![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Review: The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien
Return to Middle Earth: The Hobbit
Believe it or not, Peter Jackson's latest film is only indirectly responsible for my decision to re-read The Hobbit (again). The proximal cause was Tor.com's (no-doubt entirely commercial) decision to ask the redoubtable Kate Nepveu to lead a weekly, chapter-by-chapter "re-read" of the novel in conjunction with the release of the first (of three!) movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's 300 page children's story.
 |
My intention had been to follow along at Nepveu's chapter-a-week pace and, perhaps, to contribute to the ongoing conversation she was (and is!) sure to inspire, but Tolkien's deceptively simple prose and thematically complex fairy story swept me away (as it has a number of times before). I finished the book in a couple of days.
The short version is that The Hobbit remains a delightful adventure story and fairy tale, even if it is the work of a writer who has yet to reach the full extent of his creative powers.
That said, it also a very strange book, that strays very far indeed from a typical heroic path in favour of wandering the fields of moral complexity and (relatively) complex characterizations. The protagonists are far from perfect and even the villains show surprising signs of humanity.
A lovely book to read aloud to a child, there is every chance that you will have to read it twice, since you'll likely treat yourself to the whole thing before you sit down for Chapter Two with said youngster.
The long version lives on my site. (As usual, there are spoilers.)
_______
no subject
Who by?
no subject
I completely disagree ...
So I am curious. Why do you think The Hobbit was better-written?
Re: I completely disagree ...
B-u-u-u-t ok, i think The Hobbit plays to Tolkien's strengths, he was always at his best as a teller of tales not so much as a prose stylist or for depth of character. Off the top of my head I would cite Mervyn Peake and TH White and Alan Garner as easily eclipsing him in that respect.
However Tolkien has an accessibility, a freshness and a thorough grasp of the faery tale and its historical antecedents which The Hobbit is a particularly fine example of. Even the daft rhyming names have purpose and add to the effect.
The small scale of The Hobbit means character focus and narrative coherence and it is refreshingly free of LOTR's Wagnerian bombast and martial clichés (i think it was Moorcock who despaired over the use of the 'army swept like a tide' type of writing) and the fact that the main characters are essentially children doesn't matter so much in a work designed to appeal primarily to the young (at heart) reader.
The paternalism at the heart of LOTR is a bit much for me sometimes where the shire becomes 'Little England' and the friendship forged out of hardship works better than the sentimental hand kissing of The Two Towers where Sam and Frodo can become very grating.
The humour works, the fantasy works (Smaug is great!), Bilbo as unlikely hero/thief works and the action (e.g. the barrels sequence) works. The Moon writing, the map and whatnot are all engaging and held down rather than the sprawl of LOTR.
But mostly it is just the simple and direct, witty prose. Farmer Giles scores with me for the same reason.
This sounds like i'm trashing LOTR when i could very easily cite sequences from it that are phenomenal e.g. the whole of the Moria section and the development of Gollum. But these are highlights in a patchwork quilt which i also find occasionally lumpen and over stuffed and with a few holes (wtf Bombadil, why didn't the Ents get a ring bla bla).
i apologise sincerely if this comes across as a rant, that's not my aim at all (i save that for CS Lewis and The Last Battle!) and i enjoyed reading your review a great deal.
Re: I completely disagree ...
I am also trying to figure out how to do justice to your argument. I still disagree with you — if anything, even more now that you've expanded on your original point — but I rather suspect a proper response would require that major essay I've been (sort of) meaning to write on TLoTR for quite a few years now.
Hmm ...
I just tried an "in a nutshell" response and deleted a couple of paragraphs after realizing that, yes, a full essay is required in response.
So for now, I'll just say that I was convinced by Sam and Frodo's relationship, even if — as it did — its class-based elements made me uncomfortable. I found it full of humour and character-based humour, at that. And where you see a "patchwork quilt" I see a complex weaving of "bombast" and quiet talk, of epic battle and hard, slow slogging.
Which I guess is a very long way of saying, "I (still) think you're wrong!"
Sigh ... yet another fan's five-thousand word ode to The Lord of the Rings is a-callin'. But I won't promise a finish date.
P.S. Your mention of Peake reminds me that I really need to make the time to re-read the Gormenghast books. (TH White, not so much.)
Re: I completely disagree ...
i would be very interested to read the essay when you've done,
so i hope you flag it up here.
'best,
wytch
Re: I completely disagree ...
Yes, I'll almost certainly flag that essay here — if I ever get around to writing it.
It's one of the labours of love that seems to be forever put off 'till a week Thursday, but who knows? One of these days, maybe ...
Meanwhile, I will be reviewing the first Hobbit movie very soon, so keep checking on the site. (Or, he suggested diffidently, still uncomfortable with anything approaching a hard-sell, you could subscribe to my newsletter. I promise not to abuse the privilege of your email address.)