I've been following this thread with interest but haven't yet posted. So here's my thoughts:
First of all, my first introduction to the Hobbit was from a friend at school; I was twelve or thirteen years old and I would say that I didn't have a lot of experience in the sci-fi/fantasy genre in particular - it was more like whatever I picked up off the shelf at the library. So anyway, I started to read this book really having no clear idea of what it was about - I'm not sure I even realized until I started reading it that it was fantasy. But from the first few pages of the book, I was enchanted/delighted/absolutely hooked. It was one of the few books I have ever talked to my mom about - as in, this book is absolutely amazing and I love it. To my surprise, my mom actually recognized the book. Apparently my uncle had really liked it back when they were kids, though my mom had tried it and it had turned her off - she hadn't finished it. I don't think the conversation went any further - I think I went back to reading.
I would say that there were a couple things that pulled me in. First and foremost is the plot - somebody else already mentioned it, but I can't find who at the moment. TH has a fantastic plot, going from one adventure to the next. I had afterward heard people say that the ending got dull, but this was something I never found. The book's tone draws you in, but the plot keeps you going. There's always a "what happens next?" The other contributing factor is its tone and gentle humor. I was not young as many of you were young when you read the book; I was in jr. high, and whether because of or in spite of this, the way the book was written delighted me - still does, actually. I did not know that it was supposed to be a children's book (as I said before, I knew very little about it), though I was able to recognize later that it was a simpler book. It's beautifully light-hearted to read without being childish. As Fea said, it's a rainy day sort of book, a book to relax with.
As for it being a "boy's book" - this never occurred to me. In fact, it never really occurred to me that all the characters in the book are male in the same way that it never occurred to me that all of the Winnie the Pooh characters are male (except for Kanga) before my high school baby sitter noticed it when we were watching it on TV. And just like this did not take away from my enjoyment of Winnie the Pooh, it does not bother me in the least that there are no female characters in TH. It doesn't need them; that is not the point of the book. It's the same reason why I get irritated when fan fic writers try to put female characters in the Fellowship.
It doesn't work. I enjoy strong female characters and have read and enjoyed many books - but only where they work (i.e., Anne of Green Gables, Pride and Prejudice, etc... and not just classics, either - there are adventure/fantasy stories that can feature strong female characters - take the Chronicles of Narnia. In fact, I wonder if it wasn't for the presence of the female children in those books if they wouldn't be classified as "boys' books" as well
). I actually find myself getting annoyed when books try to force female characters in where they really aren't needed - they're meant to be strong, but they get annoying as the author tries to make their achievements match the males'. Strong female characters only work where they fit - and in TH isn't one of those places.
What makes a book a "boys' book" or a "girls' book," anyway? My youth group was talking about various fantasy books one time and my youth leader made the comment that he was surprised that I (and my cousin, for that matter) had enjoyed
Hitch-hiker's Guide so much as he had considered it more "guy's humor." This rather surprised me, having enjoyed the book myself as well as known several female Downers who had enjoyed the books. And if all or mostly male characters make a book a "boys book," well then, I guess many of my favorite books growing up have been "boys' books" -
White Fang by Jack London has no major female characters;
Tom Sawyer and
Huck Finn, as someone has already mentioned, both have few female characters. This has never bothered me. I don't think that lines can be drawn that way - boys books and girls books. Certain books may be more appealing to one gender or the other in general, but lines are better drawn in terms of personality and interests.
Bearing Fordim's latest post in mind, though, if you were to look at the Hobbit as a "boys' story." Hm... I guess I don't see the point, since that isn't the point. Essentially, it's meant to be a fairy tale, and I still find it very odd that so many of the women in your class would classify it as a boy's story, and as they do, why that makes it a bad book. It's one thing to classify the story as a boy's book; I can at least see the reasoning to that. But to classify it as a bad book because of that doesn't make sense to me. I would find out if they feel similarly about other books they would call boys books, and how they make that conclusion. There are very very few books that I have ever read that I would call bad. I have been too bored to finish many, or find that I do not care for the topic or genre, but that does not mean those books are bad.