Posted on 03/14/2002 5:07:26 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
This is a continuation of the infamous thread New Zealander Builds Hobbit Hole originally posted on January 26, 2001 by John Farson, who at the time undoubtedly thought he had found a rather obscure article that would elicit a few replies and die out. Without knowing it, he became the founder of the Hobbit Hole. For reasons incomprehensible to some, the thread grew to over 4100 replies. It became the place for hobbits and friends of hobbits to chit chat and share LoTR news and views, hang out, and talk amongst ourselves in the comfort of familiar surroundings.
In keeping with the new posting guidelines, the thread idea is continuing here, as will the Green Dragon Inn, our more structured spin-off thread, as soon as we figure out how to move all the good discussion that has been had there. As for the Hobbit Hole, we will just start fresh, bringing only a few mathoms such as the picture above with us to make it feel like home, and perhaps a walk down memory lane:
Our discussion has been light:
It very well may be that a thread named "New Zealander builds Hobbit hole" will end up being the longest Tolkien thread of them all, with some of the best heartfelt content... Sorry John, but I would have rather it had been one with a more distinguished title!… post 252 - HairOfTheDog
However, I can still celebrate, with quiet dignity, the fact that what started as a laugh about some wacko in New Zealand has mutated and grown into a multifaceted discussion of the art, literature, and philosophy that is Tolkien. And now that I've managed to write the most pompous sentence of my entire life, I agree, Rosie… post 506 - JenB
Hah! I was number 1000!! (Elvish victory dance... wait, no; that would be too flitty) … post 1001 - BibChr
Real men don't have to be afraid of being flitty! Go for it. – post 1011 – HairOfTheDog
Seventeen years to research one mystical object seems a bit excessive… post 1007 - JenB
Okay...who's the wise guy who didn't renew Gandalf's research grant?… post 1024 – Overtaxed
To the very philosophical:
…Judas Iscariot obviously was a good man, or he wouldn't have been chosen to be one of the Apostles. He loved Jesus, like all of the Apostles, but he betrayed him. Yet without his betrayal, the Passion and Crucifixion would never have occurred, and mankind would not have been redeemed. So without his self-destruction infinite good would not have been accomplished. I certainly do not mean this to be irreverant but it seems to me that this describes the character of Gollum, in the scenes so movingly portrayed above… Lucius Cornelius Sulla
To fun but heartfelt debates about the integrity and worth of some of the characters…
…Anyone else notice how Boromir treats the hobbits? He's very fond of them but he seems to think of them as children - ruffling Frodo's hair, calls them all 'little ones'. He likes them, but I don't think he really respects them… post 1536 - JenB
Yes... Tolkien told us not to trust Boromir right off the bat when he began to laugh at Bilbo, until he realized that the Council obviously held this hobbit in high esteem. What a pompous dolt… post 1538 - HairOfTheDog
…I think almost every fault of his can be traced directly back to his blindness to anything spiritual or unseen. He considers the halflings as children, because that is what they look like. He considers the only hope of the ring to be in taking it and using it for a victory in the physical realm. He cannot see what the hobbits are truly made of, he cannot see the unseen hope of what the destruction of the ring might mean--the destruction of Sauron himself, and he cannot see the unseen danger that lies in the use of the ring itself… I just feel sorry for Boromir--he is like a blind but honorable man, trying to take the right path on the road but missing the right path entirely because he simply cannot see it… post 1548 - Penny1
Boromir isn't a jerk, he's a jock… post 2401 – Overtaxed
-----------------------------------------
Oh, I think by the time Frodo reaches the Cracks, he's not even himself anymore! I think he's not only on the brink of a dangerous place physically, he's on the brink of losing himself completely during the exchange with Gollum. But for some reason, the take-over isn't complete till he actually has to throw the Ring in. The person speaking to Gollum is not Frodo, but the "Wheel of Fire" that Sam sees. After the Ring is destroyed, Frodo not only comes back to himself, but comes back with the unbearable (to him) knowledge of what it's like to be completely without compassion. I think that's why it's so important to him to be compassionate in the Shire… post 2506 - 2Jedismom
…Regarding Frodo's compassion... it's a little too much at the end. Even Merry tells him that he's going to have to quit being so darn nice. But you're right. He's learned a lesson about evil that very few ever learn since it wasn't an external lesson but an internal one. (Those kinds of lessons have the greatest impact) Not only did he totally succumb to it, but he was rather ruthless to my little Smeagol… post 2516 - carton253
Well that Frodo was a big mean bully! (to Smeagol)… post 2519 – Overtaxed
So as you can see, everything JRR Tolkien (and Peter Jackson) is welcome here in our New Row, our soon-to-be familiar New Hobbit Hole…; philosophy, opinion, good talk and frequent silliness.
No, she's talking about the Buffalo wings that I just finished coating with Buffalo wing sauce and am now enjoying dipped in bleu cheese dressing!
...and they don't laugh as much if at all, and they're snooty.
You can start worrying when I embed wav files of my whistle-playing in my posts.
I was just wondering why no one seemed to understand my argument that the Elves refusing to change when change was the design of God was a "fallen" characteristic. (from the quote I posted yesterday...Letter 181.)
Which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes not.
Seems like Tolkien was describing unwillingness to change as a character trait, and a weakness or a flaw in elves, but are weaknesses and flaws the same thing as sin? - if you have a flaw are you then "fallen?" - in what way are they being asked to change? - and which ones aren't changing and hences "fallen"? - all of them?
I admit to quite a bit of fatigue tonight so maybe you will have to talk slowly. What exactly is the point?
Does that make any sense? Penny, should we ask your elder for an opinion?
Looking at the examples of the leadership of men at the time Elrond made that statement what is there to disagree with? Theodin and Denethor are both sitting on their fanny's waiting for the end. Saruman and Sauron have both under their thumbs. Without the Hobbits to help Aragorn tip the balance where would men be?
The quote seems like a fairly benign conversation, and I am having a hard time connecting it to anything. I can't tell what the question was, so it is like reading the replies without reading the ariticle.
I think technically, even if one doesn't "act," on something, just thinking about something in a wrong way is sin as well. That's why the coveting example is such a zinger--even if you don't steal something from someone, if you wish you had something that belongs to someone else, you sin.
With the short-temper example, if you have a short temper but don't act on it, that's all well and good, but if you merely feel like acting on it, you still have sinned.
In other words, no wiggle room in there, lol...
As it applies to Elves, not wanting to change even when change is ordained by God, means a lack of contentment with God's will. In other words, they are saying in their hearts that they don't trust God's judgment, they don't trust him to know what's best for them and for ME. It's not as obvious, but it's still a sin for them to think that way.
Does that make any sense at all?
Men were "scattered, divided, leaderless" because Aragorn's time had not yet come. Elrond certainly understood that in the book--Aragorn was waiting until it was time for him to move into his proper role.
I think the weakness in movie-Elrond's arrogant dismissal of Isildur was that he acted as though Isildur's inability to destroy the ring was due not to the ring's ability to corrupt the bearer, but due solely to man's inherent "weakness." If that's the case, then why not suggest an elf to do the job? The fact that Elrond not only didn't suggest an elf but in fact made it clear to Gandalf that Frodo should probably take the ring, makes Elrond's character a bit confusing and inconsistent. I don't exactly know why PJ decided to do this--whether he just wanted to introduce more conflict among the characters, or whether he needed a way to show Isildur being unable to throw the ring into the fire. Or perhaps there's another reason that will make more sense later on.
It's not so much the "changing world" that is important...it's the will of God. I mean, if God willed that the Elves should have jelly beans and the Elves keep trying to get rid of jelly beans, Elves would still be fallen because they are not conformed to the will of God. Of course, since it's the will of God, the Elves would always find themselves with jelly beans and they would have jelly bean anxiety until they just accepted God's will in the matter.
What is with the boy's choir at the end of the soundtrack? It keeps shocking me. It just came on again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.