CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Technomancer wrote:But that was my point, I'd never had any trouble with it or the others, when I was little (i.e. eight years old or less).

Same here, I could read them perfectly fine, I loved all the books.

Technomancer wrote:But that was my point, I'd never had any trouble with it or the others, when I was little (i.e. eight years old or less).

I didn't read The Hobbit until I was in 8th grade, and I still loved it. I didn't find it too silly or too wordy. I actually found it much easier to read than The Lord of the Rings, which I read in full first. The Hobbit was actually a refreshingly light read, and I enjoyed it a lot.

Radical Dreamer wrote:I didn't read The Hobbit until I was in 8th grade, and I still loved it. I didn't find it too silly or too wordy. I actually found it much easier to read than The Lord of the Rings, which I read in full first. The Hobbit was actually a refreshingly light read, and I enjoyed it a lot.

Truth is, I can't remember when I actually first read the Hobbit. I'd read the Lord of the Rings in third grade though, so it was some time before that.

The Hobbit has some really good scenes and characters like Beorn.
Unfortunately we never do learn anything more about Beorn or his people or why they're able to shape shift.Too bad as Beorn and
Tom Bombadil are two of the most interesting characters in all four books put together.

*Twitching at the mention of Tom Bombadil*

Needless to say, I despised that chapter. Beorn also annoyed me because his race is never again mentioned in LOTR unless you count maybe Ratghast (sp?)? The inconsistencies between Hobbit and LOTR bugged me even though Tolkien tried to iron them out later.

Seeing as sparring against fans of any niche is pretty much useless, I'll just say that my main problem other than the wordyness was that the Hobbit had seemingly no point, message, or theme at all. Even as a kid, I hated pointless cliche fantasy (*cough cough* Don't make me bring up the Wind and Willows rip offs again *cough cough*). With the exception of LOTR, most all Tolkien's books fit into that group. And for something as lighthearted as The Hobbit, the wordyness didn't really fit.

So basically to redeem The Hobbit in my opinion, someone is going to have to tell me an important theme of some sort that merits trudging through 400+ grueling pages of boredom and groaning at the cliche dwarf sing-along. And sparking childhood imagination does not count, as virtually all literature can make that claim. I'd think the best you can come up with for The Hobbit is something like "believe in yourself" "little people can do big things" in which case... I'm off to go read That Hideous Strength for the 20th time...

USSRGirl wrote:Beorn also annoyed me because his race is never again mentioned in LOTR unless you count maybe Ratghast (sp?)?

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Middle-Earth is roughly parallel to most systems of mythology, so a guy that can turn into a bear is no big deal.

USSRGirl wrote:Seeing as sparring against fans of any niche is pretty much useless, I'll just say that my main problem other than the wordyness was that the Hobbit had seemingly no point, message, or theme at all.

Sorry, but after reading this I saw all the Advent Children fandom in your sig and I'm still recovering.

uc pseudonym wrote:Sorry, but after reading this I saw all the Advent Children fandom in your sig and I'm still recovering.

Quote of the year, right there.

XDDD

uc pseudonym wrote:Sorry, but after reading this I saw all the Advent Children fandom in your sig and I'm still recovering.

Hey UC, whenever you run into a few muggers that are after your wallet or something, let me know and I'll kick their butts for you.

Yes, you win that hard.

uc pseudonym wrote:Sorry, but after reading this I saw all the Advent Children fandom in your sig and I'm still recovering.

You win all the internets.

-___O And thus seals any chance at a logical rebuttal. For the record, I acknowledge AC's flaws (my sig is mainly there as a campaign war between me and Darkelf) and don't go "GAAAH! Heathen! How dare you crit such a divine work of animated mastery?! I shall tear out the eyes and ears of all who read this thread so they are not corrupted by your apostasy!"

Yeaaaah. I'm gonna... leave now.

Oh and MSP? GREAT TO SEE YA BUDDY!!!!!!!!!! I felt neglected since you didn't leave any nitpicking comments on any of my threads in awhile. ^___^ Glad to know we're still pals!

The Hobbit nowhere near as wordy as LotR and more like 250 pages than 400 pages. It's very cliche to begin with but after the treasure is retrieved the jealousy between the groups makes more some interesting dynamics and great story telling.
And Tom Bombadill may have been interesting but not a good interesting, more the type that makes you shake your head and say, 'what was Tolkien thinking?'

Okay I lied. *reappears to comment of W4J's post since it made an attempt to defend the book outside of rabid fandom*

You know never having plowed all the way through to the end, I'll give it that it may make some kind of point and add something to tensions between the dwarves and elves in LOTR. It just took way more pages than necessary to make that point and didn't hold my interest long enough for me to get to it.

Again I repeat that wordyness does not bother me so long as it's a story that merits wordyness. It's a bit weird to spend a whole long, flowy chapter describing a wizard throwing exploding pinecones at wargs (and my, Gandalf! How unreserved you used to be about magic use! That trick would've come in handy in LOTR).

XD I share your sentiments on Bombadill. Personally, I was glad to see him cut from the movie. He was like the Jar Jar of LOTR.

Uh... what?

For the record, I never really got into The Hobbit or the LOTR Trilogy in general. Not a major fan of them.

USSRGirl wrote:He was like the Jar Jar of LOTR.

Okay, for one thing, I've never understood what everybody has against Jar-Jar Binks in the first place. But even if I did think him the fatal blow to Star Wars Episode I, I wouldn't say Tom Bombadil and he are that similar. Jar-Jar Binks served a purpose to the story of Episode I (namely, comic relief, as well as helping Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan get to Theed, and later helping the Queen's plan for having the Gungans help in the diversion for the final battle), but frankly, I can see little purpose to Tom Bombadil's part in the story of LotR. Tolkien could have cut out the entire sequence without any harm to the story (which is why Peter Jackson and Co. cut him out of the movie). But could you cut Jar-Jar out of Episode I with impunity? I don't think so.

*feels like a jerk for pouncing on something so miniscule*

I'm coming into this thread late, and not really reading all the posts, but uhh... I really liked the Hobbit.

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:Uh... what?

For the record, I never really got into The Hobbit or the LOTR Trilogy in general. Not a major fan of them.

Oh I see! So your excuse for dropping a meaningless comment was that you thought this was a Hostess Cupcake thread! Got it!

Wolfs, my problem with Jar-Jar was that Lucas doesn't know if he wants his movies to be serious or kiddy. I mean, comic relief is fine, but Jar-Jar was like a toilet humor spouting muppet or something. Wow, you're actually the very first person I've ever heard defend Jar-Jar's crucialness to the films. I guess he did technically cast the vote that got Palpatine his seat of power in the second movie, which in of itself is pretty weird for such a silly character. Maybe Lucas is trying to make a political comment that in the end all big, monumental decisions are just made by one moron's vote? O.o;; It just felt odd to go from that to trying to be all serious again in the third movie.

USSRGirl wrote:-___O And thus seals any chance at a logical rebuttal.

No, please do. I said it in jest, but only because I felt it was a valid point. Being against the mainstream in a thread is discouraging, but it also doesn't exempt you from responding.

USSRGirl wrote:"GAAAH! Heathen! How dare you crit such a divine work of animated mastery?! I shall tear out the eyes and ears of all who read this thread so they are not corrupted by your apostasy!"

With all due respect, I find this offensive. After your original post, I don't think you can claim any kind of upper moral ground in this discussion. I would say that the responses have been relatively civil, for the most part.

Similarly, labeling every response to you as rabid fandom is unfair. For the record, I don't really like The Hobbit. Note that my previous response doesn't deny the truth of your main point (just its validity as a criticism) because I'm not so sure The Hobbit has any kind of redeeming message. For the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant that comment in a limited sense, but if you actually accuse everyone here of rabid fandom I'm going to have to suggest you are projecting.

Ok... I have a theory... I think J.R.R. Tolkien faked Lord of the Rings. He copied it from a hobo he met in an English tavern.

LOTR is one of my all time favorite books. However... I cannot bring myself to read any other books by Tolkien (certainly not like with Lewis). The Hobbit... I've tried so hard to read it and got all the way to the part with the forest elves before giving up. It is SO stupid and childish! Utterly pointless... the characters are so different from the serious peoples of Middle Earth. I don't know who he's writing for because it's way to flourishy, old English epic style high vocabulary and lengthy descriptions for a kid to read, yet far too stupid of a silly lephrauchan story for anyone over the age of four. I know there some who will disagree and trust me I've heard all the arguments before. The Silmarilian is extremely cliche and sickening. Roverandrom I just picked up to today and put it down after the first two pages. That thing has no business being in the adult section of the library. Smith of Wooten Major I actually read all the way through wincing in pain with each cliche, cutesy sentence.

The only other Tolkien book I absolutely adore is Farmer Giles of Ham. It was well written and witty on a more mature level. Chrysofylax (I know I probably spelled it wrong) Dives is so cute.

But HOW, HOW can the man who wrote such a long, deep, bloody warlike epic stoop to writing such utter trash?!!!!!!! I just don't get it.

Either... A.) Tolkien copied a hobo. B.) Chris Tolkien secretly wrote the stories he released after his daddy's death in an attempt to capitalize on Tolkien's reputation. C.) Tolkien is just a one hit wonder.

I was intentionally exagerrating. Mostly because of some earlier comments who seemed to take deep personal offense to my disliking of The Hobbit.

Point One:Tom Bombadil served as a protector of Frodo and the other
hobbits early on.Also it is shown that the Ring has no power over him
indicating that either,a)he is way older than the Evil that created the
Ring or b)his innocence is such that the Ring cannot touch him.I think if we combine the two reasons we can see why Tolkien introduces him at that stage of the game,although it would have been nicer to understand what Tom meant when he said he was 'Oldest'and What or Whom he
was.
Point Two:Beorn serve an important point in the Hobbit,again as protector of Bilbo and the Dwarves.Wheter he was a Shapeshifter or merely a Berserker who fought with the strength of a bear is not clear.
Although I think using the description given of him in the more metaphorical sense maybe more logical.

Point one: That was actually another thing that bugged me. If good ol' Tom is so uncorruptable - why not give him the freakin' ring?! Except that according to Gandalf he'd misplace it. O.o;; Then the aforementioned statement that Tom is some kind of pure innocent possibly angelic being is just... creepy... o.o;; What other powers is Tom harrassnessing that we never see?

Point two: Beorn's role didn't bother me so much as the contrast between rampant fantasy beings in Hobbit and the meticulously well-thought-out world in LOTR. I'm pretty sure it said he literally turned into a bear while Bilbo was sleeping. But then I jumped ship shortly after the Bilbo stuck in a barrel captured by rather uncivilized thing.

Well I think since the Hobbit was meant for younger readers Beorn's
transformations were probably taken in a more literal sense.My point about the Berserkers was that they DID believe they could transform into wild beasts like Beorn even though we know they really couldn't in
reality.

As far as Tom Bombadil goes,if he hadn't shown up when he did the
hobbits would have been toast.Remember at that point they were traveling without any protection.

USSRGirl wrote:Point one: That was actually another thing that bugged me. If good ol' Tom is so uncorruptable - why not give him the freakin' ring?! Except that according to Gandalf he'd misplace it. O.o]
This is suggested at the Council of Elrond. The response is that Sauron would conquer the rest of Middle Earth and then Bombadil would fall. As far as his identity, some of the supplementary materials make a pretty good case that he is indeed a Maiar that has "gone native." That would be consistent with the world generally presented by Tolkien.

mitsuki lover wrote:As far as Tom Bombadil goes,if he hadn't shown up when he did the
hobbits would have been toast.Remember at that point they were traveling without any protection.

Except that just about anything can help the protagonists, so it didn't have to be an element like Tom.

I just came across a website called something like The Thain's Book that is an encylopedia of everything and everyone in LOTR and TH.It states that no-one knows exactly WHAT or WHOM Tom Bombabdil is,although
come speculate he is either one of the Valar or a Maia like the Wizards.
Though from his own speech to the hobbits it appears that he came to
Middle Earth long before the Wizards were sent,so he is either a
very old Earth Elemental(his wife Goldyberry seems to be either something similiar to a Greek Naiad or Nymph or else a rather young
female water elemental)or a rather junior member of the Valar.
That he might indeed be a Valar in disguise probably would make most sense since he says he was there BEFORE either Elves,Men or Evil stepped foot on Middle Earth.

... my how the Valar have deteriorated in mental sanity ...

USSRGirl wrote:... my how the Valar have deteriorated in mental sanity ...

Sorry...had to laugh

I was going to actually say Vala,but then we would have all the
Claudia Black fanboys wondering what her character was doing in
LOTR!

I think this entire thread can be summed down into ONE sentence.

People have different tastes.

Okay let's just accept this reality and get on with our lives. I read cliche things every day. What;s wrong with that?

This thread was actually kind of dead.

And now, it's been gravedug'd.

What a shame.

It may have been grave dug but at least there wasn't any surprises in
LOTR like there was after the final Harry Potter came out:
*Koff Dumbledore's GAY!Koff*