I HATE Tolkien... Yet Love LOTR

[Radical Dreamer]

Yeah, I mean, I remember Mr. Mole's wizard friend who helped him to defeat an evil rabbit to get a powerful ring that could turn him invisible and...

You know, it's pointless to talk about this. SO WHAT if Mr. Mole is exactly the same as Bilbo? That doesn't mean he stole the idea. Geez, you might as well say Kenshin is a ripoff of Jubei, or that your beloved Tron Bonne is a ripoff of Precis from Star Ocean! I mean, they're both young girls who are excellent with machinery and have robotic minions and have a guy they secretly like but are too ashamed to admit it...OH NOEZ, TRON BONNE IS A COPIED CHARACTER, THE HORROR!

Quoted for truth. And hey, looks like we can toss Lucca into that Tron Bonne/Precis mix, too. XD

Do you even know how Tolkien got the idea for writing The Hobbit? He was grading papers for a class he was teaching, and a student had left an essay page blank. Tolkien spontaneously wrote on that page, "In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit." After that, he decided he had to figure out what a Hobbit was, what kind of a hole it lived in, etc. It's not like he was plotting over several volumes of The Wind and the Willows, wondering how he could copy the ideas of its author.

And now, just because it seems like a good idea, I'm gonna quote the author of Ecclesiasties: There is nothing new under the sun.

[mitsuki lover]

Interesting enough Tolkien got many of the names for his characters from Norse and Anglo-Saxon myths using the Sagas as a source.Even more interesting is the fact that Frodo and Gandalf were both names of actual Norse rulers.Frodo was the son of Friedlief...

[USSRGirl]

Um... yes... I do know the story RD. I've read probably every Tolkien biography out there during my LOTR blitz. I was into this way before the movies... got original Toy Vault LOTR figures somewhere lurking in my closet.

Do you think it might not be completely farfetched that Tolkien inadvertantly remembered similar descriptions from Wind and Willows? I know C.S. Lewis loved the book. I mean... it has the exact name as Bilbo's house. It would be as if Jubei punctuated sentences with 'oro' rather than just sharing a common occupation. I'm just pointing out that I don't think he's as revolutionary/original as people think.

Yeah, he drew a lot from Anglo-Saxon myth. And while we're rattling off meaningless fanboy/girl trivia I might add that he owned a full suit of Anglo-Saxon battle armor complete with an axe and once chased his neighbor down the street in it. He also attended a party dressed as a polar bear... a rather bizzarre obssession of his later elaborated on in yet another cutesy Christmas letters book he wrote for kids staring the North Polar Bear. EE GADS!! Is the kind of twisted maniac you want to compete with C.S. Lewis?! (Again... I'm kidding... though the stories are real... don't kill me.)

[Nate]

Do you think it might not be completely farfetched that Tolkien inadvertantly remembered similar descriptions from Wind and Willows?

Oh, I don't think it's completely farfetched at all. Indeed, I admit this is quite probable. But there's a difference between being influenced by something and outright copying it.

Further, who's to say Tolkien even read the Wind in the Willows? Sometimes people come up with things that already exist and don't even know it. I'm sure a hundred people thought THEY invented the phrase "roadkill on the information superhighway." They didn't copy it from anyone. They hadn't heard it anywhere before. But the phrase did already exist. You can't say they were "copying" the phrase because they only came up with it through coincidence. Bilbo and Mr. Mole could be the same way.

I'm just pointing out that I don't think he's as revolutionary/original as people think.

Originality is one thing, but considering the sales figures of the books, the number of times they've been rereleased...I mean, even if he isn't original, I don't think the "revolutionary" part is disputable.

He also attended a party dressed as a polar bear...

*remembers Santa Claus Conquers the Martians* "Hey sis, check it out, it's a goofy guy dressed in a bear suit!"

[USSRGirl]

Lewis LOVED Wind&Willows. Mole End and Bag End are a bit too similar to ignore. I'm sure they discussed it at Inkling readings. And if I were going by number of sales and not quality of literature, I'd buy every cheap Harlequin romance novel out there with the other 30,000 bored middle-aged housewives.

P.S. I would never compare Tolkien to cheap romance novels. LOTR is awesome and profound, Farmer Giles ok, Hobbit not my taste. But still on a higher reading level than that. Just saying that sales do not always equal quality.

[Nate]

I didn't say sales equalled quality. :p What I'm saying is if something DOES make that much money, quality aside, it has some sort of impact. The fact that LOTR has been consistently rereleased in all its different forms means, quality or originality aside, that it IS a literary achievement and has had a profound impact on the world at large.

[Myoti]

Ya know, strangely enough, I think I enjoyed The Hobbit more as a story than the rest of LOTR. I'm not saying it was better than the latter, but I always found it more entertaining.

Of course, I also managed to figure out the entire dwarf rune system myself thanks to that. =p

>.>; Aren't you going to at least tell us that we're all mindless puppets in a creepy voice with a village smoldering behind you, UC?

I think I'm still waiting for the day that happens. XD

But perhaps we should replace "village" with "forums?" o.o

[USSRGirl]

Well, by that argument Nat, you wouldn't say cheap romance novels have profound 'impact.' They just sell.

Myoti, ROFLOL. I think it happens when UC bans someone perhaps...

[mitsuki lover]

There are a lot of other very popular fantasy series out there as well.Most notably
the Shannara series by Terry Brooks.

[Nate]

Or the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.

[USSRGirl]

Orrrr Neverending Story, Howl's Moving Castle, Once n' Future King ect.

*lets thread die now*

[uc pseudonym]

It should stop this tangent, at least.

Well, by that argument Nat, you wouldn't say cheap romance novels have profound 'impact.' They just sell.

I agree that profit certainly doesn't equal quality literature. However, I don't think that was quite Kaemmerite's argument (see the last sentence of post #36). The romance novel analogy breaks down slightly because no one novel sells that well. They are meaningless carbon copies that have no staying power. No one reprints trashy romance novels or makes movies out of them.

[mitsuki lover]

Although Barbara Cartland made a decent living off of writing Romance Novels.

[mitsuki lover]

The Silmarillion is probably Tolkien's worse work.He made it sound a bit too much scriptural in the beginning and then the body of it has overly long sagas about how the Elves were created and how Feonor created the Simarils,etc.mostly overly long and boring.

[uc pseudonym]

At the same time, it isn't a proper "work" and that should be taken into account. Much of it is collected notes and pieces of different things. He might have intended to rewrite much of what seems like dry history as a normal novel if he had the time.

[mitsuki lover]

True,so a lot of the trouble could be that it was rushed into publication after his death.The story of Luthien and Beren isn't bad if it were a separate novel.

[craner]

hmmm, the hobbit is way better than lotr in my books

[Technomancer]

Oh... one more thing I gotta add that I just recently found out. My friend is reading the original Wind and the Willows and reports that Tolkien royally ripped it off for the hobbit. Apparently, Mr. Mole (I think he said it was the mole...) is identical to Bilbo Baggins. 1.) He's a comfortable little critter who hates adventures 2.) He eats multiple meals a day.

Not really so much as you think. Both characters would have represented a fairly stereotypical English village gentleman, perhaps a sort of person that both authors would have been familiar with.

4.) The hole is called MOLE-END! (Ahem... Bag End... ring any be bells?)

A not uncommon naming convention either.

[mitsuki lover]

You find that a lot of families distinguish different branches by where the main line of the branch lived.For example my Dowdall ancestors were known as Dowdall of
Mounttown because that was the where in co.Westmeath the main line of that branch lived.

[The Doctor]

I don't think it's cause Tolkien is a one hit wonder.

Remember, the Silmarrion is one of the many books his son put together after J.R.R. died. Tolkien wrote so many notes and pages on Middle Earth, but only fully developed a few (LOTR and Hobbit), but after he died, Christopher Tolkien found the enormous stash and began cobbling them all together into book releases for the Middle Earth fans.

Also, after studying his life, I think that the First World War is what fueled LOTR and was the driving force behind it, since he wrote it in the trenches. That may be why some of his future writings suffered cause the fire went a tad dormant because the wood fueling it was no longer there. I dunno, I'm grasping for straws I think.

[mitsuki lover]

A lot of writers came out of WWI.Besides Tolkien there was Lewis and of course
Hemingway.

[greyscale42]

[quote="USSRGirl"]]

It was originally written as a story to keep his kids entertained and wasn't really made to be released to the general public. However, it did get released because of the attention it got. It was completely different from LOTR. For one thing it was written more like an actual book rather than the stripped down history text book style writing of LOTR (which I loved but you have to admit the writing was a little dry and dull.) LOTR was the sequel and was only made because of all the people begging for a sequal to The Hobbit. So in essence LOTR would not exist without The Hobbit.

[Kkun]

It was a children's book.

Indeed it was, and that characteristic is what I believe it owes its brilliance to. The way Tolkien wrote The Hobbit feels as though your kindly grandfather is telling you folk tales by a warm fire while drinking hot cocoa, or something equally fanciful. The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, almost reminds me of the poetry of the ancient world, like the Illiad or the Aeneid, but written in prose. The Lord of the Rings has a very mythological feel to it, whereas the Hobbit really does read the way it is: a story to arouse and excite the imagination of children.

I adore the Hobbit. I think if you try to read it expecting some kind of heavy struggle between good and evil with layers of moral insight or some kind of high fantasy story, you will be terribly disappointed. What it is is a simple story of a simple character who goes on a grand adventure. It is nothing more, and nothing less, but that certainly is not detrimental to its literary merit, or the fact that it happens to be one heck of a good story.

[Technomancer]

LOTR was the sequel and was only made because of all the people begging for a sequal to The Hobbit. So in essence LOTR would not exist without The Hobbit.

This is true, although I'd have a hard time calling it a sequel per se, as one was a children's book and the other was not. Aside from the writing differences, it has also been pointed out that that there are important differences in how certain people and events are portrayed. In that sense, I wouldn't call LOTR a sequel since that would imply a level of continuity that does not quite exist.

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 really do have to disagree here. I loved the book as a child, and never had any trouble reading it (on the other hand given that Macbeth and Beowulf were bedtime stories in my family, my childhood may have been different than yours).

[Ashley]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, you are not alone. I have never been able to slough through Tolkien's works.

[USSRGirl]

O.o;; A hundred-year-old thread gravedug by... ASHLEY?!!!! Whoa! Doesn't that fall under the category of a CAA pharisee? If it were not for your agreement on Tolkien's mundane writing I would be shocked and horrorified. (EDIT: Ah ha! Greyscale was the criminal mind behind this act and tried to frame poor Ashley! Forgive my unjust accusations, Chairwoman of CAA).

Technomancer, for the record (as Darkelfgirl and a few others well know) I've loved Beowulf since I was thirteen years old. Macbeth, sadly I read somewhat recently, though I love Shakespeare. The difference with these vs. the Hobbit was that both were justifiably wordy as they were written to older audiences. The Hobbit was had a vocabulary that no kid could understand, yet made me feel as though anyone over five should be embarassed to be reading it. Also, the overall pointlessness bugged me and made it feel like cheap fantasy (unlikey hero, go kill dragon - can we get any more cliche?!)

[Technomancer]

The Hobbit was had a vocabulary that no kid could understand,

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).

[the_wolfs_howl]

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.

*sneaks in to post on really old thread*

I found myself almost offended by the statement above. My dad read The Hobbit to me when I was six, "over the age of four", and I loved it. I didn't want him to stop reading it. The Hobbit was, I think, the spark that lit the fire of fantasy within me, though it was Lord of the Rings that fanned the flames.

[mitsuki lover]

The confusing part is if you try to figure out how all the hobbits are related to each other.I mean the only non-relative of Frodo and Bilbo in the entire trilogy is Sam.

[Kkun]

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'd have to agree with you. I first read The Hobbit when I was six or seven years old, and I was able to comprehend it just fine. How else are kids going to learn new words if they don't read? Coming across difficult words when I was a child never fazed me, because it was a chance to learn something new.

I think kids understand a lot more than we give them credit for.