malicious to his heart.

So, while all three are good candidates, for me, Glaurung is by far the most malicious.

[Nogrod]

Unless you need to decide right now, I'd like to give my take on the candidates as well Legate. It takes a moment...

[Nogrod]

Okay, I see Legate has already made some of the arguments I thought I'd make, so I'll just concentrate on the "top choices" as they seem to be at the moment...

Ted Sandyman - Well, sadly he reminds me more of these real life characters who have been given very little in birth and are brought up by their peers of the same kind. And those people may actually believe they are right in opposing the elite and their ways, especially if they feel they have been despised by the elite. So I'd say it is not so much malice as feeling of revenge or a pay-back time that sets things right. It might be petty, egoistic, stupid, narrow-minded etc. in content but I'd not say malice as such. In their own environments those people make good company and trustworthy friends; they just hate what is different or "better" than they are...

The Mouth of Sauron & Glaurung - I think there is a pretty fine fight between the two on being someone who embodies malice the best.

Glaurung clearly has the better "track-record" on a grand scale as to how many and malicious deeds he made. He is as malicious one can get.

But also, he is many other things too; like evil, mighty, terrifying, intelligent, cruel, primordial, the very concept of Dragons itself in physical form...

In comparison one could ask what do we know about the Mouth of Sauron? Nothing. Well, nothing short of that he is malicious. And that is the sole factor we kind of know about him... he is described by Tolkien basically just as through malice and there is more or less nothing else into his character we know about.


Well, a tough choice. Glaurung I think beats the Mouth of Sauron in the scope of his malice but he is also other things than that, while the Mouth is nothing but malice to a reader of the LotR.


PS. I iked the idea of both Huorns and the Fangorn as well, but agree that they are problematical choices - like Gollum, Grima and Eöl are.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hmm... generally, good points about Ted Sandyman (even including Nog's treatise on the nature of Hobbit millers ). Also, the thoughts Nog brings about the Mouth being basically defined only by his malice is close to the spot... but I don't actually think it's entirely correct. The Mouth is defined also by other things, like his proficiency in sorcery, and in fact, now that I recall, his description includes cruelty and cunning, love of dark knowledge and much more. So he is defined also by other things, and therefore Glaurung might fill the idea of malice more, just as it's been said... Hmph. In fact, ha, I was just about to write that Glaurung fits much better, but now that I recall the description of Mouth, I am not so sure anymore. Flip-flopping time I might just choose the Mouth because I like him a bit more in some ways. Also, if the Mouth "knew much of the mind of Sauron". But.. okay, after all, Glaurung is Glaurung.

++Glaurung for Malicious

[Boromir88]

My internet is back, so everyone's new red taters I'm sending out now...

And excellent convo on malice. Tough decisions indeed.

Edit: And I cross with Legate.

The malicious one be...Lottie.

[Nogrod]

Four rounds, always soo close... but no points yet.

This calls for the Finnish "sisu".


And yes, Glaurung was a good pick.

[Boromir88]

Tally

Menel - 2 (Absurd, Handy)
Rune - 1 (Energetic)
Lottie - 1 (Malicious)

----

ROUND 5

Green tater: Classic (Timeless, definitive, vintage)
Judge: Lommy

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Yeah, I feel the same way. Mine seemed to have a pretty good shot at this one, but in the end I would probably have gone for Glaurung as well. At least it is not a choice I can in any way object to.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The malicious one be...Lottie.

Huzzah! Should I only get to win one, malicious is probably the most fun.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'm not surprised the two of you, Nog and Lottie, were the ones owning the taters in question. By the way, who were the two connected minds coming up with Fangorn and huorns?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I might as well come clean and declare that Ted Sandyman was mine, and I really disagree with Nogrod's analysis of him. I think if I had been able to post a bit more, I might have been able to make him a serious contender, but RL came in the way.

I don't know if Nog was serious or just trying to harm an opposing candidate, in which preindustrial society is a miller ostracized from the elite? Granted they are not semi-nobility like one could argue the Took's are, but they are definitely well above your average gardener and what not.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I don't know if Nog was serious or just trying to harm an opposing candidate, in which preindustrial society is a miller ostracized from the elite? Granted they are not semi-nobility like one could argue the Took's are, but they are definitely well above your average gardener and what not.

Hardly! The Shire wasn't preindustrial, it was agricultural. Hobbits love plants. They do not love mills. Mills are not the hub of their society. A miller would by no means be above a gardener.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Agricultural and preindustrial is not opposites, nor mutual exclusive. I am not suggesting that the Shire was a simple society, it was quite clearly a complex society, but also clearly preindustrial.

Preindustrial societies were not unfamiliar with mechanical devices, and some of these were driven by inanimate energy, like waterwheels, windmills and ships, but most of them depended on human or animal energy for their operation. The industrial breakthrough is mainly defined by the scale of which it freed production from its dependence on animal and human muscle. This is something that clearly has not taken place in the Shire.

The lack of modern industries made agriculture by far the most important source of wealth in preindustrial societies, something you rightly point out is the case in the Shire.

It is my opinion that a miller in the Shire would never, like a gardener, become a servant of another hobbit. However revered a gardener might be, there can be no doubt that socially, as a group, they belong to the lower classes of society. Samwise ends up being a fantastic example of social mobility, but it would be folly to suggest that he is representative of your average gardener.

With both Samwise and Ted Sandyman there are exceptional circumstances that changes their fortunes. Samwise gets tangle up in the affairs of the great, whilst Ted remain in Hobbiton during a (from most peoples point of view) hostile takeover. In the end Ted seizes to be a miller, and ends up working for Saruman, during his attempt to industrialize the Shire. Samwise ends up being the mayor, and at this point you can sertainly argue that Samwise has higher standing than Ted.

However at this point we are no longer comparing Ted the miller with Samwise the gardener. Now we are comparing Ted the traitor and industrial worker, with Samwise the war hero and mayor.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Agricultural and preindustrial is not opposites, nor mutual exclusive. I am not suggesting that the Shire was a simple society, it was quite clearly a complex society, but also clearly preindustrial.

Preindustrial societies were not unfamiliar with mechanical devices, and some of these were driven by inanimate energy, like waterwheels, windmills and ships, but most of them depended on human or animal energy for their operation. The industrial breakthrough is mainly defined by the scale of which it freed production from its dependence on animal and human muscle. This is something that clearly has not taken place in the Shire.

Ahhhhh! I see. I was taking 'preindustrial' in an entirely different sense than you intended it - I read the connotations that 'preindustrial' meant 'on the verge of becoming industrial and moving in that direction', whereas you seem to have meant it simply as 'not yet industrial'.

The lack of modern industries made agriculture by far the most important source of wealth in preindustrial societies, something you rightly point out is the case in the Shire.

It is my opinion that a miller in the Shire would never, like a gardener, become a servant of another hobbit. However revered a gardener might be, there can be no doubt that socially, as a group, they belong to the lower classes of society. Samwise ends up being a fantastic example of social mobility, but it would be folly to suggest that he is representative of your average gardener.

But even before any social mobility occurs, is Sam not Frodo's friend? I don't know that forcing Ted Sandyman and Sam into social castes by their occupation is entirely appropriate. Their social circles seem to me to be less dictated by their occupations and more by their personalities and interests.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Oh my, is this thread turning to some meta-discussion about pre-industrial societies? Well, let me just point out one thing.

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

It is my opinion that a miller in the Shire would never, like a gardener, become a servant of another hobbit. However revered a gardener might be, there can be no doubt that socially, as a group, they belong to the lower classes of society. Samwise ends up being a fantastic example of social mobility, but it would be folly to suggest that he is representative of your average gardener.

I agree 100% about everything you have said, Rune, or would have agreed, if there weren't for one explicit quote from Tolkien which says pretty clearly what the status of the gardeners was. I am sure we all know that part.

Faramir and Frodo:

Originally Posted by The Window of the West

"Your land must be a realm of peace and content, and there must gardeners be in high honour."
"Not all is well there," said Frodo, "but certainly gardeners are honoured."

I get the picture that gardener is something a bit special in the Shire. Not that special, for sure, but given the hobbits' love for all that grows etc., maybe the gardeners enjoyed a bit more respect than they would in a similar society in our history. Just as a remark

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Loslote

Ahhhhh! I see. I was taking 'preindustrial' in an entirely different sense than you intended it - I read the connotations that 'preindustrial' meant 'on the verge of becoming industrial and moving in that direction', whereas you seem to have meant it simply as 'not yet industrial'.

Fair play, when talking history I tend to generalise. So I used preindustrial in the broadest of forms, also because this is the use I have encountered the most often.

Originally Posted by Loslote

But even before any social mobility occurs, is Sam not Frodo's friend? I don't know that forcing Ted Sandyman and Sam into social castes by their occupation is entirely appropriate. Their social circles seem to me to be less dictated by their occupations and more by their personalities and interests.

I agree that maybe it is a stretch trying to apply our social terms on Hobbits, but isn't it fun?

I am not sure about personalities having greater influence than in our society, on the face of it, these things seem quite similar. However I would need to reread the books with this in mind, before making my mind up.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I agree 100% about everything you have said, Rune, or would have agreed, if there weren't for one explicit quote from Tolkien which says pretty clearly what the status of the gardeners was. I am sure we all know that part.

Faramir and Frodo:

I get the picture that gardener is something a bit special in the Shire. Not that special, for sure, but given the hobbits' love for all that grows etc., maybe the gardeners enjoyed a bit more respect than they would in a similar society in our history. Just as a remark

I read that very passage as late as yesterday, and it does not change my view on things. Certain professions will always be held in high regard, even if their social status is low(maybe "social status" isn't the best term, but I hope you understand what I am getting at). You see this in every society... I would argue that soldiers and parking attendants come from much the same social group, but one is honored much more than the other. Beregond for example might be respected, but in no way would he ever be regarded as part of the elite.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I read that very passage as late as yesterday, and it does not change my view on things. Certain professions will always be held in high regard, even if their social status is low(maybe "social status" isn't the best term, but I hope you understand what I am getting at). You see this in every society... I would argue that soldiers and parking attendants come from much the same social group, but one is honored much more than the other. Beregond for example might be respected, but in no way would he ever be regarded as part of the elite.

Yep, I guess. The soldier example is actually pretty good one, that's basically how I imagine the gardeners to differ. However, and that's what we are getting at and what I believe Nog's post and Lottie later were aiming at as well, even this means a difference: gardener and miller apparently come from similar class background, but with the difference that the gardener is respected in some special way, whereas miller is not in any special way (which can then open door to what Nog had said, in certain circumstances). But whatever, I am by no means willing to make this a "How did class relationships work in the Shire" thread...

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

. But whatever, I am by no means willing to make this a "How did class relationships work in the Shire" thread...

Why not?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Why not?

Simply because it's not called that But I don't care, really...

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

OK, my parting shot will be this: Sam could never have become a miller even if he wanted, it was quite simply beyond his means.

Anyways, good choice with Glaurung...

[Nogrod]

Yay! The best Taters To Taters discussion so far! (I mean, yes, not too much on topic of the game but I do love discussions spreading from an instant just like that)

To be honest, I was not thinking of it that deep into the social structure of the ME as I just had to make an argument to drop one contender off the list where my own was to try and steer it a 50-50 chance for my candidate (and it was hard to argue against Glaurunbg being malicious )...

But where I was coming to the discussion was this: Bilbo (and therefore Frodo) was thought to be an outrageously rich person and having queer habits & interests - so being outside the local conservative community in every way. And therefore all those involved with them (Sam, Pip, Merry) would bé looked with suspicion as well. With resentment even as they were doing so well.

When they came back you see the four hobbits coming with all the strange costumes, mighty weapons, expensive-looking gadgets... and worldly and noble in their carriage of themselves... so it would have been an easy target for resentment, something that could awake a sense of righteousness while standoing up against those strange-ones who hadn't shared the common tragedy - or who looked like they knew better and were better than you - so not so much malice but a pay-back, or a fight for one's identity and honour.

Yeah, I know that might be a bit far-fetched, but remember I had an argument to make against Ted Sandyman being malicious as he was easier to argue against than Glaurung.