The Annoying Hobbit

[Child of the 7th Age]

Those are "fighting words"!

It's interesting that my own experience was so completely different than your own. I first read The Hobbit long years ago (at about 12 years old) and absolutely loved it. In fact, it was reading The Hobbit that led me to search for more material by Tolkien. By the mid sixties, I stumbled onto first the Ace and then the Ballentine paperback editions, both of which I still own.

On several occasions I have heard other posters on this site express their frustration with the early chapters of Lord of the Rings along with The Hobbit itself. I've also heard some folk say that the character of Bilbo frustrates them with his "littleness". Yet the early chapters of LotR are among my personal favorites. Go figure?! What makes one person's favorite another person's headache? I have no idea.

I will say this. The Hobbit has a curious mixture of elements typical of a children's book mixed in with other themes and symbols that are much more adult. It's easy to get fixed on the intrusive narrator voice, the seemingly child-like characters, or the obvious discrepencies between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Yet there is a great deal more to the story than this.

Like many "classic" children's tales, The Hobbit is a story of growth and development. The Bilbo and the Dwarves of the final chapters of the book have changed greatly from what they were in the beginning. We see Bilbo evolve from a hobbit wholly concerned with tea and pocket handkerchiefs to assume the role of leader and peacemaker. In giving up the Arkenstone, Bilbo steps to another level. Moreover, even though Tolkien did not realize it at the time, this act of renunciation is a foreshadowing of the later scene where Bilbo is able to give up the Ring. If I have one "gripe", it is that there is a general tendency among readers of LotR to downplay what Bilbo did. In a Shire gripped by conformity, he was the first to break through the sameness: to assert his individual likes and dislikes, passing tales on to the youngsters. Believe me....it is never easy to be first. People who come later have no idea what you've faced and only complain that you didn't accomplish more!

I find these changes in Bilbo both interesting and endearing. And however "silly" the Elves may be in certain portions of the book, the final battle and their part in it is a more serious matter. Elrond lends a grace to the story, and I was always taken with Rivendell. Nor do I find the dwarves so "bumbly" after several of them give up their lives fighting for what they believe.

We've had previous discussions about the role of archetypes in reference to Lord of the Rings. In reality, The Hobbit lends itself more easily to such an interpretation. Gandalf, for example, is alternately the trickster and the wise old man. Bilbo similarly experiences a symbolic rebirth by descending into the cave of the goblins. In fact there are three descents into the "underworld": Gollum's cave; the realm of the wood Elves; and the descent into Smaug's hoard. In each case, Bilbo emerges older and wiser.

I personally don't feel that The Hobbit is similar to The Lost Tales. For one thing, the Hobbit has a humor that is lacking in Lost Tales and from most of Tolkien's earlier writing. Lost Tales grew out of the experiences that Tolkien had in the trenches of World War I. (On this, see John Garth's book.) By contrast, the Hobbit grew out of his personal experiences as a father. And needless to say, without The Hobbit, there would be no Lord of the Rings. Until that point, the critical link in Tolkien's writing was missing, and that link was the creation of hobbits. To be frank, I love the Silmarillion but find much of it somewhat depressing. With the exception of Earendil and Luthien/Beren, there are too few moments of eucatastrophe. I have a fondness for the tale of Numenor, but that was not developed till after the LotR was written, and hence also owes a debt back to The Hobbit.

My one regret is that we've never had a serious discussion on the Downs about The Hobbit. I think there is a lot to be mined there that is often overlooked. (Hint, hint...somebody start a thread. )

One last personal observation.... The Hobbit is a book that is perhaps best read out loud. It was only after reading it to my young daughter that I caught many of the humerous glimpses and best appreciated the tale as a whole. Perhaps, that shouldn't be surprising since Tolkien himself actually wrote and tested the story with his own children in mind. I will agree that The Hobbit is primarily a children's book, and Tolkien had not yet evolved to his full abilities as a writer. Yet, it was a vital link in this development and, without it, this website and the LotR would simply not exist.

Rant over....

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

My one regret is that we've never had a serious discussion on the Downs about The Hobbit. I think there is a lot to be mined there that is often overlooked. (Hint, hint...somebody start a thread.)

Sometime in the future, when we finish the Chapter-by-Chapter discussions of LotR, maybe we should tackle the Hobbit next! I think there's a lot to be gleaned from it and have come to appreciate it more in recent years than I used to...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It's a children's book. There is going to be dancing and silliness. It was never intended to be part of anything greater. Having said that, it still fits in remarkably well.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

My one regret is that we've never had a serious discussion on the Downs about The Hobbit. I think there is a lot to be mined there that is often overlooked. (Hint, hint...somebody start a thread. )

Aren't we supposed to be following up the LotR CbC with one on The Hobbit? (Or did I dream that?)

I have to agree with Child. The Hobbit is special to me, in some ways more than LotR. Of course LotR is by far the greater work & has affected me more profoundly than TH, but....how can I put it? TH was my doorway into Middle-earth, so it will always seem more 'magical' than LotR. When that 'door' opened & I saw the morning sun shining down on Bilbo sitting outside Bag End, smoking his pipe 'in the quiet of the world, when there was less noise & more green', I felt like I'd come home.

I love The Hobbit.

[Lalwendë]

And what's more, The Hobbit has a great big dragon in it, and what's better than a great big dragon?

[Bêthberry]

A pile of treasure. And spiders. Big spiders.

[Lalwendë]

Big spiders are good too. And so are big eagles. And so is Gollum. And Wargs. And it has a bloke who turns into a bear.

The Hobbit has all of these things. But mostly, it has a big dragon.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I was about to add many of the things posted by Esty, Eomer, and davem; but then I got distracted and they all were said for me. And then I cross posted with Lal and Bethberry who pointed out all the Hobbit's most fabulous assets, leaving me little else to say .

However, I wanted to add that even though I love the Hobbit (and I second Child's recommendation of reading aloud!), that I've only been able to integrate it with the rest of the Legendarium by reminding myself that Bilbo is supposed to be the author. Even though Bilbo did grow and change on his journey, you can see in the early chapters of LOTR just how hobbitish he really remained. By the time Frodo returns from his journey and writes LOTR, he's barely hobbitty at all because his adventure changed him so much.

I always remember that Bilbo, a very bumbling hobbit himself, is bringing his very very Shire-based perceptions to bear on the story and the characters.

And I like the laughing elves. They're so sad and dignified and tragic through most of the story, I'm glad that Tolkien saw fit to give them one laughing moment.

~Sophia

[Aiwendil]

Child of the 7th Age has expressed my feeling toward The Hobbit exactly. I first read it (actually, had it read to me) when I was about five or six; I instantly loved it and my opinion of it has never really changed. It's true that I like The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion more - but I have never shared the "well, it's only a children's book" attitude of some other fans. What is a children's book, anyway? In my view, The Hobbit is perfectly well suited for readers of any age and is a good deal better than most fiction aimed at adults. Nor do I see it as being at odds with Middle-earth as depicted elsewhere. I think that a large part of the difference that some perceive is in fact not at all related to the story itself but rather to the narrative tone, which is undeniably different from that in LotR.

[Rumil]

Many plaudits to Child of the Seventh Age!

Strangely, though I read the Hobbit after the Lord of the Rings I have always loved it too. I think that I had tapped into Tolkien's 'book within a book' concept ie the Lord of the Rings essentially being an ancient copy of the Red Book of Westmarch, written by Frodo et al, and languishing high on a dusty shelf in the Bodleian library until the Prof discovered it one drizzly summer's afternoon when the cricket had been abandoned due to poor light.

Now to run with the Hobbit, I see it as a 'children's book within a children's book'. Although the Prof claims to have written it for his children, I strongly suspect that Bilbo wrote it to entertain his young relatives when they were a similar age. Therefore, when one comes back to it after LoTR, it's a bit like a detective story - how does it fit together with the 'real world' of Middle Earth? Through Bilbo's tale we get to see entire additional swathes of Middle Earth, and if the style appears childish, just remember that while it was Frodo's bedtime story, it also covers events of great significance and seriousness. After all, if it was written in the highfalutin idiom of Gondor, the tale wouldn't have been half so entertaining I'm sure.

[Lalwendë]

Time for me to get serious and defend The Hobbit (beyond the fact that it has a dragon in it)

Firstly, The Hobbit was written as a children's book, so will necessarily have a different style to LotR. It will be simpler in tone, less complex and have more vivid imagery. These kind of things work in children's books, and are possibly essential to appeal to the younger mind. Having more vivid images can go a long way in explaining why the Dwarf characters are often comic, and why Gandalf is more humorous and tricksy.

The Hobbit is also something of a classic fairy tale. We are introduced to a new character, a little person, who lives in an exaggerated version of our world at its best, and one day he's swept away on a journey. And on this journey he encounters all kinds of weird and wonderful creatures and people. There are pixies in the form of the Elves, monsters in the form of Smaug and the orcs, and horror in the form of Gollum. But at the end of it all, Bilbo lives happily ever after, just as he should.

I think it does help if The Hobbit is the first of the books any new reader approaches, purely because LotR is such a monster of a book that it would overshadow anything. And The Hobbit doesn't deserve that. It's wonderful in its own right.

The style is possibly a little old fashioned to many brought up on the 'realistic' tales that are nowadays seemingly deemed more appropriate for children than fairy tales, but it is no different to that found in books by Enid Blyton or Arthur Ransome. And I wouldn't say its altogether far from JK Rowling's style, episodic and quite vivid.

And anyway, it has my favourite character in it, Bilbo.

[Mithalwen]

I think there is something in the best read aloud theory. As I mentioned, I was enchanted when Bernard Cribbins read it on Jackanory when I was about 8.

I found a littel quote in UT today which may be helpful to those who are antagonistic or ambivalent, when Gandalf says that the story would have been a bit different if he had written it.... now that is something to conjure with