The Annoying Hobbit

[Ruoutorin]

When I was a child (in sixth grade) the first "taste" of Tolkien that I had was a class reading of The Hobbit with a subsequent test on The Hobbit. Although I had to read it through, I just could not get into it, and wound up with a 65% on the test which was the lowest score that I ever received in my life before or after this test. Some years later I read the Lord of the Rings, which I loved and couldn't get enough of. At this point I tried The Hobbit again, and this time I was able to finish it quickly, but I still didn't like it. Shortly after that I read the Silmarillian (which I think is the best novel that I have ever read, and I've read novels uncounted) and the Unfinished Tales which I also loved.
Recently I picked up the Annotated Hobbit. I began reading it myself in the hope that the notations would tie The Hobbit more into the LotR and the Sil and make me see The Hobbit in a different light or as a prequal to LotR and worthy of the same status. Although the notes are excellent, I still, after all these years, find the story of The Hobbit distasteful.
The Hobbit depicts Dwarves as bumbling and goofy. Thorin acts nothing like a Dwarven King **glares angrily at Tolkien**. Gandalf is portrayed as somwhat of a cartoon wizard and Bilbo, oh Bilbo, reminds me of Winnie the Pooh (oh bother!). The Elves sing silly songs and tease people. And Gollum, I don't even want to talk about him. Bilbo is sitting near Gollum in his cave and Bilbo has the One Ring in his pocketessss and Gollum can't sense that something's up??? Gollum has already worn or carried the Ring nearly 500 years by this point. In LotR Gollum follows Frodo and Sam to the most perilous destinations (Mordor) in order to pursue the Ring. Why do we never see him again after the encounter in his cave???? The account that Tolkien gives of Gollums wanderings afterwards are pretty lame. I have more complaints, but I think I have relayed my point. I am quite aware that the Hobbit was written as a children's book, but I still do not see this as an excuse to make all of the characters "bumbling" and then use them in a story where they are expected to be respected. If Tolkien needed to change the characters personalities then he should have changed the characters altogether, no?
Does anyone feel the same as I do about The Hobbit???? I feel so alone lol.

[A_Brandybuck]

You are not so alone. ;-)

I read the Hobbit after reading Lord of the Rings and I could not get into it. The way of writing does not fascinate me in the way Lord of the Rings did.
But after having read the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, I started to read again and saw the Hobbit in another light. It wasn't still another story with relations to Lord of the Rings. No, it was a part of the world, which have discovered while reading the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.
It fascinates me at once, but the style of wrinting was not the reason.
The reason was, that there are so many new details of the world and my view has changed from the "delight-of-reading"-view to the "give-me-more-knowledge-over-the-world"-view.
I didn't pay attention to the picture of the characters I saw in the Hobbit. The great-context was important.

The Hobbit is today (for me) important to understand Tolkien's process of writing, to look into the beginning of his writings (also when it is not the very first beginning). It has more similarity with the Book of Lost Tales in the style of writing. You can catch a glimpse of the world, how Tolkien has designed it before writing Lord of the Rings, which has diorganize the world totally.
Because of Lord of the Rings and so many questions concerning the mythology after the outcoming of the "Triology" , Tolkien had to made a new concept.

Finally, the Hobbit stands by me "in the same row" as the Book of Lost Tales and all the other books of the beginning.

[Mithalwen]

I have some sympathy since although I loved the story when it was on "Jackanory" oh so many years ago and bought the book becasue I missed the final episode, I seldom reread the Hobbit (or indeed the early chapters of LOTR) because of the dominant style. However, if you read the history of LOTR you will see how things changed. The Hobbit had, almost by accident acquired links with the world of the Silmarillion created long before and ineveitably in a children's book they are diluted.

However do not be too hard on "The Hobbit" - remember that it is of a similar era to Winnie the Pooh (which I love btw) - that was the style of children's books..... it does have its moments - think of the death of Thorin if you wish for dignity...... Also, while I love the LOTR more as the sequel to the Silmarillion than as the sequel to the Hobbit (I was always an elf fancier rather than a hobbitphile), bear in mind that the only reason we have The LOTR is becasue of the popularity of the Hobbit. THe publishers would not touch the Sil. So no Hobbit, no LOTR, no Sil, no UT, no HoME.
So I am very grateful to it for introducing me to the wider world of Middle Earth even thought it is not something I read much as an adult.

[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?

[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

[mark12_30]

The Elves sing silly songs and tease people.

I've responded to this elsewhere, specifically:

Tril-lil-lil-lolly, or bust.

Regarding tralalalallying

With the value that Tolkien placed on being merry, I'm glad his most profound characters also have the ability to chuckle. Or even guffaw.

[Aiwendil]

Ruotorin wrote:

Yes, there is a dragon, but I never could vision Smaug to be in the same league as Glaurung.

Interesting. To me, Smaug has always seemed to be one of the things that most emphatically connected The Hobbit with the rest of Tolkien's mythology. Smaug and Glaurung are different characters, yes. But I have always thought that, like Glaurung, Smaug epitomizes a peculiarly Draconian kind of evil - a mix of malice, cunning, arrogance, and playfulness. Smaug's riddling conversation with Bilbo has, I think, very much the same tone as the exchanges between Turin and Glaurung.