Marxism and Greed

Several times in our class discussions we have debated whether or not a fantasy text should be read suspiciously or not. Should we allow fantasy to move and sway us without question? Can the aesthetic value of the story be lost when the reader attempts to read against it? As I've been reading The Hobbit this time, I have spent much time struggling with the question. But another idea has recently collided with this one -- what place does a Marxist reading have in The Hobbit? In attempting to make sense of this question, I hope to also make some sense of the hermeneutics of suspicion/aesthetic value question. 

One main and recurring theme in this novel is greed. It's what drives several of the central characters -- Gollum, Thorin, Smaug, and perhaps even Bilbo. In some ways, I think it might be argued that these characters all function as foil characters to one another. Gollum, who is possessed to the point of insanity by his lust and greed for his precious, the One Ring. He is not rich, but possesses one thing of great wealth and power. In the end, he loses the only thing that was his.

Thorin Oakenshield, a supposed "hero" of the story, is also driven by greed by the end of the story. All dwarves desire treasure, as our narrator tells us. But Thorin seemingly takes this desire too far. "Now the days passed slowly and wearily" our narrator tells us. "Many of the dwarves spent their time piling and ordering the treasure; and now Thorin spoke of the Arkenstone of Thrain, and bade them eagerly to look for it in every corner. 'For the Arkenstone of my father,' he said, 'is worth more than a river of gold in itself, and to me it is beyond price. That stone of all the treasure I name unto myself and I will be avenged on anyone who finds it and withholds it'" (Tolkien 326). Thorin becomes rapidly obsessed with the dragon horde, but eventually disowns Bilbo for withholding that most prized possession from him. In the end, Thorin loses both the Arkenstone and his life. 

Perhaps the clearest picture of greed in The Hobbit is Smaug the dragon. Smaug guards his treasure with the fiercest of jealousy. In fact, he loses his temper and destroys Laketown when one single piece of his horde goes missing. The reader cannot help but wonder, "You have so much already! Can you not let one single piece go?" No. Smaug seems to be the epitome of greed. And in the end, he loses his entire horde and his life. 

But by far, the most interesting and complex examples of greed in the book is Bilbo Baggins. He, the hired burglar, steals the objects that these characters desire the most. He steals the Ring from Gollum, the Arkenstone from Thorin, and the cup from Smaug. He takes these things out a desire for them and nothing else. Although Bilbo is the protagonist, he is driven by the same greed that his foil characters are. But in the end, he surrenders two of the three objects and keeps his life. 

Wait. What? Something is clearly going on here -- something that I could not see the first five times I read the novel. The greedy are undone and in the end destroyed. The one that recognizes his flaw, however, can be saved if he gives away the objects he desires. This seems to be a Marxist interpretation of this text. Here is where the argument comes to a head: should a Marxist reading be superimposed on the text? After all, Tolkien was not a Marxist. 

The content of the story is there -- it must speak for itself. And regardless of the author's social standing, the text can be and indeed should be critically analyzed. Without practicing the hermeneutics of suspicion, I never could have found this understanding of greed in the novel. Indeed, I might argue that a text may be found enjoyable on an entirely new level if the reader is only willing to practice an offensive reading of the text!