You know, I really thought that
me framing my reviews around 
something actually interesting
would last longer.
Not that I don't have anything 
interesting to actually
add to this, but...
The things that I thought about,
like...
how we should question classics,
and how we shouldn't let nostalgia
steer our reviews and how in 
general, we should not, uhh
just trust an author blindy are 
all thing I wanna save up
for what will probably be my 
online execution by rabid book nerds.
So withoout further ado
becuase I dont have anything to 
frame around this.
This is The Hobbit, by J.R.R. 
Tolkien.
Song - Wildfire by Andri
The Hobbit is a story of a 
hobbit creature named Bilbo.
Like most hobbits; he likes staying inside, drinking, eating, and enjoying life.
Then one day; a wizards dumps a bunch of dwarfs on him and threatens him to go out on an adventure.
Y'know, other than being promised riches, this sounds like my ideal life,
Being ruined by family events 
again.
Huh.
I don't really have any smooth 
transitions or anything
so I'll just start by saying that
the characters are bad.
Apart from Bilbo and Gollum,
none of these characters have 
any personality
and that's me using the term 
"character" as loosely as as I'll allow myself
Hadn't it been for Peter Jackson's adaptations of the book,
I guess that you couldn't name a single other character that wasn't in The Lord of the Rings from memory.
Just to prove to you how bad 
the dwarves are in this book.
I want you to mention one dwarf
That was not the main focus in 
Peter Jackson's adaptations.
Not Fili, not Kili,
(I can't believe what he did 
there, but whatever)
Not Ballin, and not Thorin.
You have 9 other characers to go
for, so... you know,
just mention them.
Most of them are either just in the background doing nothing but what the other dwarfs are doing,
or people with at most two traits 
going at the same time.
I find it hard to care about the dwarves, even when Fili and Kili dies in the battle of the five armies.
Even if they are some of the few dwarves with 2 traits balanced between themselves,
Whish are being yong and taking 
rash actions.
Does that even out to 1 trait 
per dwarf? or... I digress.
The point is that I didn't care,
even when Bilbo and Gollum, 2 of the best characters in the book, are fighting a battle of wits.
Because their best character in 
the story are bad characters,
in comparisons to what my pasic 
expection of stories are!
A good character is someone who you know will react in any given situation.
For instance: what would happen if Bilbo and Gollum were to join a punk band?
or join a bake-off?
Boy, I can only imagine that they would stand around waiting for someone to tell them what to do.
Where as Samuel Vimes, he'll 
just find like,
an entire conspiracy, find a clever solution to all the duplicity that is going on,
and arrest everyone, while also coming over of his personal prejudices.
and explaining why racist is 
band and sexism is bad.
Nah that's BORING! I'd rather watch 2 character be pushed around!
HOW EXCITING!!!!!!1!
Both of these characters are to 
closely tied to their story,
that if you pulled them out of 
it and placed in ANY other setting,
They will be side characters at 
best.
One has an obsession, the other 
needs to be pushed to be brave.
Now we come back to the dwarf of
the story and as I briefly mentioned before
how their characters are nothing
than 1 or 2 traits.
My favorite example of how 
poorly written they are is Bofur.
Yes, that is one of the dwarves.
Don't feel too proud of yourself if you remember him from the book cause he's just the bottom of every food-related joke
Don't feel too proud of yourself
if you remember him from the book
Cause he's just the bootom of 
every food-related joke
and every joke about being fat.
His entire personality... is... 
being fat.
-Bombur
At your service!
You know, that isn't entirely 
fair.
I mean, all of these dwarves 
have more to their personality.
Kinda these... racial 
agreements.
Like... being greedy,
complaining all the time, and 
some physical traits too, like
crooked noses and long beards 
and this book was written
two years before World War 2 
started.
Yeeeeeeeah...
If you haven't caught on yet, the dwarves show an uncanny resemblance to anti-semitic caractertures.
I feel I should stress that 
anti-semitic thought
was incredibly normal before and
during World War 2
until people learned what 
happened in the concentration camps.
and Tolkien's potential thoughts
about Jews were extremely common at the time.
If you dissagree and think I'm 
reading too far into it
If you disagree and think I'm reading too far into it, there's a link in the description to someone who argues this point much better than I ever could.
there's a link in the 
description
to someone who argues this 
point much better than I ever could
and I highly recommend giving it
a read
much more enjoyable than a lot 
of the Hobbit anyways.
Or at least informative.
Andri: Ouch!
I don't know if informa... if 
enjoyable is
what I... the word I would use, 
anyways.
The question becomes
do we accept art, despite its rather negative
history, saying it was a different
history, saying it was a different time, or do we
hold it a bit accountable at 
least... in that regard.
And it all comes up to the 
individual, I say...
No.
A story doesn't become more 
comfortable
just because you know it's from 
a different time
that isn't as informed as today. Just like
if your grandpa says something 
really racist, you don't go...
"Oh well, he's from another 
time."
Though you may say that, you may
be thinking, "I'm very uncomfortable right now!"
And by the way, if your grandparents... or someone else 
uses racial slurs in the family just... shut them down.
I don't care if they're so old that you think they are gonna 
die soon. Let them die knowing they were wrong.
What was I talking about again? Oh, yea, yeah, yeah. Anti-semitism in a children's book.
That people keep on saying is brilliant. Mostly because it was Tolkien who wrote it.
Anyways, let's just get back to 
the dwarves.
You might argue that writing thirteen different personalities would've required too much effort.
And while that is a foolish thing to say, let's pretend that it's valid that Tolkien didn't wanna put... effort...
into his work.
Tolkien. The... guy who wrote 
the Silmarillion.
Okay, he has thirteen dwarves, because that is an unlucky number for dwarves. But that doesn't have to be the case.
Just lower the number, to like, 
six
and you don't have that problem 
anymore.
"Oh, it's an unlucky number for 
dwarves to have six people in their...
company." And seven IS a lucky 
number!
Where... where did Tolkien get 
14 from?
Which, by the way, yeah! He 
actually said that that is a lucky number for dwarves!
"There's thirteen of you. Very 
unlucky. Mr. Baggins will make it 14."
Bilbo: Uhhh...
"A splendid LUCKY NUMBER you 
found for us!"
So why not just change it?
To an unlucky number to dwarves to six and... and lucky number for dwarves are seven! Because
Tha... that's relatable. Also.
Speaking of the dwarves: They 
are useless in the story!
Well, when Bilb is around, 
anyhow.
When he is, they get into 
trouble, and Bilbo has to save 
them
Every. Time.
Other than the times when 
Gandalf have to save them, but we'll get to Gandalf.
When he isn't around, they do some stuff, but mostly just stand around being angry that they aren't rich yet.
And speaking of Gandalf...
he is a walking Deus-Ex-Machina.
Fitting as "Deus" means god and 
Gandalf is a demi-god, or demi... demi-go...
HE'S DIVINE! We'll leave it at 
that!
"I'm Gandalf, and Gandalf... and 
Gandalf... means... ME!"
Anyways, Gandalf is more 
damaging to the story than he isin service of it.
Take the scene where the dwarves
are about to get eaten by trolls
and then get saved by Gandalf, 
distracting the trolls
till the sun comes up and turns 
them into stone.
While Bilbo is hiding.
Now, imagine this scene again, but this time, have Bilbo 
distract the trolls until the sun comes up
followed by Gandalf coming along
and helping set the dwarves free.
You see, how a character solves 
situations, shows how they have character.
And it would show that Bilbo is
far smarter and far more quick witted
than he assumes he is himself, without making it, you know, explicit, which is what every character here is. Just...
one explicit traits and...
or two.
And distracting the trolls would
make Bilbo's scene with Gollum 
and his scene with Smaug where 
he
riddles around...
That's... that's a new word now.
Riddles aroud.
Andri: YEAH!
In...
Andri: Riddling round the town!
It would make that scene, as I 
as about to say, actually feel built up.
And worthwhile, not just something that Tolkien put in 
there because, "Oh, that's fun, I guess."
Anyway, I feel like there's one 
more thing I really want to talkabout, but it's a spoiler...
but on the other hand, I alreadysaid that Fili and Kili die, so you know... who cares, it's a book from 1937.
While the death of Smaug feels like a Deus Ex Machina, and it is, I feel like it... it illustrates a far bigger problem with the Hobbit.
Smaug has been a force to be 
reckoned with, since the moment we heard of him.
The reason Erebor turned from a 
rich dwarven kingdom, to a scorched grave.
Smaug is a constant threat, often brought up and examined in the story. Not just as a threat to them, but to the world.
THEN AN OLD GUY CALLED BARD SHOOTS SMAUG WITH HIS BOW AND IT ATTACKS LAKETOWN AND IT DIES!
NOW THE HUMANS AND WOOD ELVES 
ARE THE MAIN ANTAGONISTS TO THE DWARVES
AND BILBO SWITCHES SIDE BEFORE THE GOBLINS BECOME THE MAIN ANTAGONIST TO EVERYONE AGAIN!!!
Now, hot take here, but...
When you build up an enemy over 
the course of an entire story, it
doesn't feel satisfactory to 
suddenly change who the final antagonist is.
I get that tolkien tried to say 
dragons are the incarnation of greed
and that humans must overcome 
it.
Y'know, sort of implying that 
jewish people can't be human or can't overcome greed
but whatever...
but that doesn't make changing the main antagonist around in the last act into a good idea.
Sure, the story focuses on the 
goblins
through the story since they 
were introduced,
but... they were...
not introduced until way later.
Way after Smaug.
If Bard had been the main character maybe I would have
less of a problem with it, even 
though...
kills the main antagonist, but... this is the big problem with Tolkien, he wants
to talk about this very specific
thing.
He wants to metaphorically tell people they have to be better, even if the story suffers for it.
Because the only thing that 
really matters to Tolkien, is that
you get what his opinion is. 
Neauance be damned.
"Oh yeah, this main antagonist? 
Ah, he represents human greed.
*Andreas acts like a child. 
Again.*
"Therefor we have to kill him...
with a human."
The dwarves, who the story has been about... cannot be... the final killers of Smaug, because...
...cause dwarves aren't human, even though they are built on stereotypes based on humans?
See, that's the biggest problem.
I think that's... very 
reasonalble to expect!
And even if you look away from that, there's also the problems with the characters, the story, just... problems everywhere.
Things I've already brought up. But here's the weird thing: Despite all these very real 
problems, I still... kinda like it.
First off, the narrator is a first person storyteller who has a third person's perspective on the story.
While Narnia has the same, it only referred to the audience when it wanted to make sure you got the moral it was trying to force on you.
But the Hobbit refers to you to 
talk about the story.
This makes it feel more like a 
story being told to you,
or if you're a parent, it opens 
up a dialogue with your child about the story.
And that can train you into 
becoming a better reader for your children.
Secondly, the book always takes time to describe things gently, which in turn makes everything feel safe.
The scene with Gollum is about 
as intense as the scene with Smaug,
which in turn is about as the 
first chapter in the hobbit hole.
Normally, I would've complained 
about this, but not here.
Because, when you combine these two points, it gives you a feeling of safety, as someone is telling you a story.
I do not... have many memories from my childhood, if you'll excuse my allegorical evidence,
but one of them, is being read 
to as a child.
And despite having next to no 
memories about having the Hobbit read to me,
I still feel that feeling again,
even without... having a connection.
I will condem nostalgia on the 
basis on giving a good review. To anything.
But the Hobbit evokes the 
feeling, without relying on it.
And, the Hobbit has many flaws 
that is easier to overlook as a child,
but it's value for adults lay in
experiencing something lost long ago.
It's a perfect book to read out 
loud to your kids,
for both your enjoyment, and 
your children's.
And personally, I think there 
are many flaws here.
And your ability to forgive them will depend upon how much you enjoyed being read to as a child...
or you're ability to view it as a
cultural relic of pre-World War Two
children's literature exposing 
darker thoughts in the minds of the day.
But that's just my opinion. Read
whatever you want.
Till next time.
Andri...
Huh?
...prepare...
...THE BEAST!
AW YEAH!
Andri: Rest in peace, buddy.
*Andri laughs at Andreas's 
misery*
Close Captions by Andreas & 
Andri
Btw, you can use sweet potatoes in your tacos instead of meat. It's really good.
