Re:The Moral Economy of the Shire
by 082349872349872 on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @05:19AM
(#40572350)
In 1966 (less than 64 years ago), that wasn't just Tolkien's ideal society, judging by Cleese and the two Ronnies (or, for that matter, the 1960 Chatterley trial; was Rule 34 only un truc for Berliner/Parisian/Viennese Bohos back then?)
> I get a pain in the back of my neck. —RBC, CBE
> ...would you approve of your young sons, young daughters –because girls can read as well as boys– reading [Chatterley]? ... Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read? —JMGGJ, CBE MC
Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcCb3BFp85w
EDIT: it might be easier to understand why those last 4 were considered revolutionary by comparing their act to the Eurovision entries of the time, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=632aaGy8QGk&list=PL5EC4F7D0E...
Re:The Moral Economy of the Shire
by complaintdept on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @11:05AM
(#40575350)
IIRC the attorney arguing against Chatterley seemed grossly out of touch by mentioning servants reading it and it didn't help his case. LCL was a bit of an attack on the impotence of the upper class and the lawyer was oblivious to the context of his remarks.
Well the workers, farmers etc seem to largely be content with their lot in life just like the leisure class enjoy their life of leisure.
The Shire represent Tolkiens ideal society where everybody are happy with their lot and the lower classes take pride in serving and working for their masters.