Bringing Politics to the Shire
By Chris Chan
The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom That Tolkien Got, and the West Forgot, written by Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt. Ignatius Press, 2014. 232 pages. Hardcover, $21.95.
In recent years, there have been a great deal of new studies about the works of J.R.R. Tolkien and the ideas inside of them, ranging from Joseph Pearce’s superlative studies emphasizing the religious aspects of the author’s worldview, to critiques of Tolkien’s use of classical mythology. It seems unavoidable that some authors would attempt to impose a certain political perspective on Middle-earth. In the past, some authors have attempted to classify Tolkein’s work as Marxist, a perspective that is easily refuted by the author’s own writings. Currently, an attempt is being made to link Tolkien to general policies of small government. Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt use The Hobbit Party to argue that Tolkien’s work is driven by a sharp criticism of government overreach. The Hobbit Party seeks to emphasize the political aspects of Tolkien’s work, and the results are always interesting, even though some Chestertonians may find various points to argue with in the authors’ analysis.
Richards and Witt make a lot of interesting points, but some of their best work comes not when they are advancing their own arguments but when they are disproving other writer’s perspectives. It doesn’t hurt that many of their opponents’ theses are completely ridiculous. Given the popularity of Tolkien amongst New Age fans and the absence of overt Christianity in his works, it is at least understandable that some people might assume that the Lord of the Rings was set in a pagan world, but Richards and Witt quote extensively from Tolkien’s personal writings, emphasizing Tolkien’s Catholicism and his reasons for excising religion from The Lord of the Rings. More ludicrous are authors cited in The Hobbit Party who content that Tolkien’s work exhibits nothing more than moral relativism, with no distinction between “good” and “evil.” After reading the comparative of analysis of Tolkien criticism, it seems like people writing about the messages in Tolkien tend to impose their own preferred worldviews and opinions upon the beloved author’s work, and though Richards and Witt make some compelling arguments, one can’t help but get the sense that The Hobbit Party may be suffering from a similar issue, where the critics see Tolkien as a reflection of their own mentalities.
It should be made absolutely clear that no one should read The Hobbit Party without reading The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the short tale “Leaf By Niggle,” all of which are summarized in the book. In any case, most of Richards and Witt’s work is impossible to appreciate if the reader is not familiar with the original source material.
Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising aspect of Richards and Witt’s critique of Tolkien– at least for Chesterton fans– is their blunt assertion that Tolkien’s depiction of the Shire was not meant to be an endorsement of the Distributism of Belloc and Chesterton, and indeed, Richards and Witt spend a great deal of time attacking Distributism for being– in their opinion– unrealistic, based upon a misrepresentation of history, and ultimately self-defeating. Dale Ahlquist himself is mentioned and singled out for criticism, particularly his belief that people with large families ought to receive higher wages than those who do not. This review is not going to enter the debate on the pros and cons of Distributism, but it would be interesting to see critics with a more thorough understanding of Chestertonian economics read and review Richards and Witt’s book and provide a counterpoint to the arguments promoted in The Hobbit Party.
This is a book with passionate feeling behind it, and it is also an extensively researched and well-organized argument. At the same time, there is something particularly discomforting about using Tolkien to spearhead a political movement when the author himself disliked literature being used as allegory and was annoyed by novels that promoted a ham-fisted agenda. The authors are clearly annoyed by the abuses of bureaucracy that they have experienced in their personal lives, and they seem to take a great deal of pleasure in using Tolkien’s narrative in bolster their own arguments.
The Hobbit Party has earned a place in the comparative criticism of Tolkien, but it is unlikely to be the final word on the politics and the economic worldview of the author.
This review was first published in Gilbert!