Like Ulysses, Bilbo is presumed dead, but instead of having to battle the suitors of his un-widowed wife (for Bilbo has no wife nor son to aid him), Bilbo must battle the aptly named Sackville-Bagginses who have "sacked" the "ville" (city, living place). And of course, they are on the respectable side (Baggins) as opposed to Took. We get a bit of social commentary here, which is not so surprising because the Hobbits really are so very British. Tolkien infuses the fantasy/mythology genre with legalism that can take the place of bloodshed, and in addition to remaining with the bounds of the law, there is a certain grace, sacrifice and desire for peace that dominates Bilbo's behavior. On the negative side, this novel has successfully portrayed good and evil without resorting to legal standards and here, as law is introduced, it is a corrupted thing. While Bilbo is a pariah because he does not cater to foolish prejudices (and what is a Hobbit anyway‹that they might look down upon other fictitious and weird-looking creatures), the mention of his similarly inclined Tookish nephew foreshadows Frodo Baggins of the LOTR trilogy. On a final note, it is very ironic that The Hobbit ends with a discussion debating prophecy, fate and free-will‹without the One Ring ever being mentioned!.