LOTR are essentially reflections of Bilbo and Frodo's characters, respectively. But when you see the hobbits themselves as the authors (or tellers) of the story, you begin to see very deeply into their characters. Told by many voices, but overshadowing them all is Frodo's.Ĭritics of both books often complain that the character development is lacking. In fact, he asks Sam to fill in those missing details himself.Īnd so we get the somewhat dark and regretful account of the War of the Rings, the many losses suffered, the mistakes made, etc.
There are major parts that are too difficult for Frodo to recall, so he relies on Sam's account. It is a dark and difficult journey for all of them, particularly for Frodo. LOTR, on the other hand, is primarily compiled by Frodo, with the help of the other hobbits and the remaining members of the Fellowship. Then, it passed through a few different ring-bearers until Bilbo won it from Gollum in a game of riddles. His account reflects is a good, fun adventure - that's how he remembers it, and that's how he tells it. A few decades before The Lord of the Rings, Bilbo found the One Ring deep in the Goblin tunnels.It was supposed to be the answer to all Saurons problems, but he lost it during his defeat at the Battle of Dagorlad. It made Bilbo rich, changed his outlook on life, and when he looked back on those days he felt a certain nostalgia.
#Bilbo and frodo differences full#
It was a harrowing trip, full of many life-threatening moments, but ultimately it had a positive outcome. I think it's helpful to read both books as they are presented to us: that is, as histories/memoirs collected by the hobbits themselves, written down for their own people's posterity, and told from the perspectives of those hobbits that were there (or heard the story firsthand from those who were).Īnd so you have the Hobbit, written by Bilbo about his "Adventures" as he calls them. Only Bilbo is portrayed by a different actor in the two sets of films, as. My annoyance with that trend and my childhood love for The Hobbit both make me prefer it to Tolkien's longer trilogy. Bilbo Frodo Baggins 6 oz Hip Flask, Hipflask. They can, don't get me wrong, but too often they just don't. I feel like the Lord of the Rings set a blueprint, perhaps through no fault of its own, for the worst trend in speculative fiction: the idea that complicated world building, mythology, politics, and etymology all add up to a good story. Sam's devotion to Frodo always seemed over-dramatic and over-adoring in a "puke-able" way, while Bilbo's friendships with other characters seemed a bit more natural and genuine in their reservation.
Bilbo is a fun, likable grump while Frodo always seemed like a huge wimp in the worst way.
That book occupies a special place in my heart in a way that The Lord of the Rings does not. This is true in spite of the uncle-nephew narrative that has. I think it's Gollum's best moment as a character. New Line Cinema Like it or not, Frodo is not Bilbos nephew. The Riddles in the Dark chapter was my favorite. The Baggins family lived in the Shire, mostly in or near the town of Hobbiton, hence they were often referred to as the family 'Baggins of Hobbiton'. My father used to read The Hobbit to my brother and me as we lay in bed getting ready for the night's rest. The Baggins family was a prominent, respectable, and wealthy family of Hobbits that lived in the Shire.
0 kommentar(er)
