The Hobbit - Chapter 01 - An Unexpected Party

[davem]

No, I'm not going back on what I said & joining in as a regular - just popping my head round the door...

Originally Posted by Child

I know Davem has mentioned that he views The Hobbit as outside Tolkien's Legendarium. His statement struck me. I suppose that could be so, depending on how you define "Legendarium". But my gut feeling is that it's difficult to exclude the Hobbit from this wider body of writings. The story is just too important in how it set up the main characters and the story line for LotR. Frankly. I have an easier time including The Hobbit as part of the Legendarium than I do some of the earliest material in The Book of Lost Tales, which seems to be radically different than the later writings by Tolkien. I can't think about Bilbo in The Hobbit without considering what was to happen to him later. Maybe that's right or wrong but it's a given I can not change.

Now I keep remembering things In LotR or in Unfinished Tales, and demanding to know why Tolkien changed this, or how something in The Hobbit foreshadows something else in LotR. In a way that's too bad, since I've lost the immediacy of the text.

And that's the problem I have with including TH in the Legendarium. I wish Tolkien had left it as it was - with the original Riddles in the Dark chapter, the references to Policemen & Tinkers, et al.

Of course, Bilbo's story is referred to in LotR (& The Quest of Erebor), so it is part of the Legendarium. This version of it, however, should be kept to one side as a children's story, a kind of 'Fantasia' on Middle-earth, an introduction if you like - imo, of course.

The line Esty quotes: 'One morning long ago in the quiet of the world, where there was less noise and more green..' is so evocative (as is the reference to 'the wild were-worms in the Last Desert), that the 'Tookish' part of me wants to run off & see Mountains!

I love getting lost in the world of TH but I think its overshadowed by LotR & The Sil if you include it in with them & that simple sense of wonder it inspires can disappear if you're trying to force it to fit. So, for me LotR & the Sil are the 'true' account of events in Middle-earth, while TH is a version of it that has passed down through various hands, minds & voices. In many ways its more magical than the Legendarium because of the unexplained vistas. The borders of the story of TH could open up onto any landscape - its only LotR that 'fixes' it in a particular place & time & removes it from the world of fairy story & takes it up into the realm of high myth - which, for me, is a place it doesn't belong.

Anyway.....

[Formendacil]

I can only disagree with Davem regarding The Hobbit's inclusion in the Legendarium, the lines Aragorn says regarding green grass as a part of legend springing to mind for some reason.

But this thread is not devoted to Davem's inclusion of The Hobbit in the Legendarium, but about Chapter 1 of The Hobbit.

For me, this is where it all began, something like eight years ago, when in a fit of boredom, I went browsing through my dad's bookshelves, and discovered The Hobbit. I knew the title thanks to C.S. Lewis (having been a Narnia fan), and on the strength of that tenuous connection, I pulled down the book with a lovely dragon and horde on the front, and began to read:

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit..."

So this chapter was my very first introduction to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, and it sucked me right in, with its charming feeling of "real" world, but a real world in which Dwarves coming to visit, while not exactly normal, was not the life-shaking event that it would be if it ever happened here.

Although, of course, we soon learn that it DOES, in fact, shake poor Bilbo's life up far more than he expected.

There is an element of the traditional children's story in the repetitiveness of the arrival of the Dwarves, that familiar feeling of "here we go again". And one has to wonder, from within the context of the Legendarium, precisely why the Dwarves arrived by twos and threes, the answer (I believe) from Unfinished Tales being that Gandalf didn't want to shock Bilbo all at once.

The descriptions of food in this chapter tend to set me salivating- getting in touch with my Hobbit side, so to speak. In fact, between this and Narnia, I early on got into the habit of eating when reading, a habit that would be best broken, but doesn't seem likely to happen...

"Far over the misty mountains cold,
through dungeons deep and caverns old,
we must away ere break of day,
to sake the pale, forgotten gold."

This whole Dwarf-song, which I cannot remember in completion, is one of my favourite pieces of verse in Tolkien's work, possibly because it's the first one I encountered, but also because of the way it is incorporated into the story. Like Bilbo, I feel drawn away to a long-lost dwarfen kingdom, seeing it again in its forgotten splendour...

And like Bilbo, when I reach the end of this first chapter, I'm somewhat tired at the "cacophony" of events that have torrentially arrived in the space of a chapter, and leave with the feeling that surely it will calm down somewhat soon.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I love getting lost in the world of TH but I think its overshadowed by LotR & The Sil if you include it in with them & that simple sense of wonder it inspires can disappear if you're trying to force it to fit. So, for me LotR & the Sil are the 'true' account of events in Middle-earth, while TH is a version of it that has passed down through various hands, minds & voices. In many ways its more magical than the Legendarium because of the unexplained vistas. The borders of the story of TH could open up onto any landscape - its only LotR that 'fixes' it in a particular place & time & removes it from the world of fairy story & takes it up into the realm of high myth - which, for me, is a place it doesn't belong.

Anyway.....

Well, I'll stir up a little more argument (which shall continue after I've logged off no doubt and end up in "nurrr nurrr" style chidings ) about TH in the legendarium. I think it does 'fit' as it is simply another account of Middle-earth, one from a different perspective; different peoples in our own world have different views of it, and in that respect, Tolkien's providing us with three main different views of Middle-earth only serves to give the whole legendarium more depth to me. I'm also not so sure that LotR itself is without 'unexplained vistas' - that's part of the appeal. All of Tolkien's work is filled with 'unexplained vistas', I think this may be part of its appeal and what keeps drawing us back, the hope we'll find something new (and I usually do).

I recommend the Annotated Hobbit. I've been looking at it this evening, and there are some really interesting notes. One concerned the choice of 'Baggins', which has always struck me as similar to the word 'baggin' - meaning a workman's lunch. Apparently in the OED 'baggin' is listed as 'bagging'; Shippey ppointed out that Tolkien knew that this was an incorrect spelling according to the people who actually used the word, as it's a dialect word from the north. Tolkien was a member of the Yorkshire Dialect Society (which I did not know!) and so knew that the correct term was 'baggin' and used it as the name for a food-loving Hobbit.

the other note which interested me was that a Bullroarer is a slither of wood on the end of a string which when whirled round the head makes a horrendous noise; apparently children used to like to play with them. I liked this, as I've always pictured Bullroarer as a loud and slightly obnoxious (but not in a bad way) Hobbit. It has also made me want to make a Bullroarer and see just how loud and horrible they really do sound.

[Alchisiel]

What a coincidence that a chapter by chapter read of The Hobbit has just started as I have just started reading it myself. Instead of getting into whether or not The Hobbit should be included in the Legendarium I will answer Estelyn's questions in her first post.

When did you first read The Hobbit? How did it affect you and what did it mean to you?

I first read The Hobbit roughly three years ago I'm afraid. I was 29 years old. I wasn't even aware that the books existed until The Fellowship of the Ring movie came out. I learned that the books existed when a co-worker of mine told me about them. Of course I went out right away and bought The Hobbit and began to read becoming quite hooked on Middle Earth. Having read it around the time of September 11th, it became the epitome of a good vs. evil story to me.

Bits and pieces of information are scattered throughout this chapter, on Dwarves, dragons, the Necromancer, and the Wizard Gandalf. Which do you find most interesting or helpful?

The information about the dwarves and dragons were important to the story but it was the information about Gandalf's adventures and the pieces of information about the Necromancer that left me wanting to find out more. I think Tolkien does this intentionally and does this very well. I'm even going to go out on a limb and compare it to the television show Lost. Every week the show answers questions you want to know but it also leaves you with more questions at the same time. Tolkien does this as well, such as Tom Bombadil, Belladonna Took and her sisters, the Old Took, etc.

[Thinlómien]

As many others here, I've fallen in love with the dwarves' song. It just sounds so beautiful. I first became familiar with it in Finnish, and it's one of the best poem/song translations in Finnish. I remember listening to my father reading the poem aloud and how magical it sounded. I could almost hear the chilly wind on the mountains and see the dark caves. The song full of promise of distant lands and places, yet dangerous. I think that it , better than any other thing said by anyone gives the feeling of a becoming adventure.

Bilbo's behaviour in the first chapter has always amused me, I don't know why. I pity him. He being little and stupid and fearful, but trying to play an expert. I think Gandalf was a bit rude to do him so, present him as a master burglar. I can imagine him laughing to his beard and watching Bilbo struggle with his new role. Gandalf isn't cruel, but his somewhat malicious.

As he lay in bed he could hear Thorin humming to himself in the best bedroom next to him: Far over misty mountains cold...

Somehow this always makes me smile. It's funny. I can imagine nervous Bilbo, trying to get sleep with wild thoughts running in his head, and Thorin in the neighbouring room humming. Maybe it's the humming dwarf that has always amused me.

I like Gandalf in this chapter. His the man here. He knows the most, he keeps the secret. He's not as serious with the journey as the dwarves are (=he doesn't have personal feelings mixed up) and he isn't as nervous as Bilbo. He controls the situation. (In fact, he's the same kind of character to the end.)

[Essex]

re Davem's point

Of course, Bilbo's story is referred to in LotR (& The Quest of Erebor), so it is part of the Legendarium. This version of it, however, should be kept to one side as a children's story, a kind of 'Fantasia' on Middle-earth, an introduction if you like - imo, of course.

Is this because you see the Hobbit as a Children's book and the LOTR as not one? I see the LOTR as a Children's book as well as the Hobbit. Haven't most of us here read it first when we were kids? To be fair, the Hobbit is written in a more 'childish' style - but I also see LOTR as a Children's tale - but one so good that we take it into our adult world and never let go of it........

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

re Davem's point Is this because you see the Hobbit as a Children's book and the LOTR as not one? I see the LOTR as a Children's book as well as the Hobbit. Haven't most of us here read it first when we were kids? To be fair, the Hobbit is written in a more 'childish' style - but I also see LOTR as a Children's tale - but one so good that we take it into our adult world and never let go of it........

Actually, I don't think of LotR as a 'children's' book - I don't think of TH as a 'children's' story either. The story of TH is a story & the only distinction I make is between good stories & bad stories. TH is a good story.

The reason I wouldn't include it in the Legendarium is that it was not written to be part of it, it was written a an entertainment for his children first & foremost - that doesn't make a 'children's' story, it merely means it was written in what Tolkien thought was a style they would like.

TH is too 'free', too 'unbound' by the 'logical' limits & restrictions set on the Legendarium by Tolkien. It isn't just whimsical (which BoLT is also) but it is also at times patronising (a fault which Tolkien himself acknowledged).

The Elves & Trolls of TH work very well in the self contained world of TH, but viewed in the light of the Eldar & Olog Hai of the Legendarium proper they stick out like a sore thumb.

Anyway, I've said all this before so I'll stop here before Formendacil pops up to chastise me again (even though both last time & this I was responding to specific points directed at me by other posters

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Actually, I don't think of LotR as a 'children's' book - I don't think of TH as a 'children's' story either. The story of TH is a story & the only distinction I make is between good stories & bad stories. TH is a good story.

The reason I wouldn't include it in the Legendarium is that it was not written to be part of it, it was written a an entertainment for his children first & foremost - that doesn't make a 'children's' story, it merely means it was written in what Tolkien thought was a style they would like.

TH is too 'free', too 'unbound' by the 'logical' limits & restrictions set on the Legendarium by Tolkien. It isn't just whimsical (which BoLT is also) but it is also at times patronising (a fault which Tolkien himself acknowledged).

The Elves & Trolls of TH work very well in the self contained world of TH, but viewed in the light of the Eldar & Olog Hai of the Legendarium proper they stick out like a sore thumb.

Sorry but I've just got to argue...again...

I don't think it matters whether or not the original intention was that The Hobbit be part of the Legendarium or not, because it now is a part of the Legendarium. I think this is a case of the Reader being more important than the Author.

I also have to wonder what the 'Legendarium' actually is, as if we are going to be strict about it and go down the Authorial intention route, then LotR is not even a part of it, as it was begun as a follow-up to The Hobbit. In that respect only the Silmarillion is part of the Legendarium. I know davem will argue that LotR rapidly became part of the Legendarium during the process of writing it, as Tolkien included more and more from his Silmarillion writings, but he also did this with The Hobbit, amending the work to include more of that world.

He may not have begun with the intention of it being a part of his 'Legendarium' but that is irrelevant as he made it a part of it, and the readers then went on to accept it as part of it.

As such it serves as the perfect beginning to Tolkien's work, and includes much that helps us to better appreciate the world of LotR e.g. more knowledge of Hobbits, the character of Gollum, and some time spent with Dwarves, who are in comparison quite sidelined in LotR. I often wonder whether it affects our reading if we don't begin with The Hobbit, but that may be one of those questions we will never be able to answer as once we have begun with either TH or LotR, we don;t know what it would have been like otherwise.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

The reason I wouldn't include it in the Legendarium is that it was not written to be part of it, it was written a an entertainment for his children first & foremost - that doesn't make a 'children's' story, it merely means it was written in what Tolkien thought was a style they would like.

I believe it is a children story which became part of the legendarium :

Originally Posted by Letter #25

My tale is not consciously based on any other book - save one, and that is unpublished: the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elves, to which frequent allusion is made.

Originally Posted by Letter #163

The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; and in the event modified it. It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a 'children's story', and as I had not learned sense then, and my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the sillinesses of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had had served to me, as Chaucer may catch a minstrel tag.

[Thinlómien]

I see the LOTR as a Children's book as well as the Hobbit.

I disagree. I would say that it has no age limits. (What a cliché.)

The way of telling the story make tH and LotR different. The Hobbit is told lightly and quite plainly. In LotR the text includes lots of description and the events and some of the characters are much darker. The atmosphere is very different.

How is LotR children's book, Essex? The fact(?) that most of us have read it first as children doesn't make it a children's book. Have you any better arguments?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

While TH can be read as a children's book
or adult's there are some arguments for
it as a children's book.

1.)JRRT actually created it as one of the stories
he told his children (like Roverandom).

2.)t works very well as a read aloud book to children
(I did so to a fourth grade class with various students
taking parts (I got to be the narrator- and Gandalf,after all, I had to buy multiple copies for the class to read) . Btw, three boys got to be
bad guys and were repeatedly killed (trolls, spiders,
goblins, etc.). There were some great death scenes.

3.)And, as noted above, it was originally not in
the legendarium (hence the more comic dwarves).

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

How is LotR children's book, Essex? The fact(?) that most of us have read it first as children doesn't make it a children's book. Have you any better arguments?

Errrr, I think you have answered your own queation there.

most of us have read it first as children

What other evidence could be as daming as this????!!!!!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

One concerned the choice of 'Baggins', which has always struck me as similar to the word 'baggin' - meaning a workman's lunch. Apparently in the OED 'baggin' is listed as 'bagging'; Shippey ppointed out that Tolkien knew that this was an incorrect spelling according to the people who actually used the word, as it's a dialect word from the north. Tolkien was a member of the Yorkshire Dialect Society (which I did not know!) and so knew that the correct term was 'baggin' and used it as the name for a food-loving Hobbit.

I'm surprised that this is all the information they give for the names. The names are actually much more rich than this, although I was unaware of the lunch thing, which is fascinating:

A bilbo means both an iron bar that was used to fasten a prisoner's legs together, or a sword (from the Spanish city of "Bilboa" which was known in the renaissance and before for its steelworks).

"Baggins" is a compoud of 'bag in', which echoes the name of the hobbit's home, Bag End, which is the literal English transation of cul de sac ('end of a bag'): French for a dead end. Another interesting work is the Greek kalypsomenoi (from which the witch Calypso gets her name in the Odyssey) which means "To have one's head in a bag" to describe someone who is blind to his duty or ignoring his responsibilities.

"Took" is both the past tense of the verb to take (so contains the possibility of theiving? Bilbo must learn to take the treasure??), but also has older meanings -- it is also a sword or a triumphant/defiant blast on a trumpet made by way of challenge or before setting out on a venture.

So put all this together...

Our protagonist has two last names -- Baggins and Took -- that provide him with the two sides of his identity that will be in conflict with one another throughout his journey: the Baggins half that years to return to the comfortable dead end that is his home (end of a bag, bag-in); and the Took that wants to become a thief, wear a sword, and trumpet his greatness.

These two different possibilities are not set in direct opposition to one another though, because his first name is the combination of both: bilbo = imprisoning shackles, bilbo = sword. It's almost as though Bilbo has to learn to move beyond thinking of himself as being divided by his last names and toward realising a new a complex identity as contained by his first name.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Professor Tolkien was no slouch of a philologist!

[davem]

The oddest thing is that he wrote TH for his children, none of whom would have got any of that. He never expected anyone else to read TH, so all that stuff must have been written as a private entertainment.

So, I suppose we could say that he wrote TH as much for himself as for his children. It seems like what he actually wrote was two Hobbits in one.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I think it may be more than simply a private entertainment. Throughout all his writings you find these kinds or names and linguistic play, and I'm not sure we can say with any confidence that the adult reader of LotR is going to get them all -- if any of them. There are so many, and they are so clearly the result of such effort and learning, that I can only conclude that they play some significant role in the creation of the story. For Tolkien, I think, the word always comes first -- in particular the name. For him to write the story of Bilbo Baggins (not just relate the plot of adventure, but to tell Bilbo's story, the story of his growth and development) he required a name that would reflect that story, or contain it. It might even be simply a question of aesthetics: the name of his character had to 'fit' the nature of that character for Tolkien.

[davem]

Found something interesting in the new History of The Hobbit re the famous painting by Tolkien of Hobbiton across the Water. Up to now I'd taken it to be a simple landscape picture of Hobbiton. Rateliff points out that in the original draft the Dwarves arranged to meet Bilbo not at the Green Dragon, but at the Great Mill (inspired by Sarehole Mill) - hence the reason for the picture having Bag End in the background & the Mill in the foreground. So the picture is actually depicting Bilbo's route from his hole to the place he met the Dwarves.