Get the feedIs Your Family a Group of Hobbits or a Group of Rangers?
Wednesday, Aug 11th 2010
Lord of the Rings begins in the bucolic, family-focused good earth of the Shire, where generations of hobbits live the fantasy world version of the “balanced life.” They till the earth. They lift a pint with good friends. They live in family homes (holes, really) passed from generation to generation. But the Shire can’t actually exist without another group of people — a group that Shire-folk look at with suspicion and mistrust: The rangers.
Rangers (like Aragorn) hang out at the borders of the Shire, visiting only occasionally, and spending their time keeping all the nasty things at bay. They battle the orcs and trolls continually, fighting to keep the Shire oh so very Shire-ish. And they do it without any real thanks because it’s the right thing to do and because they want the world to be the kind of place that is safe enough, prosperous enough, to contain a Shire.
I think I offended a group of very fine, upstanding law students.
One week ago, I was speaking to a group of students about life in the “big law firm,” and I told them that one of their responsibilities was to “work like a rabid dog.” (I don’t know if rabid dogs are particularly hard working, but I like the image of a snarling, foaming-at-the-mouth young lawyer restrained from attacking the next pile of documents only by the chain on his ankle). Then I told them that they should not be “that guy” or “that girl” who leaves their colleagues at a critical moment because their kid’s soccer game is just So. Darn. Important. “That guy” makes people like me miss OUR kids’ games to make up for their lost work. “You’re in a community,” I said, “A community made up of your fellow lawyers, paralegals, and the secretaries, and you have responsibilities to that community just as you do to your next-door neighbor, to your fellow church members, or to any other part of the world.”
I didn’t stop there. “Lawyers work hard. They just do. There’s no magic bullet for the balanced lifestyle — whatever a balanced lifestyle means — instead, make sure your spouse and children are on the same page with you, that you’re united in your family’s collective and individual callings, and that you support each other as you confront the financial world, or any other part of the world you engage.”
From the looks on their faces and from the reaction of some students afterward, you would have thought I had placed a pile of kittens in a blender and hit “puree” . . . right in front of them. The comments came flying in.
“Are you really saying that more time with your kids isn’t good?”
“Shouldn’t we all be ‘that guy,’ and isn’t it your fault that you’re willing to stay late?”
“Look, I’ll stay 10 or 15 minutes late to wrap things up, but I’m just not going to sacrifice my family by working late.” (I wished him good luck with that philosophy and told him I’d never hire him).
“My family is more important than anything, and I’m not going to work any more than eight or nine until five.” (I told this fellow that “Wal-Mart is hiring.”)
In fact, the comments haven’t stopped. I’m still getting blowback from the talk, a full week later. Someone said that I was “mean.”
And they’re right. I am mean. But that’s beside the point. I may be mean, but I’m right . . . I’m factually right, and — more importantly — I’m morally right. In at least one limited but vitally important sense.
Nothing world-changing has happened within the limited confines of the nine-to-five work week. Nobody can wake up in the morning and say, “I’m dedicating myself and my family to my fellow man, but only so long as I keep exactly the kind of balance that would make my therapist proud.” Eight hours per day can help make one happy (maybe), but is happiness the point? Do we even know in any given day, week, or month what will make us happy over the medium to long term? We think we do, but I know many, many people who get exactly what they want . . . and then find out it wasn’t as great as they thought it would be.
I don’t think so much of happiness as I think of purpose. My purpose. My wife’s purpose. My kids’ purpose. Our purpose. If I may geek out a bit, let me draw analogy from Lord of the Rings. If you recall (and you should), the story begins in the bucolic, family-focused good earth of the Shire, where generations of hobbits live the fantasy world version of the “balanced life.” They till the earth. They lift a pint with good friends. They live in family homes (holes, really) passed from generation to generation. But the Shire can’t actually exist without another group of people — a group that Shire-folk look at with suspicion and mistrust: The rangers. Rangers (like Aragorn) hang out at the borders of the Shire, visiting only occasionally, and spending their time keeping all the nasty things at bay. They battle the orcs and trolls continually, fighting to keep the Shire oh so very Shire-ish. And they do it without any real thanks because it’s the right thing to do and because they want the world to be the kind of place that is safe enough, prosperous enough, to contain a Shire.
To put things more clearly, I think every family has to ultimately ask itself: Are we rangers or hobbits? It really is a family decision, by the way. If a wife wants to live in Hobbiton and the husband heads out to the wild lands, resentment builds in both directions, children feel abandoned without higher purpose, and marriages dissolve in acrimony and bitterness. Stay in the shire until the parents are unified in heart and mind and willing to take on the wild.
Of course, the obvious analogy is the “Shire” of America defended by the rangers (like the literal Rangers in the United States Army) abroad by the terrorists and radicals who seek to kill us all. But our culture lives or dies, prospers or withers, on the basis of much more than force of arms. Liberty at home depends on the courage and perseverance of a small army of police officers, lawyers, and civil rights activists. Economic hope and prosperity depends on entrepreneurs willing to invest their life’s savings, their dreams, and all their energies into new businesses. Even the much-maligned financiers provide capital that makes virtually any economic project of any consequence possible. For every employee drawing sharp lines at 5:00 p.m. there’s a boss or owner who has sacrificed much to create such an idyllic job.
In the past three years, I have spent more than 500 days away from home. More than 300 of those occurred on my deployment to Iraq, but the first full year that I was home, I traveled more than 100 additional days on business. In my civilian life, I’m a free speech and religious liberties lawyer, and liberty is often under attack here at home. I travel too much, and I’m trying to cut back, but there’s also work to be done.
At the same time, however, I’m blessed to have a wife who loves and supports me through all (well, ninety-five percent) of my travel. I’m blessed to have children who understand that “Daddy’s gone” because there are some things that are more important than ourselves, some things are worth fighting for. And I think they might even be a little proud of me. In short, Nancy and I made a decision many years ago that we’d be a family of rangers . . . dedicated to defending the Shire.
As a ranger, I’m not much count. I was a very small cog in a very big machine in Iraq. I labor hard on my cases and try to achieve justice, but it’s a big world out there, and so far my efforts haven’t reached nearly as many people as the efforts of fellow SixSeeds contributors like Tom “Saving Hundreds of Thousands of Lives in Africa” Walsh or Nathan “Inspiring Millions With My Books” Whitaker. And our family’s sacrifice is simply insignificant compared to the ultimate sacrifice made by men I knew and loved in Iraq. We do what we can do, however, and we do it with a common purpose.
When I speak to students, I know that most of them are hobbits, either by choice or destiny. Their lives and purpose will be defined within the four walls of their house, and their thoughts will be dominated by hearth and home. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and there is a lot to love and admire about such a lifestyle. I want to live in a world that has room for a Shire, and I wish the Shire were larger, so more people could enjoy its bounty. But folks in the Shire need to understand that the life they live wasn’t created by their own virtue and that they are ultimately consumers of the liberty, prosperity, and security provided them at immense cost by the blood, sweat, and tears of others. So enjoy your kid’s soccer game and your five o’clock departure from work, but know that your liberty was bought with blood, your security is maintained with blood, and the degree of prosperity you have is largely created by the generations of risk-takers and hard workers that came before you as well as the boss or owner who works beside you.
As for my wife and me, we thank you for making the Shire such a nice and hospitable place to visit. But we can’t stay for long . . . there’s orcs on the borders.
Read more articles by this author:
Thank You, Simon Cowell, for Your Honesty
We Want to Be Better Than We Are
Graduates, It's Not About You After All
David French
David French is a Harvard educated lawyer, writer, and soldier. His next book, about his year spent in Iraq, comes out on July 4, 2011. Connect with him on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/DavidAustinFrench and follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/davidafrench.
Comments
by Ruth Malhotra #
"I need to save all these articles for one day in the distant future when I just might become a parent... lol.
;-)"
;-)"
by John Wunderli #
I agree with Matt's point about the false choice. The Ranger/Hobbit analogy is interesting (and definitely geeky), but it doesn't quite capture the complexities of family and work. There are times to fight battles and times to stay home. I agree with you that you can't fight battles on your own pre-determined 9-5 schedule, but that doesn't mean you have to be fighting battles all the time.
Also, I think you're too dismissive of the Shire. The Shire must have some independent virtue and purpose or it wouldn't be worth fighting to protect. You make it sound like the Shire is just some meaningless existance, ignorantly and blissfully leeching off the work of the Rangers. If the Rangers believed that, wouldn't they ultimately destroy the Shire instead of protecting it?
Clearly you recognize there are limits to how much time one can devote to fighting orcs versus being with your family; you said yourself that you travel "too much" and are trying to cut down. That recognizes some need for balance. So I'd advise young laywers that "balance" is important, but there's a fantasy version of "balance" and a more realistic version, and the realistic version is constrained by the reality of the profession they've chosen.
Also, I think you're too dismissive of the Shire. The Shire must have some independent virtue and purpose or it wouldn't be worth fighting to protect. You make it sound like the Shire is just some meaningless existance, ignorantly and blissfully leeching off the work of the Rangers. If the Rangers believed that, wouldn't they ultimately destroy the Shire instead of protecting it?
Clearly you recognize there are limits to how much time one can devote to fighting orcs versus being with your family; you said yourself that you travel "too much" and are trying to cut down. That recognizes some need for balance. So I'd advise young laywers that "balance" is important, but there's a fantasy version of "balance" and a more realistic version, and the realistic version is constrained by the reality of the profession they've chosen.
by Nancy French #
Sometimes, hobbits (like Frodo) can get the call to leave the shire and become an unwilling Ranger.
by Janelle #
As a mom who stays home with my kids and manages the house, it's challenging to figure out where I (and my family) fit in this LOTR analogy. I would say we tend toward the hobbit life, but much of the time we desire to spend with our kids is to shepherd their hearts and help them understand the world around them - both in and out of the shire. I really wouldn't want them learning (at least not at their young ages) about this from anyone else right now. And as an MSW who knows a portion of the world outside of the shire, I would say sometimes I'm a ranger for my kids and sometimes I'm "Rosie" making them pies and running around barefoot playing with them. I would argue that these are (if not equally important) important in different ways and for different reasons. Thanks for this thought provoking article!
by Curtis Chang #
David, you are the epitome of Rangerhood in my book, but I think this piece's use of young lawyers' willingness to work long hours is a muddled launch pad. I can't think of a species that is further removed from Ranger status than the typical lawyer in a big firm, regardless of how many hours they work. It seems to me the vast majority are there precisely because it was/is the next stop on the prescribed path to their own security and stability for Hobbits of a particular GPA. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it means that the ones that are willing to stay past 9pm are no more filled with "other-directed purpose" than the ones that checked out earlier. As for long hours reflecting commitment to their colleagues, how many of those hard working young associates will stay committed to the same firm their whole career - if they don't make partner?
It's not the fact you work long hours or are even willing to travel a lot (is the George Clooney character of Up in the Air really a "Ranger?") that makes you my hero, David. As you ended up saying, it's really your sense of calling, courage and heart. That and your long flowing mane billowing in the wind.
It's not the fact you work long hours or are even willing to travel a lot (is the George Clooney character of Up in the Air really a "Ranger?") that makes you my hero, David. As you ended up saying, it's really your sense of calling, courage and heart. That and your long flowing mane billowing in the wind.
by Jean Kingston #
Thanks for all the above comments! I think you're all right on! And as for Aragorn - he was a single guy when he helped save Middle Earth. It's way easier to make decisions about "Full Blown Rangerhood" if you don't have children to consider. When you do, compromises need to be made.
by David Beckner #
David, I think Curtis said it best. Especially the flowing mane part. To complete the picture, Old Glory and your cape need to be waving in the background.
There's another group. One which Frito didn't tell you about and that's the Rangbitts. As a rule, we go largely unnoticed and we like it that way. We pick up a pitchfork and come running at the drop of a soccer ball with a pint to spare. We've been there. Done that and are willing to do it again. We've got your back!
There's another group. One which Frito didn't tell you about and that's the Rangbitts. As a rule, we go largely unnoticed and we like it that way. We pick up a pitchfork and come running at the drop of a soccer ball with a pint to spare. We've been there. Done that and are willing to do it again. We've got your back!
by Tara #
Wow. That's an intense piece.
From among my intense reactions, let me share just one in response to your penultimate paragraph.
The exciting, purposeful and important lives of the Rangers weren't "created by their own virtue" either. So enjoy your important trips around the world, but know that your liberty to do so was bought with the hard work - and sometimes blood - of the teachers and soccer coaches and bus drivers who stayed home to teach your children.
Oh, wait a minute. That's not right either.
Our liberty - that of both the Hobbit and the Ranger - was bought with blood more precious than we can ever quite imagine.
This is from a mother who missed her baby's first school play without ambivalence so she could attend an important meeting at work.
Having raised children for six years, during which time I have made many different decisions about what I thought I was called to do, what I might have said to your young law students was: It is no better to make an idol out of your children or your spouse or your "free time" or some vague sense of balance than it is to make an idol out of work. Idols of all stripes destroy lives.
(Maybe that was more than one intense reaction.)
From among my intense reactions, let me share just one in response to your penultimate paragraph.
The exciting, purposeful and important lives of the Rangers weren't "created by their own virtue" either. So enjoy your important trips around the world, but know that your liberty to do so was bought with the hard work - and sometimes blood - of the teachers and soccer coaches and bus drivers who stayed home to teach your children.
Oh, wait a minute. That's not right either.
Our liberty - that of both the Hobbit and the Ranger - was bought with blood more precious than we can ever quite imagine.
This is from a mother who missed her baby's first school play without ambivalence so she could attend an important meeting at work.
Having raised children for six years, during which time I have made many different decisions about what I thought I was called to do, what I might have said to your young law students was: It is no better to make an idol out of your children or your spouse or your "free time" or some vague sense of balance than it is to make an idol out of work. Idols of all stripes destroy lives.
(Maybe that was more than one intense reaction.)
by Charles Mitchell #
David, what were you thinking when you told me only to work 9-5 when you were my boss? ;-)
by dr kill #
Hahahahaha, you lost me at 'lawyers work hard, they just do'. Get a real job.
by otghand #
David;
Thank you for your service to a cause greater than yourself.
I think in your LOTR analysis you are forgetting a key plot point - at the end it was two Hobbits, Frodo and Samwise, who saved the world, not the Rangers, because no one else could or would. Aragon and all the military might at his command had a supporting role - to buy them the time and passage to get the job done.
Should any employee with children be expected as a matter of course to place their interests second to that of the firm? Is that the message you want to give young lawyers - work like a dog to win another's approval in the hope of monetary reward so you can afford to buy your kid stuff to make up for the fact that you are not around because you are out working to buy them stuff?
I work for a living - to provide as happy and safe an existence as I can for my family, an existence I do want to share with them. I do not live to work.
One can do good work, all sorts of good work, including the law, without having to do it every waking minute and to the detriment of your family. Yes, there will be times when we are called to war, literally or figuratively (and thank you again for your service) in a greater cause, but if all there is is war, and nothing worthy of respect to defend, just what are we fighting for?
Thank you for your service to a cause greater than yourself.
I think in your LOTR analysis you are forgetting a key plot point - at the end it was two Hobbits, Frodo and Samwise, who saved the world, not the Rangers, because no one else could or would. Aragon and all the military might at his command had a supporting role - to buy them the time and passage to get the job done.
Should any employee with children be expected as a matter of course to place their interests second to that of the firm? Is that the message you want to give young lawyers - work like a dog to win another's approval in the hope of monetary reward so you can afford to buy your kid stuff to make up for the fact that you are not around because you are out working to buy them stuff?
I work for a living - to provide as happy and safe an existence as I can for my family, an existence I do want to share with them. I do not live to work.
One can do good work, all sorts of good work, including the law, without having to do it every waking minute and to the detriment of your family. Yes, there will be times when we are called to war, literally or figuratively (and thank you again for your service) in a greater cause, but if all there is is war, and nothing worthy of respect to defend, just what are we fighting for?
by Sarah Dunn #
I agree with Curtis. About the whole lawyer thing.
But also, this whole thing doesn't really work unless you have a wife willing to take on a very traditional role in the home. It doesn't seem like you can have two 'rangers' in one family with kids -- say, two lawyers willing to work til all hours, travel nonstop, skip all the soccer games -- unless you're willing for your kids to pay a pretty big price.
It's nice, I guess, to get to be a ranger, and to judge (just a little) the people in the Shire -- but a ranger needs a wife.
But also, this whole thing doesn't really work unless you have a wife willing to take on a very traditional role in the home. It doesn't seem like you can have two 'rangers' in one family with kids -- say, two lawyers willing to work til all hours, travel nonstop, skip all the soccer games -- unless you're willing for your kids to pay a pretty big price.
It's nice, I guess, to get to be a ranger, and to judge (just a little) the people in the Shire -- but a ranger needs a wife.
by Nancy French #
Sarah,
Your comment betrays the fact it's YOU who are assuming the tradition sex roles...
David's talking about having a Ranger family... This means that, for example, while he was in Iraq I stayed home from most work obligations. But that didn't stop me from starting work for SixSeeds, being the chair of my state's ballot initiative for Gov. Romney, and writing for a prominent political blog). All from home. While the kids were at school and while they slept at night.
All members of the family compromise for each other and for various causes. So, when I was writing my books and had to travel, David was Mr. Mom. Now that Camille made the volleyball team, we are canceling activities we otherwise would enjoy, staying home so she can make practices, games, and middle school events. When we adopted Naomi, on the other hand, we saved money, which meant all of us conserved. When we went to Africa, Camille and Austin had to get a LOT of immunizations they otherwise wouldn't have to get. Now, we have a toddler which sometimes cramps our style, but is amazingly gratifying in so many ways.
The idea behind the "ranger family" is that we all pay a price for the things that are worth it, and this is a process that ebbs and flows, depending on the season of life. All the members of the family are important, all sacrifice, and all bond in the shared sense of purpose... regardless of who's in the so-called traditional, or supporting roles...
Your comment betrays the fact it's YOU who are assuming the tradition sex roles...
David's talking about having a Ranger family... This means that, for example, while he was in Iraq I stayed home from most work obligations. But that didn't stop me from starting work for SixSeeds, being the chair of my state's ballot initiative for Gov. Romney, and writing for a prominent political blog). All from home. While the kids were at school and while they slept at night.
All members of the family compromise for each other and for various causes. So, when I was writing my books and had to travel, David was Mr. Mom. Now that Camille made the volleyball team, we are canceling activities we otherwise would enjoy, staying home so she can make practices, games, and middle school events. When we adopted Naomi, on the other hand, we saved money, which meant all of us conserved. When we went to Africa, Camille and Austin had to get a LOT of immunizations they otherwise wouldn't have to get. Now, we have a toddler which sometimes cramps our style, but is amazingly gratifying in so many ways.
The idea behind the "ranger family" is that we all pay a price for the things that are worth it, and this is a process that ebbs and flows, depending on the season of life. All the members of the family are important, all sacrifice, and all bond in the shared sense of purpose... regardless of who's in the so-called traditional, or supporting roles...
by Michael B. #
Wow. I think my life is being looked down upon.
by T-Bone #
The point is the need to be intentional, with this hobbit/ranger dichotomy one of many helpful contrasts to consider. We convince ourselves we can do it all, at the same time, which we can't, & we can end up not doing either well. Reminds me of Michael Scott's answer when asked if he'd rather be loved or feared: "That's easy. Both."
by MG #
Ranger/Hobbit can be a good contrast, but it needs careful thought to apply it well. If, to pick an obvious example, a mother gives up much of her career to do a particularly excellent job of raising and educating her children, she might actually be making more of a contribution to society than she would have done if she were, say, working as a lawyer. Looking at it the other way, if she works as a lawyer but neglects her kids and they end up as losers of one sort or another, perhaps on balance her efforts have had negative results. (The social costs of badly raised and educated children are high.)
So if "rangers" are the ones that support society, and "hobbits" are the freeloaders, then some rangers are in the home, and some hobbits are working in companies. The question isn't where you are, it's what you're doing. Sometimes, the home is where the real action is.
So if "rangers" are the ones that support society, and "hobbits" are the freeloaders, then some rangers are in the home, and some hobbits are working in companies. The question isn't where you are, it's what you're doing. Sometimes, the home is where the real action is.
by Michael Gorman #
Good distinction, but it needs to be applied carefully. Who are the real rangers, and who are the real hobbits? Presumably the rangers are the ones who contribute to society, while the hobbits are basically free-loaders. If that’s right, then sometimes people who put their best efforts into their jobs are hobbits disguised as rangers, and sometimes people who put their best efforts into family life are rangers disguised as hobbits. That’s because the things one does in one’s job are sometimes useless or even harmful, while raising and educating children well can be a huge benefit to society. If your kids turn out badly, then writing contracts, while quite possibly a good thing (depending on the contract!), doesn't go very far towards offsetting the harm.
Put differently: family types depend on the people at work, but if the families don't function well, there won't be any good workers.
[Sorry of this is a repeat post. I tried posting before but nothing happened.]
Put differently: family types depend on the people at work, but if the families don't function well, there won't be any good workers.
[Sorry of this is a repeat post. I tried posting before but nothing happened.]
by Assistant Village Idiot #
The comments provide the necessary corrective. I've spent a lot of my life working 9-5 so that I could both support a family and go out and do other useful things, such as church work and other volunteering. Which included, BTW, brief but non 9-5 mission trips to Romania, resulting in our adoption of orphans who really needed the predictable family life that our 9-5 jobs provided. Dig? You are making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here. And note, one of those Romanians is now headed to Afghan with the USMC this fall. So we get it, but you...don't, exactly. Children must also learn that it is important to sacrifice fun things for greater causes, and being deprived of their parents' time is one way they learn this. But you might review the stories of Missionary Kids for how good ideas can go bad this way. It might also look different when you have a family member who needs more constant care.
Is this the male version of the continuing debate in women's magazines of whether having kids is more important than a career?
Is this the male version of the continuing debate in women's magazines of whether having kids is more important than a career?
by David French #
Thanks for all the comments . . . there's some interesting stuff in there, and I may just need to write another offensive article to answer all the critics!
A few things. First, as I said at least a couple times in the post, the Shire is a good place, and we need more "Shires" in this world. So if you choose the Shire, then that's a good choice.
Second, my call is for families to be intentional about their choices and to make their choices for the best of reasons. It's simply a fact that the Shire absolutely depends on a cultural/military/economic defense -- it has to have it. It's simply a fact that the people who mount that defense, who create the companies, who preserve our fundamental liberties, and who maintain our physical security cannot confine that work to a slower-paced lifestyle. It's not possible.
So that means some families have to bite the bullet. My call is to be unified in that choice, to teach your kids its significance and meaning, and to pursue it in an intentional manner where you pull your family in as a participant, not as observers.
For us, that meant my kids were involved in Operation Send-a-Box that provided my unit in Iraq with literally thousands of care packages, Camille and Austin went with us to Ethiopia to adopt Naomi, Camille and Austin come with us when we organize political conferences and often when we do speeches. They see with their own eyes what we do, and they are growing up to appreciate its importance.
Look, there's no formula that guarantees family success. And we're still at the relative beginning of our family journey, but one thing I do know . . . there is an awful lot of empty and simplistic moralizing in our culture and from the pulpit regarding work/life balance -- moralizing that forgets that the very structures that enable a balanced lifestyle didn't just spring from the earth fully formed and don't sustain themselves without an immense amount of effort.
A few things. First, as I said at least a couple times in the post, the Shire is a good place, and we need more "Shires" in this world. So if you choose the Shire, then that's a good choice.
Second, my call is for families to be intentional about their choices and to make their choices for the best of reasons. It's simply a fact that the Shire absolutely depends on a cultural/military/economic defense -- it has to have it. It's simply a fact that the people who mount that defense, who create the companies, who preserve our fundamental liberties, and who maintain our physical security cannot confine that work to a slower-paced lifestyle. It's not possible.
So that means some families have to bite the bullet. My call is to be unified in that choice, to teach your kids its significance and meaning, and to pursue it in an intentional manner where you pull your family in as a participant, not as observers.
For us, that meant my kids were involved in Operation Send-a-Box that provided my unit in Iraq with literally thousands of care packages, Camille and Austin went with us to Ethiopia to adopt Naomi, Camille and Austin come with us when we organize political conferences and often when we do speeches. They see with their own eyes what we do, and they are growing up to appreciate its importance.
Look, there's no formula that guarantees family success. And we're still at the relative beginning of our family journey, but one thing I do know . . . there is an awful lot of empty and simplistic moralizing in our culture and from the pulpit regarding work/life balance -- moralizing that forgets that the very structures that enable a balanced lifestyle didn't just spring from the earth fully formed and don't sustain themselves without an immense amount of effort.
by Denise Dampierre #
Thanks for reminding us that life is not about happiness. I'm visiting the US and find that the "pursuit of happiness" is a burden...mostly because people (ex. parents) try take on the responsibility of assuring someone else's (their child's) happiness.
Happiness is a choice. Choice means a cost of some sorts: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Purpose in life enables each person to evaluate the value of the benefits and sacrifice related to each choice. The great thing is that you and I will ascribe differences in value. So, if my purpose will be family unity defined by family time, then there should be greater cost to being a ranger, and less sacrifice for putting professional advancement in 2nd place.
Yet, I sense that we modern people believe we should have our cake and be able to eat it too. When you REALLY think of it, it's pretty unappetizing!
Happiness is a choice. Choice means a cost of some sorts: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Purpose in life enables each person to evaluate the value of the benefits and sacrifice related to each choice. The great thing is that you and I will ascribe differences in value. So, if my purpose will be family unity defined by family time, then there should be greater cost to being a ranger, and less sacrifice for putting professional advancement in 2nd place.
Yet, I sense that we modern people believe we should have our cake and be able to eat it too. When you REALLY think of it, it's pretty unappetizing!
by Ethan #
Overall, there's some good points and solid reasoning here. But on the whole, I think this article is propaganda. It's designed to make rangers (and people who want to be rangers) feel heroic and hobbits feel inferior.
I hear a lot of language thrown out about the nobility of having a calling. And I don't dispute the idea that some people have a calling, and that often sacrifice is necessary to defend what is most important, and I have nothing but respect for the ability to make sacrifices in the name of some calling. But let's think about your original audience. A bunch of law students, asking what it's like to be in a big law firm. You are importing a military ethos (fair enough, you're a military man) to a professional career.
It's easy to get the importance of hobbits and rangers mixed up. The shire (and places like it) are the reason rangers even exist. Most people in this world are (and should be) hobbits. If they weren't fighting to defend some sort of shire, rangers would just be random brigands. Which is why those who like to think of themselves as rangers should always be regarded with some level of suspicion. If someone considers him/herself a ranger, then the next logical question is "in service of what?" And rangers all-too-often end up serving ends rather different from those they thought they were serving. One great way to exploit insecure people is invite them to be a ranger. Tell them a story where they can be a hero.
Some such people end up heroically trying to detonate their underpants on airplanes. What I'm saying is there's all kinds of rangers out there.
I'm also saying that hero stories are heady stuff and should be taken in moderation, and probably shouldn't be marketed to the young and impressionable.
Also, do I even need to point out that by the time Aragorn got married and had kids, he wasn't a ranger any more? If you don't have time to walk your dog, then don't get a dog, if you get my analogy.
The real world is not so easily divided into orc-infested hills and idyllic shirelands. The dangers that face us are quite different than what we often perceive them to be. Pigs kill more people every year than sharks. For every one American killed by terrorists on September 11th, more than 10 Americans took their own lives in that same year. Let that sink in for a minute. That's not even taking into account the Americans that killed each other, on purpose or accidentally.
What's a greater threat to America, guns and bombs, or the panoply of societal ills caused or enabled by negligent, clueless, disengaged or absentee parents? No amount of high explosives can destroy a marriage.
Did you know that in ancient Israel, newlyweds were typically excluded from military service (Deuteronomy 24:5-6)? Why is that? Because some things are more important than fighting orcs.
The imagery of knights in shining armor fighting off evil invaders isn't always appropriate. Perhaps it is if we're dealing with literal rangers fighting literal invaders. But what about the secretaries and teachers and mall cops and shop clerks and programmers and dishwashers and other hobbits that make up, oh, 95-99% of America? Perhaps we need to expand our palette of imagery a little bit.
I'm not saying that sacrifices are never worth it. And I understand that without risk, without entrepreneurial spirit, without the willingness to take risks and make sacrifices, America wouldn't be the place it is today. But I am saying that people very often have their values mixed up. Are we heroic rangers bravely leaving hearth and home in pursuit of some noble cause, or confused hobbits dressing up like rangers, jousting with windmills, giving 110% for the praise and recognition of people who don't really care about us and leaving the dregs for our families?
What problem do you think is more common? People over-committed to a noble cause? Or people imprisoned by their own desire for significance, pursuing utterly artificial goals, playing little games and earning points that are worth nothing, all the while neglecting the things that are most important?
There are many things that America needs. This brand of pseudo-macho ideology is not it.
I hear a lot of language thrown out about the nobility of having a calling. And I don't dispute the idea that some people have a calling, and that often sacrifice is necessary to defend what is most important, and I have nothing but respect for the ability to make sacrifices in the name of some calling. But let's think about your original audience. A bunch of law students, asking what it's like to be in a big law firm. You are importing a military ethos (fair enough, you're a military man) to a professional career.
It's easy to get the importance of hobbits and rangers mixed up. The shire (and places like it) are the reason rangers even exist. Most people in this world are (and should be) hobbits. If they weren't fighting to defend some sort of shire, rangers would just be random brigands. Which is why those who like to think of themselves as rangers should always be regarded with some level of suspicion. If someone considers him/herself a ranger, then the next logical question is "in service of what?" And rangers all-too-often end up serving ends rather different from those they thought they were serving. One great way to exploit insecure people is invite them to be a ranger. Tell them a story where they can be a hero.
Some such people end up heroically trying to detonate their underpants on airplanes. What I'm saying is there's all kinds of rangers out there.
I'm also saying that hero stories are heady stuff and should be taken in moderation, and probably shouldn't be marketed to the young and impressionable.
Also, do I even need to point out that by the time Aragorn got married and had kids, he wasn't a ranger any more? If you don't have time to walk your dog, then don't get a dog, if you get my analogy.
The real world is not so easily divided into orc-infested hills and idyllic shirelands. The dangers that face us are quite different than what we often perceive them to be. Pigs kill more people every year than sharks. For every one American killed by terrorists on September 11th, more than 10 Americans took their own lives in that same year. Let that sink in for a minute. That's not even taking into account the Americans that killed each other, on purpose or accidentally.
What's a greater threat to America, guns and bombs, or the panoply of societal ills caused or enabled by negligent, clueless, disengaged or absentee parents? No amount of high explosives can destroy a marriage.
Did you know that in ancient Israel, newlyweds were typically excluded from military service (Deuteronomy 24:5-6)? Why is that? Because some things are more important than fighting orcs.
The imagery of knights in shining armor fighting off evil invaders isn't always appropriate. Perhaps it is if we're dealing with literal rangers fighting literal invaders. But what about the secretaries and teachers and mall cops and shop clerks and programmers and dishwashers and other hobbits that make up, oh, 95-99% of America? Perhaps we need to expand our palette of imagery a little bit.
I'm not saying that sacrifices are never worth it. And I understand that without risk, without entrepreneurial spirit, without the willingness to take risks and make sacrifices, America wouldn't be the place it is today. But I am saying that people very often have their values mixed up. Are we heroic rangers bravely leaving hearth and home in pursuit of some noble cause, or confused hobbits dressing up like rangers, jousting with windmills, giving 110% for the praise and recognition of people who don't really care about us and leaving the dregs for our families?
What problem do you think is more common? People over-committed to a noble cause? Or people imprisoned by their own desire for significance, pursuing utterly artificial goals, playing little games and earning points that are worth nothing, all the while neglecting the things that are most important?
There are many things that America needs. This brand of pseudo-macho ideology is not it.
by david #
Thanks for the thought-provoking article. I want to be a ranger now. About the part where you said you don't think so much of happiness as you do about purpose. While I agree purpose is important, the end goal is still happiness. We have our purpose and fulfill our roles so that we can be happy in this life and return to live with God one day. To me the ultimate goal is to be happy, and happiness is found in living according to God's will (i.e. living righteously).
by videos divertidos #
Thanks for this post, I am considering talking about the same in my blog.
by Jason John #
Fascinating, and well balanced through the comments. I stumbled here during sermon writing, intrigued that Jesus both says that nobody can be his disciple unless they forsake all their possessions (and a lot of similarly confronting, "nowhere to lay your head," kind of missional stuff, and he also often accepts the hospitality of friends like Mary and Martha in their home. Some are called to "follow me," and others are healed and then sent off home even if they want to follow. Jesus the ranger seemed to also have a fondness for hobbits. Or was it just that by the time the gospels were written the ranger church had sold out and hobbitised?
Post Your Comment
Got something to say? Join the conversation by adding your comment below. Name, email and comment are required.
Lord of the Rings begins in the bucolic, family-focused good earth of the Shire, where generations of hobbits live the fantasy world version of the “balanced life.” They till the earth. They lift a pint with good friends. They live in family homes (holes, really) passed from generation to generation. But the Shire can’t actually exist without another group of people — a group that Shire-folk look at with suspicion and mistrust: The rangers.
Rangers (like Aragorn) hang out at the borders of the Shire, visiting only occasionally, and spending their time keeping all the nasty things at bay. They battle the orcs and trolls continually, fighting to keep the Shire oh so very Shire-ish. And they do it without any real thanks because it’s the right thing to do and because they want the world to be the kind of place that is safe enough, prosperous enough, to contain a Shire.
by Matt #