[General] How to interpret "I should not have liked to have been..." in Hobbit?

[Jonathan_Lee6032]

I read The Hobbit recently. I got stuck on the following sentence, which is the first sentence of the 9th paragraph on the website.

"I should not have liked to have been in Mr. Baggins' place, all the same. "

More specifically, how would you interpret (1) should not have liked to have been... and (2) all the same?

Thanks!

 

[emsr2d2]

If I had been in Mr Baggins' place, I would not have liked it.
All the same = nonetheless

 

[Tdol]

Mr Baggins' situation was a difficult one that the speaker would not have liked to be in. Nonetheless/nevertheless fills the second slot in your question.

 

[5jj]

If I had been in Mr Baggins' place, I would not have liked it.

:up:

That's what most people today would say. In 1937, when The Hobbit was published, 'should' was widely considered to be the correct form for the first person in BrE. I might well use 'should' today, but I am long past my best-by date.

 

[probus]

I recall being taught at school to use should rather than would in the first person, but it was a last gasp of Empire. The influence of AmE was so great in Canada that everybody ignored the teachers' advice.

 

[Tdol]

I grew up in the UK in the sixties and they didn't bother harping on about that one. They were probably more concerned with keeping If I were going.