How do you smoke potatoes?
Boil'em? Mash 'em? Stick 'em in a bong?
How do you smoke potatoes?
Boil'em? Mash 'em? Stick 'em in a bong?
He didn't carry a grown ass man. He carried a grown ass hobbit.
Would that not be a grown man to his perspective?
No, it would be a grown hobbit. Gimli would be a grown dwarf, Legolas a grown elf, and Boromir would be a grown man.
Hobbits are a race of Man.
In the same way the Noldor or the Sindar are races of elves and the Petty-Dwarves are a race of dwarves.
Frodo Baggins is a grown ass man by any definition of the term.
Kind of.
Tolkien presented hobbits as relatives of the human race,[T 4] or a "variety"[T 6][11] or separate "branch"[T 7] of humanity.[11] In Tolkien's fictional world, hobbits and other races are aware of the similarities between humans and hobbits (hence the colloquial terms for each other of "Big People" and "Little People"); nevertheless, hobbits consider themselves a separate people.[T 8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit#Description
Considering the vastly different physical and mental characteristics I think it's probably more fair to view them like we view Orangutans and Humans as all belonging to one taxonomic family but not being the same species. In that regard hobbits are not men.
Edit: or probably more accurately, a genus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo in which case I think I concede you're right after all, no matter how much I don't like the thought of hobbits being men
I'm playing with the two definitions of man, man the race and man as a grown adult male
Interestingly, no. Even taking it to mean, "equivalently sized person", short bodies tend to have more leverage with their limbs. It's why a lot of shorter power lifters don't look as big as taller ones. Although that can be hard to tell, since many of them just look like a chubby dude until you see them move something insane.
The true answer as to whether it was equivalent would come down to hobbit anatomy and biomechanics. They could be stronger or weaker than a similarly statured human depending on how their musculature works.
The class system is so deep-rooted in Middle Earth that the gardener can wear the ring for hours without being corrupted and single handedly stage a jail break, and everyone still swoons over the master, who actually failed the mission.
What's the deal with the hobbits? Pippin and Frodo are cousins, why are they not the same class? And the Brandybucks are higher-ranking than the Bagginses?
Merry is a Brandybuck, they were the first ten Thains of the Shire and founded Buckland. He is the only son of the Master of Buckland. Pippin is a Took, they took over as Thains after the Brandybucks left, his father is currently the Thain of the Shire, and his father's sister is Merry's mother. Frodo is a Baggins, no title but wealthy and influential, his mother is Merry's grandfather's sister, and Bilbo' mother is the daughter of Thain Old Took.
And Sam, well, his father is a well respected gardener, and his grandfather was a roper by trade.
Don't forget: Sam owns Bill the Pony
Sam is a hero. I couldn't even go a week without eating potatoes and smoking weed.
6 months without eating a potato?
You said this was ideal
Wasn't "Smoking or eating potatoes" a lost chapter?
That's awesome, really it is. But I still have to insist that you put some shoes on if you want into this club tonight.
And now he's reduced to mixing margaritas for Frodo and Gandalf on the Blessed Isle.
Reference
Sean Aston (Sam) is John Aston's (Gomez from the old 60s show) son
Do many hobbits have that many children? Surely Middle Earth will be overrun with hobbits in a couple of generations. Or is the life of a hobbit child exceptionally fatal?
But too nice and submissive to be desired.
Married for 62 years
13 kids
Idk about that
To the audience, compared to Aragorn?
To whom within the audience? I ask because most adults I've spoken to about LotR end up agreeing that the absolute best life to live in the setting would be a hobbit's life.
Desiring a QOL is completely different from desiring a person.
I disagree.
That's just using someone then.
No it isn't, being attracted to stability is perfectly reasonable - not everyone chooses partners based on them having a square jawline
If you like them for what they provide and not who they are, they are just a means to an end for you.
That's ridiculous, stability isn't just about what someone provides. You've got an incredibly immature outlook.
You've got an abuser's outlook. Tell me, did your partners know you only like them for what they do for you and not who they are?
Again, a ridiculous statement. Grow up.
Stop abusing people.
You are a child, which explains why Aragorn or Legolas are most desirable in your eyes.
Says the one playing make-believe.
all 57 comments