A 'darker' Hobbit

[Maerbenn]

Originally Posted by davem

Technically yea, but its not the '3rd edition' that Tolkien originally envisioned - I should have been clearer. Can't help wondering whether that '3e' would have been a 'Myths Transformed' kind of mistake on Tolkien's part - suppose we'll be able to form our own opinions on that when the work finally sees the light.

The third (1966) edition of The Hobbit that did come out has the Wood-elves lingering ‘in the twilight of our Sun and Moon’ while the Light-elves, Deep-elves and Sea-elves are living for ages in Faerie. But I would not consider that change a ‘mistake’.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Maerbenn

The third (1966) edition of The Hobbit that did come out has the Wood-elves lingering ‘in the twilight of our Sun and Moon’ while the Light-elves, Deep-elves and Sea-elves are living for ages in Faerie. But I would not consider that change a ‘mistake’.

The question that occurs to me is whether he wanted to change TH simply in order to make it 'fit' better with the rest of the Legendarium, or whether he actually felt that it wasn't good enough in itself. His comment from 1937 that he

“preferred my own mythology…to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Voluspa, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes”.

seems to imply the latter

It seems from this comment that he was 'disappointed' with the book to some degree even before LotR was started. Even as a 'children's' book he seemed to have felt disappointed with it - in a 1967 interview with Philip Norman he states:

"The Hobbit" wasn't written for children, and it certainly wasn't done just for the amusement of Tolkien's three sons and one daughter, as is generally reported. "That's all sob stuff. No, of course, I didn't. If you're a youngish man and you don't want to be made fun of, you say you're writing for children. At any rate, children are your immediate audience and you write or tell them stories, for which they are mildly grateful: long rambling stories at bedtime.

"'The Hobbit' was written in what I should now regard as bad style, as if one were talking to children. There's nothing my children loathed more. They taught me a lesson. Anything that in any way marked out 'The Hobbit' as for children instead of just for people, they disliked-instinctively. I did too, now that I think about it. All this 'I won't tell you any more, you think about it' stuff. Oh no, they loathe it; it's awful.

So TH wasn't written for Tolkien's own children, & the style is 'bad' (in Tolkien's own words) because it was written 'as if one was talking to children'. He seems to be saying that he only wrote it isn that style 'because he didn't want to be made fun of'. Strange admission, & one that seems to go completely against his position re Fairy Story as set out in OFS - that Fairy Stories are not for children. In this comment he seems to be saying the very opposite - that the 'immediate' audience for such stuff are children & that when you write such things you say they're 'for children' to avoid being made fun of.

So, up to the time he produced TH he saw children as the primary audience for such stories, but not too long afterwards he could stand up in front of an audience & state that Children are not the primary audience - adults are. I wonder what happened to cause the change?

Whatever, from his words, it seems that both the syle & much of the content of TH displeased Tolkien, & this seems to have been at least partly behind his desire to re-write it.

[Rumil]

I was interested by the views that The Hobbit just doesn't fit into the Legendarium and wanted to add my tupennyworth.

There are clear inconsistencies, like the cockney trolls and camp elves, but I would invoke a variant of the 'translator conceit' to cover these. If we imagine that The Hobbit was added in to the Red Book more or less complete by Frodo from Bilbo's story, then the question becomes, what was Bilbo writing?

I think that Bilbo was writing a children's story for his nephews and nieces, based on his adventures but in a less serious tone than we see in UT, for example. Therefore The Hobbit is a Frodo's childhood bed-time story. Of course, it is great story all by itself, but when we try to link it in to the Legendarium, I think it becomes the basis for detective work. In my opinion most of it is 'true' in Middle Earth terms but some aspects were altered by Bilbo either for dramatic effect or covering his tracks (such as the ring incident).

For example, I'd like to think that Bilbo 'really was' captured by the Trolls but that he invented most of their speech and names either because the original was not understandable or too foul for young ears! I can see Bilbo with an admiring circle of young Hobbits gathered round the fire one winter's evening doing all the Troll voices in proper fairy tale style and when some young Took or Brandybuck asked the name of the troll, inventing 'Bert' on the spur of the moment.

[Lalwendë]

We have just got the second volume of The History of the Hobbit - Return to Bag End and davem is reciting bits out of the unfinished revised version that Tolkien attempted during the 1960s (picture the scene - he is laying on the settee with the book, accompanied by a cat, telling me things in a shocked tone of voice...).

Now without revealing too much for those of you who are also reading this or are waiting for the postman/Father Christmas/Birthday presentses to bring it, he has told me, knowing full well my reaction, that Tolkien altered one of my favourite sections, the agonising greeting scene between Gandalf and Bilbo. And that is not all. Suffice to say I am very pleased that Tolkien did not complete this revision and publish it.

And I have revived this thread because I have to ask:

What if it had been published?

The changes are really quite shocking. Yes, it might fit into the legendarium better (and thus have saved davem a lot of grief some time ago - remember his argument? It still rages in our house. ), but really, so much of the colour and humour has been lost that I don't like it. Would we have been looking at the text we all know and love so well as a mere comic curiosity?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Mercy, don't tease us like that; we Americans won't get the book for a while longer yet!

I know Tolkien grew to despise the style of TH, but I still think it's most astonishing wonderful. Based on what Lal has said about his "3rd edition" revisions thus far, it's probably a good thing he never completed them -- though I would love to have a Hobbit that fit perfectly into the Legendarium, to compare with the one we all know and love.

I've been rereading Tolkien's letters a lot lately (a marvelous volume, that: enlightening about M-E and about so many other things; Tolkien had a lot of wisdom that never made it into his books) and it seems clear to me that he envisioned TH as being part of the Legendarium. Wish I could provide direct quotes, but my volume is not with me at present.

Probably that's the main reason he wanted to revise it so extensively, though; because he viewed it as a part of his Legendarium, but felt that its style was unworthy.

Well, sadly, I've said all that and not expressed an original thought. But all this issue of revision does raise a question to me. Much of the controversy among Tolkienites regarding the (possibly) impending Hobbit film centers around the essential change in tone that PJ or whoever would make. But can it not be argued that changing TH from a light G or PG into a heavy PG-13 is in line with Tolkien's desires? Perhaps the movie (if and when it gets made, which I believe it will) will be much more faithful to JRRT's vision than any would expect.

I cannot wait to get these books and see what Tolkien had in mind for his 3rd edition.

[davem]

As Rateliff points out the main effect is to make Gandalf less 'eccentric' & more like the Gandalf we know from LotR, & Bilbo actually a lot stupider - at one point he comments that the Lonely mountain must be a few days journey away! Bree & the Rangers get a mention, but its the 'rationalising' Tolkien attempts that break the spell to a great degree - the Dwarves leave a bag of instruments in the porch, rather than pulling them out of nowhere, the Trolls are still speak 'cockerney' & there is more development of the journey to Rivendell, in an attempt to match the journey time of the Hobbits & Strider. And the mentions of an 'engine' & a 'pop gun' are gone (of course, removing the 'engine' reference from TH makes the reference to an 'express train' in LotR more glaring & out of place).

Basically, Tolkien begins re-writing the story from the start, but before long he is simply making alterations to odd sentences, & getting himself into more & greater difficulties. Rateliff points out that TH is set in a 'fairytale' world where moonphases & details of time & distance are not really that important, but LotR is a more 'realistic' work & what emerges is that TH could not have been rewritten in the style of LotR without completely destroying the magic.

One of my favourite lines 'less noise & more green' is lost. Interesting addition to the inns of the Shire: The 'All-welcome Inn at the junction of the Northway & East Road. "So called because much used by travellers through the Shire, especially by Dwarves".

Apparently Tolkien gave the manuscript, as far as it went, to a friend, who responded 'Its good, but its not The Hobbit.' Chapter 1 is renamed 'A Well-Planned Party', & the Narrator (irritating or charming depending on your point of view) disappears. In the end Tolkien seems to have lost interest simply because such a re-telling would have meant a total re-write, & ultimately a whole new story. Interesting to read but ultimately a dead end, sadly.

As to the proposed movie adopting a more 'adult' style in telling the story, well, Tolkien couldn't do it without breaking the spell, so I doubt PJ & co could....

Note the different title of Chapter 1 - 'A Well planned Party' as opposed to 'An Unexpected Party' in the original. Clearly the party was unexpected by Bilbo, & so the focus was to be on him as hero of the story. The change to making the party 'well planned' puts the emphasis more on Bilbo as 'victim' of the machinations of others. Bilbo becomes less intelligent in the story, more at the mercy of others.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

One of my favourite lines 'less noise & more green' is lost. Interesting addition to the inns of the Shire: The 'All-welcome Inn at the junction of the Northway & East Road. "So called because much used by travellers through the Shire, especially by Dwarves".

That's pretty grim, actually. It sounds like a cheap motel

I do have to laugh that Tolkien retained his Cockernee trolls. One of the usual criticisms levelled at TH as 'not being part of the legendarium' is the use of the trolls in this way - Flieger even brought this out in support of her own argument against TH being suitable for the legendarium! So clearly Tolkien himself thought that Cockernee Trolls were perfectly alwight.

Makes you wonder - the changes, once you get into them, are not very nice at all. It's like hearing about an ugly motorway being driven through a much loved piece of ancient woodland. Maybe we should stop griping about the style of The Hobbit being so different and hence it not 'fitting in'?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Originally Posted by davem

As to the proposed movie adopting a more 'adult' style in telling the story, well, Tolkien couldn't do it without breaking the spell, so I doubt PJ & co could....

Well, I don't think the word "spell" would come into play even if PJ gave us a Hobbit that did have cockney trolls and tralalalalling elves.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Well, I don't think the word "spell" would come into play even if PJ gave us a Hobbit that did have cockney trolls and tralalalalling elves.

But they're only annoying if TH is read in the light of LotR. As part of TH as a stand alone tale (which is what it was meant to be) they fit. Reading Tolkien's attempt to revise TH shows that it can't be done. I'm sure many of those who are looking forward to a TH movie are assuming that it will be in the style of the LotR movies. It probably will be, but it won't be TH as we know it. The assumption, & one that Tolkien shared when he began the revison apparently, is that TH is an 'adult' story like LotR but simply written in a whimsical 'children's story' style. It isn't. The story is what it is. To rewrite it as an 'adult' story & make it fit with the LotR movies will result in something that is 'almost, but not quite entirely, unlike The Hobbit.'