The Hobbit- reconsidering Tolkien

By chance, I happened to be having a pleasant trawl through xkcd today and came across this cartoon titled Entwives and thought of this thread

xkcd.com/2609/

The Hobbit is definitely a children's book, LOTR 'young adult fiction' before that was a thing

Wasn't he writing initially for his own children, so the style became more mature as they aged. ISTR that he sent instalments of LOTR as he wrote it to his son who was serving in the RAF in WW2.

Tolkien served through all four years of WW1.

Which of course would have been an entirely male experience. Then he added his knowledge of Anglo Saxon language and myth. He wrote what he knew, as writers are always advised to do.

(Making me want to read LOTR again. I used to re-read it regularly. I still have a copy.)

I saw an interesting article a while ago about what makes a novel ‘movie-able.’ It was really cool. It’s weird to think, some
amazing and well known novels have never been adapted, but then there’s other novels which have had multiple adaptations. I wonder what it is that catches the eye or seems like something that would make a good movie.

I don’t think it’s necessarily based on whether the novel is good or bad though. I think it’s to do with how it’s written/what style it’s in/some other quality I can’t pinpoint. Or maybe just the luck of being read by the right person at the right time.

I’ve tried them a few times - not for me. But then not everything is for everyone.

For what it’s worth I’ve seen half of one of the films and hated that too.

I've never read the books, but have seen the films. I hated the Aragorn and Arwen stuff. The films were very short of women (like, presumably, the books) but a drippy love interest does not fill that gap!

I love the books and the films but only the editors cut which have many many scenes which didn't make the cinema versions. They are so much better.
I lived at uni with a Tolkien fanatic and was pretty immersed in Middle Earth a lot of the time! Reading, RPGs and live action stuff. I love the amazing background and detail he had for the world. And at one point I could write in elvish.....

First, I'm not sure that's true.

Second, I believe the rule is that:
-Mediocre books are likelier to make better movies
-Great books are likelier to make mediocre movies

I never read it as a child but gave it a go with my kids and though it was wonderful

I also loathed the films. It was as if the scriptwriters had heard about the books third-hand and just had a brief to write lots of battle scenes, and then the CGI team took it away.

I’m not sure I could re-read the Hobbit but I did love it, and the parts I love best are the funny comfortable bits, the jokes and the riddles, and the way the small fellow who’s too set in his ways triumphs without really changing his character.

I loved LOTR as a child; I did re-read it when the movies came out but wouldn’t have the time and patience again.

The Hobbit is an interesting precursor to LOTR. Bilbo’s Ring confers invisibility, but that power is more useful , even comical , than terrifying. By LOTR, the Ring has become the hinge of the world, the focal point for the big battle between the Light and the Dark: the stuff of epic , not bedtime story. The contrast between the elves in the Hobbit and LOTR is emblematic of this change in tone.

The book was pretty much a cult when I was at University, people had posters in their rooms ( taken from the books, this was way before film adaptations). That was where I first read it; as I was being inculcated with Anglo Saxon at the same time, the linguistic references were intriguing.

I hated the films, I thought they were trivial and simplistic. Galadriel is minimised, in the books she is one of the major moral centres, the only person who is offered the Ring and rejects it. I suppose LOTR is actually a tragedy, in that the hero is irreparably damaged by his experiences, and the world for which he has sacrificed his future still passes ‘to the West’, into the sunset.

Tolkein served through all four years of WW1.

LOTR is the exception that breaks the rule: the films were better than the books.

Tolkien needed a better editor.

in there not in their 😳

I read the hobbit and then Lord of the Rings when I was 11. We had a horrible uncle staying whom my parents had given my bedroom to and consigned me to the very small study (not enough room for an actual bed between the desks) and I stayed in their on my folded duvet floor -bed reading for most of the week.

I associate the books with a feeling of refuge and being a bit besieged 🤣 but as I read them in an intense, fairly short period they and the world they created feel quite vivid still.

I simultaneously want to reread them and don't...

I liked the first film, but disliked the rest. Weirdly I don't remember the books being as battle heavy.

I loved the Shire and The Ents and The Last Homely house.

Right, that's often a problem with films, isn't it? The content has been changed, embellished, made more violent or sexual, and then the book seems disappointing. Just about the only example I know of the opposite is "Catch Me If You Can" where the real story is wilder than the film version.

I don't think I noticed how male dominated the stories were when I read them as a teen/young adult in the 1970s. But then, that's how the world itself was.

No, I loved them all from the get-go, and as I've gotten older I appreciate Tolkien's LOTR language all the more.

And I have no objection to stories being male-dominated.

I reread it every few years. Yes, it's very male, but one thing I like about reading is I get loads of different perspectives - I also read books with mostly women in, and with a whole mix, so it's all fine - and better no women than badly written ones.

My dad read the whole of LOTR to us twice when we were kids! I’ve always had a soft spot for it, although the criticism about the female characters is totally valid. It does take itself very seriously with all the elvish etc and old fashioned language, but that’s part of what people love about it, it’s immersive. I can see it might not be for everyone though, so if you didn’t click with it don’t worry, it’s not Shakespeare!

The Hobbit is good too, but very much a children’s book.

I listened to The hobbit and the LOTRs as unabridged audiobooks recently, and I loved them.

I had read them years ago, and this was a brilliant way to re-visit them on my commute to work.

I loved reading The Hobbit when I was 9 or 10. It is entirely male, but it's a cracking adventure.

Tom Bombadil definitely needed an editor’s red pen. I remember struggling with that section and almost giving up the novel. Thankfully I didn’t - the rest was superb.

With so much tech now - and the fact that they’ve seen the films - I know my DC will never read them. Their loss!

Interesting, I have just come back to JR Tolkien after watching 'The Rings of Power' on Amazon. I read the Hobbit and LOTR when I was younger, but I think as an adult appreciate the complexities more. The fact that he wrote history and languages for the story with such intricacies fascinates me.

I do a lot of lone work and driving so wanted something long form to listen to, so downloaded Fellowship of the Rings on Audiobook, read by Andy Serkis. He is a brilliant narrator - so far I am loving it.

I agree with PP that it is very male, but understand that was his audience at the time. Though female characters are few, Galadriel is badass.

I read aloud The Hobbit and then the whole of LOTR to my then 7 and 9 year olds during first lockdown. We spent about half an hour reading it together and cuddling every evening. They absolutely loved it. It became a way to connect and de-stress after the stresses of home schooling and home working. I hadn’t planned to read LOTR, but after we finished The Hobbit (and we were still locked down!) it seemed logical to continue. It took my 5 months to get through them both. It’s something we always have. They haven’t seen the films - haven’t wanted to. And they’d be gutted that Tom Bombadil and Fatty Lumpkin didn’t make the cut for the films.