08-23-2003, 04:30 PM | #1 |
My microwave speaks to me
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Having conversations with my major household appliances.
Posts: 937
|
Better or Worse?
Sometimes I think the Hobbit is better than LOTR but then sometimes I also think that LOTR is better than the Hobbit. Is it just me or does it seem like Tolkien takes a more personal feel to the Hobbit? Your thoughts?
__________________
Bah, Bah black sheep have oyu any wool? Yes sir, yes sir. Three bags full! One for the master, one for the dame, one for the little boy who lives down the lane! Bah, bah black sheep have you any wool? Yes sir, yes sir. Three bags full. I'll be gone for a while. But never fear! "I shall return anon!" |
08-24-2003, 06:30 PM | #2 |
"The Bomb"
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: all over the place
Posts: 1,601
|
Definately not. THe Hobbit was a simple children's book. He wouldn't put in much secret or deeper meaning because they probably wouldn't understand. LotR, he poured his self into it. All of his anti-technology/machinery beliefs, his morals, and his ideas about the world, his thoughts on society, even some of his most personal memories (Tom Bombadil).
Obviosly, I can't elaborate in one post, or day. But I definately think LotR is both better and more personal.
__________________
Could it be that one path to enlightenment leads through insanity? |
08-25-2003, 01:59 PM | #3 | |
The Fleet-Footed
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 913
|
Quote:
__________________
Jesus saved me "To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child" (Cicero, 106-43 B.C.) "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth" (Picasso) |
|
08-30-2003, 05:33 PM | #4 |
Lady of Westernesse
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada (Help! Our parliament building is melting!)
Posts: 761
|
I agree entirely with Bombadillo. Tolkien poured a bit of himself into The Lord of the Rings (sort of like Sauron and the One Ring, huh? ) His love of nature and dislike of machinery was showed through the Ents destroying Isengard. Tolkien put his morals, beliefs, and experiences into The Lord of the Rings.
The Hobbit was targeted towards children, and so Tolkien couldn't make it go too deep or put in things that little kids wouldn't understand. So in my opinion, The Lord of the Rings is more personal and better than The Hobbit (don't get me wrong, though; I love The Hobbit).
__________________
Yada, yada, yada |
09-27-2003, 02:18 PM | #5 | |
Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
|
|
09-27-2003, 04:44 PM | #6 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
I reckon that The Hobbit is better in many ways, and is less susceptible to the sorts of criticisms levelled at LOTR (pompous, flat characterisation, apart from those based on gender or ethnicity, etc).
But it ain't got me in it, so it be no good to man nor beast. |
10-03-2003, 03:22 PM | #7 |
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
Yeah, the hobbit was meant to be for the younger audience. lotr had "heart'
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
10-08-2003, 07:52 PM | #8 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,215
|
The Hobbit is an excellent introduction to the world of middle earth for a middle/upper elementary school audience. When I taught fourth grade I read it aloud to a class (the way Tolkien wrote and then read it to his children). By luck, more than anything else, I picked a boy to be Bilbo who was perfect for the role. Since I was the teacher (and bought nine or ten paperbacks for the class to share) I got to be the narrator and Gandalf. And three guys in the class got to be bad guys and got killed several times over, (as the trolls, spiders, and orcs). It's a pity there aren't roles for women in The Hobbit, but girls in the class liked reading parts for dwarves, elves, etc.
|
10-20-2003, 10:57 PM | #9 |
Fowl Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 53,420
|
The Hobbit, to me, is clearly what J.R.R. Tolkien was aiming for in the first eight chapters of The Lord of the Rings, before the latter unveiled itself to be a much bigger and more ambitious project.
Mind you, I find that the sense of high adventure in The Hobbit - and the elements thereof that are present in The Lord of the Rings - appeal to me a lot more than the kind of thing Tolkien writes in, say, Appendix A of LOTR or The Silmarillion. I find that Tolkien writes country bumpkins better than he does kings and queens, princes and princesses, lords and ladies. One of the reasons why LOTR works so well, I think, is that Tolkien doesn't get too consumed by the grand epic world that he's created. He roots himself firmly to what he's best at: writing the story according to the hobbits. So no, I don't think it's better than LOTR by any means, but it's certainly underappreciated due to its status as a "children's book".
__________________
All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien |
10-21-2003, 03:44 PM | #10 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 15
|
I know that Tolkien spent the most amount of time on the Simarillion, starting it first and working on it all through his life. I think that he does a good job of telling stories through many perspectives, because it is not just the hobbits perspective that is mentioned, but also many others. I think LotR is telling the story of the ring, not just Hobbits, though he focuses on them a lot. I think Tolkien liked his different works for different reasons, because all of them are different, and all have a different perspective. I don't think he would have said that one is better than the other. I like both the Hobbit and LotR, and I think to have one without the other would not have worked as well.
__________________
Ainaromel: "Holy" + ""Sunrise" + "Star" "Holy Morning Star" Jesus Christ my Savior |
10-22-2003, 01:48 PM | #11 |
The Lovely Hobbit-Lass
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bounded in a nut-shell
Posts: 1,593
|
I believe I read once (I think it was in 'The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien') that when Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit', he didn't realize it was part of what he created with the Sil. It was just another book to him, like Farmer Giles of Ham. Then because it was such a success, his publishers asked him to write a sequel. He started out writing a children's book, but since the obvious link between the two books would be the Ring, he ended up making a darker book, fit for an older audience (which the children who loved The Hobbit were by the time LOTR was published). On top of that, he fit it into his Silmarillion (spl? [boy that's a doozie]), and all of a sudden it was part of a bigger whole.
In my opinion, neither book is 'better' than the other. I personally would rather read LOTR because of its depth, which is merely because I am old enough to appreciate it. A person younger than me would certainly want to start with 'The Hobbit' (especially since that book makes no confusing references to people and places which do not really exist and play no relevant part in the plot, such as "the cats of Queen Bethruiel (spl?)").
__________________
It's New Years Day, just like the day before; Same old skies of grey, same empty bottles on the floor. Another year's gone by, and I was thinking once again, How can I take this losing hand and somehow win? Just give me One Good Year To get my feet back on the ground. I've been chasing grace; Grace ain't so easily found One bad hand can devil a man, chase him and carry him down. I've got to get out of here, just give me One Good Year! |
10-25-2003, 04:28 PM | #12 |
Enting
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: I'm not telling
Posts: 56
|
I think Tolkein put more heart into lotr because of the way its written. The hobbit is a lot shorter than lotr. I don't think tolkein would write a heartless book that is...really long. So the hobbit was just a small book, and intro to lotr. Not a book that tolkein will be famous for. He's famous for lotr.[FONT=arial][list]
[COLOR=blue]
__________________
Sorry for not posting in such a long time. Long story short i forgot my password. |
10-30-2003, 02:48 AM | #13 | |
Sapling
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13
|
Re: Better or Worse?
Quote:
One as has been mentioned, is a childrens book, albeit a good one (sorry IR). LOTR is a HISTORY! A novel meant to be the preface to the SIL and the History of Middle earth
__________________
Tra la la la la Last edited by hawaiidevil : 10-30-2003 at 02:50 AM. |
|
11-22-2003, 11:08 PM | #14 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: DC or Delaware, depending on the time of year
Posts: 244
|
hmm... tough. i prefer LOTR to The Hobbit, but that's just my opinion. The Hobbit seems to take so long to get into the story, i put it down about 20 pages in and didn't get back to it for about 6 months. LOTR seemed to get right into it. they're both amazing works of literature - and far more than i could ever hope to achieve to write - but i think LOTR is better.
__________________
Oh, your collegiate grief has left you dowdy in sweatshirts, absolute horror! |
11-25-2003, 11:42 PM | #15 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 103
|
I enjoyed both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I prefer LOTR more.
As a little kid, The Hobbit grabbed me with Bilbo who stumbled into this rollicking adventure. The book was up and down like a roller coaster. It was rip-roaring fun, like a theme park. LOTR just sucked me into it's universe. It had adventure, yes. But, there is just so much more to it. That first time I read it, I felt there was so much going on that I wanted to know about. I like both books for different reasons. LOTR stands out more to me than The Hobbit does. |
11-26-2003, 12:54 AM | #16 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 195
|
The Hobbit was the first book I read "on my own" as a kid, so it will always be a bit more special to me than LOTR. However, LOTR is much more fulfilling emotionally and thematically. They're both so different though, and I don't see one as better than the other.
__________________
A citizen runs to the fire department yelling that he's spotted a roaring blaze from his car. "WHERE IS IT?" the fire department asks, pen ready. "It rises like some brooding , glaring trail of cosmic fury from- " "WHERE? WHERE?" "Oh. Well, it blazes up from a crimson-sheathed visage brooding darkly above the haunted towers of impotent indignity which, like melons hovering unhappily over lifetimes of empty meaning which-" "THE ADDRESS!" "Oh. Oh, I didn't notice. But look for a brooding, glaring trail of cosmic fury rising from a crimson-sheathed visage-" They lead him back to his car, and send him on. -- Philip K. Dick "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Diderot |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bmilder to sell Entmoot.com | Nurvingiel | Entmoot Archive | 96 | 04-03-2006 10:16 PM |
Worse ways it could of happened... | me9996 | Lord of the Rings Movies | 45 | 01-29-2006 11:04 PM |
Hurricane Rita - worse than Katrina? | HOBBIT | General Messages | 10 | 09-24-2005 02:57 AM |
The movies could have been worse (esp. Eowyn) | Tuor of Gondolin | Lord of the Rings Movies | 5 | 12-21-2003 10:47 AM |
Worse than bumpin' Glorfindel and adding Arwen.... | Evenstar | Lord of the Rings Movies | 36 | 03-18-2002 01:22 PM |