# Talk:The Scouring of the Shire

Cut for repairs:

It is among the most prominent scenes not featured in the theatrical release of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. 
I seem to recall dimly that the death scene of Saruman was in the movie - but I could be wrong. I remember Frodo discovering that inside Saruman's clothing was nothing, after Wormtongue killed him. 
Gimme a few minutes to google this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The DVD shows the deaths of Saruman and Wormtongue, thus tying up the storyline that was left open in the first version. [1]
I guess we were both right. It's not in the theatrical release, but only in the DVD. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Some fans feel that not including the Scouring of the Shire in the movie weakened it to an extent, as in their opinion this ignores the effect of war on people back home. I don't seem to able to give this topic justice, but I think it should be touched upon. --RLent 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be that film-makers considered this section of the book to be one that would have less impact with an international audience. The pre-industrial ruralist dream is a potent one that underpins a lot of British culture, from the 19th century Arts & Crafts movement, 1930s garden suburbs, composers such as Delius and Vaughan-Williams, the post-war national parks, to the Countryside Alliance of more recent times – but how to get that idea across to people who live in places with vast real estate, i.e the U.S.? It's also a bit of a downer for mainstream film audiences used to neatly tied-up endings. Ricadus (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
True.  The film-makers (Jackson) view this part of Lord of the Rings as something extra, something tacked-on to the history of the war of the ring.  What they miss is that the only reason the hobbits were involved was TO SAVE THE SHIRE.  This is established in the books by frequent references to 'hobbit-sense', Sam's vision of trees being cut down in the Shire, Sam overcoming the power of the Ring by thinking of the Shire, etc. etc.  Tolkien himself says that it's an important part of the book, foreseen from the beginning or words to that effect.  In does in fact neatly tie up all the threads, at least IMHO.  24.27.31.170 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Eric
And more importantly (in my view), and in any case present, and explicitly stated and commented upon: the Scouring of the Shire represents a "this is what you have been trained for"-moment.
Well, I guess you had to cut out something. Still... the Lord of the Rings is rather explicitly stated to be not a "there and back again" story, the way the Hobbit is.--2001:A60:150B:7301:2C3D:4A8F:260F:B2B0 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wormtail is in Harry Potter it should be Wormtongue.(in bar on right side)

There is a low-budget Finnish version of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, called Hobitit, which includes the scouring of the Shire.
Please correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M^A^L (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 

Please feel free to edit the article and add the content yourself, rather than telling others to do it for you. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems a contradiction to say the chapter was "planned from the outset", but then emphasise references to WW2 and its aftermath.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland: The article describes this as "paradoxical" already; I've had another go at making that point more clearly. Please read the lead and the 'Formal structure' and 'Origins' sections, and see if you now find it clear enough. As with many Tolkienisms, things are rarely exactly what they seem on the surface. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The photo caption, "During Clement Attlee's time as Prime Minister (1945–1951), Britain was a drab, bleak and bureaucratic place", is very POV. So is the implied equation of Attlee and the Fascists.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not an editorial opinion, it's the Tolkien scholar's, in the context of criticism of the chapter; it's reliably cited, and it is provided purely to help explain what Tolkien was doing in the chapter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It's reasonably accurate.  Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was written during this period and has a similar tone for much the same reason.  For example, while Germany did away with food rationing in 1948, Britain kept it into the early 1950s, making it more onerous than during the war by rationing bread and potatoes too.  Atlee's Labour government wanted to keep food rationing indefinitely and this was a significant reason that they lost power – the people had had enough of being starved. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
And that is POV.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, I think this is given undue weight. The phrase "fair distribution" is only mentioned once. Farmer Cotton describes Lotho as a capitalist who has been accumulating property. He has been exporting tobacco and other goods. In "Flotsam and Jetsam" we are told that Merry and Pippin found two barrels of tobacco from the Shire at Isengard. Shippey might consider this unrealistic. I don't think the economics of Middle-earth is very realistic anyway. But do we need a paragraph of Shippey's musings about this fairly inconsequential point? And since when did socialism mean the export of tobacco? And why is this accompanied by a picture of a wagonload of cotton in 1920s Australia??? And then there's Hal Colebatch, an anti-Communist crusader accused of inaccurate rants.[3] His entry on "Communism" attacks Attlee, but also the Beatles. Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable. Colebatch's political rants doesn't have much to do with the chapter.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, no, it's entirely appropriate; notice that three independent critics with widely varying backgrounds have all remarked on the chapter's allusion to socialism, whether indeed those critics like socialism or not. The theme of "gone for export" exactly matches England c. 1950, and as Shippey says sits surprisingly with the Shire at the end of the Third Age. As for its weight, it is one short section among six elements explaining the chapter's significance, and that is only part of the article. Methinks thou dost protest too much. And by the way, I'm not sure you're talking about the same Hal Colebatch, there are two or three famous people of that name, but even if is the same, he's only one of several critics all reliably voicing the socialism issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely the same Colebatch.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. But the wagon image is definitely helpful as showing far more goods (whatever is in the bales) than could possibly be useful to one wizard for his own use, and illustrating how the "gone for export" phrase from English socialism c. 1950 could connect to the horse-and-wagon technology that Tolkien chooses for the Shire. Happy to discuss but it's well cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The photo is of cotton in Australia in the 1920s. How is this cited? This whole issue of the wagons is overblown. Isengard was a big establishment. We are told Saruman gave his best provisions to his men. I don't see why Saruman couldn't have exported tobacco. I don't think anyone in the Shire uses the phrase "gone for export", and I don't see the connection with socialism. And how do you justify lumping Attlee and Hitler together under the heading of "socialism"???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The image is of a large horse-drawn wagon carrying a lot of bales of something-or-other, which might easily be tobacco-being-exported in large quantities (by The Shire's standards). The image's "technology" (horses, wagon, bales) is exactly correct, and it's evident, Shippey states, as cited, that such a quantity would far exceed what one Wizard in Isengard could possibly smoke; Shippey makes the point that Saruman would hardly have been trading tobacco for financial profit (not a wizardly way to make a living), nor would he have "issued" it (1940s word...) to his minions, so in in-universe terms the wagon-sized export, illustrated for readers to grasp the point, makes no sense. Shippey then makes the point that the 1940's phrase "gone for export", certainly NOT used in The Shire (and nobody suggested that), absolutely was used in 1940s England, so there is a definite mismatch with the LOTR world, but an easy fit with his contemporary world – just as there was with the "socialism" thing, cited to THREE separate sources who use the term. To spell out the connection with socialism that all three sources identify, 1940s socialism (think of Animal Farm if that helps you, it's of the period) talks a lot about fair sharing and redistribution, but quickly ends up with a lot of taking and not much giving, something equally true of The Shire in the chapter. Tolkien certainly interpreted Attlee's Labour (socialist) government as an attempt at socialist redistribution; Hitler of course does not fit that side of the picture (I'll tweak the wording there), but suits the ruffianly brutality well enough. By the way, if you read what is said about Attlee, it's his government's drabness that is discussed by the source and echoed correctly in the article, nothing else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Some background on the politics and society of the period, like this, will be helpful for younger readers who will not be familiar with them.  The Labour leadership is currently being debated and I've seen more than one comment such as "it is perhaps surprising given Attlee’s status in the Labour party that 31% of members can’t form an opinion on the man".   Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that Orwell is mentioned here, it is worth pointing out that he was himself a socialist, a widely ignored point; the goal of his satire in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm was authoritarian socialism – or more generally authoritarianism and totalitarianism, including the decidedly capitalism-based, anti-socialist ideology of fascism –, not socialism itself. The same is arguably true for Tolkien. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I know that cleaning up the Shire (using Galadriel's gift, replanting, etc) belongs to the next chapter, but would it be worth mentioning here, as it really caps off what's happened to the Shire? Esowteric+Talk 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The loss of trees and other greenery is hardly mentioned in this article, but it is mentioned a lot in the chapter.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Added a mention in the chapter summary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 09:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a couple of points:

Gandalf tells Frodo about the history of the ring and Mount Doom in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past".
Lotho didn't buy Bag End. Lobelia did.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, tweaked text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding these here, rather than at the ongoing GA review:

In the Foreword to the 2003 edition of A Tolkien Compass (originally published in 1975), Shippey critically surveys the essays in the light of later scholarship, with some very useful counterpoints, especially one on Lobdall's view on the 'Scouring' and facism (Shippey mentions Orwell's Ingsoc [which you have] and Golding's Lord of the Flies [though it seems no-one has taken up his challenge there]). The fact that Shippey explicitly disagrees with Lobdall should be included.
I think we've probably covered the Fascism aspect, but if you fancy adding a short note then feel free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
It would help to make clearer that Richards and Witt (2014) is a full chapter-length treatment (22 pages) titled "The Scouring of the Shire". That is clearly essential reading.
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I do recall some critics/scholars touching on and making comparisons between the return of Bilbo to the Shire in The Hobbit and the return of the hobbits to the Shire in The Lord of the Rings in the later, darker tale. This is touched on by Richards and Witt (2014) on page 137. There may be a lot more to bring in and paraphrase from Richards and Witt's chapter.
Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Added a comparison. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: re-reading this the other day, I had the thought that the article doesn't yet cover how the Shire was restored and made more beautiful than before. Have commentators and scholars remarked on that aspect of things? At the moment, the article focuses very much on the destruction, and though the renewal is not strictly in this chapter, it is part of the thematic aspects that maybe would be covered here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's in the next chapter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see that there is a brief mention where Chance is quoted on the "rejuvenation" of the Shire and it being purified. The lead also talks of the "moral quest to purify the Shire", so that is probably enough. I doubt many readers will not know this anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I can add a mention of the sequelae, why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a link, and this word is important in understanding the plot.

Sharkey's men. Some seem to be partly orc, like a few people from Bree. Tolkien doesn't say exactly where they came from, but then where do gangs of thugs come from in places gone bad, they just appear from all over.  Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently User:Chiswick Chap seems to think including links to the articles The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a bad thing. I do not understand why you would exclude links to the movie articles in a section entitled "Adaptations", especially when it makes references to events that happen in these two films. - Richiekim (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not at all; I just think that repeating "The Lord of the Rings: " ad nauseam in a Nietzschean parody of a litany is unhelpful. I also believe in WP:BRD (not to mention WP:NPA) and I note you have now breached WP:3RR into the bargain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I also noticed that you have alot of activity in this article. Please keep in mind WP:OWN and other viewpoints are just as valid as your own, thanks. - Richiekim (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't entitle anyone to 3RR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Also confused why you would invoke WP:NPA when I made no such personal attacks to you. - Richiekim (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The sneering tone of "Apparently ... seems to think" is uncollegiate at best, more likely overheated. But you haven't undone your 3RR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Sketch Map of The Shire.svg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This article, like all Tolkien articles, is in British English and is punctuated for British diction. Its word choice and syntax, too, are British. The article does not concern any reputation, but presents what scholars and critics have said about the chapter. This is a straightforward matter of attribution, so the repeated introduction of the term "reputed" is simply wrong or obfuscatory. The article is reporting what has been said, and the lead is summarising that. "Lead engineering" to convey other meanings or in other Dictionary is quite simply a mistake and contrary to policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion (don't have the page in my watchlist). I don't actually understand how to write in British diction, and the use of the word "reputed" aside, my main point is to avoid making it seem like the allusions objectively exist. It says in the very same sentence that the author denied their existence, with the allusions being the claim of scholars; without being explicit the diction preferences obfuscate that point (to a non-British English speaker). Of course Wikipedia presents the views of scholars, but attribution is important when discussing said views (particularly when they're contrary to something else discussed). I'm not trying to "lead engineer", only properly convey meaning. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)