The Hobbit is what?

[Imladris]

Is it a myth, or does it merely have mythical elements?

According to C.S Lewis, this is what constitutes a myth (I suspect that Tolkien had the same idea since his LotR is very clearly mythical in this sense of the definition):

1. It is, in the sense I have already indicated, extra-literary. Those who have got at the same myth through Natail Comes, Lempriere, Kingsley, Hawthorne, Robert Graves, or Roger Green, have a mythical experience in common; and it is important, not merely an H.C.F. In contrast to this, those who have got the same story from Brook's Romeus and Shakespeare's Romeo share a mere H.C.F. in itself valueless.

What Lewis is saying is that you don't need to read the story to have it affect you. The synopsis is enough. Now, does the Hobbit do that? Do you feel the sense of excitement when you read how a young, stay at home, peace loving, chubby short person goes off with a pack of dwarves to rescue treasure deep within a mountain guarded by a riddling dragon? In a way it is like a normal adventure movie, yet...in a way, it is not.

2. The pleasure of myth depends hardly at all on such usual narrative attractions as suspense or surprise. Even at a first hearing it is felt to be inevitable. And the first hearing is chiefly valuable in introducing us to a permanent objection of contemplation -- more like a thing than a narration -- which works upon us by its peculiar flavour or quality, rather as a smell or a chord does.

In other words, we never tire of it. We go again and again to read and contemplate upon it. The Hobbit is not as intellectually deep as LotR is. However the most intrigueing, most deep part, is in Gollum's cave and the riddle game. The theme of the subtle allure of evil, for a decent hobbit would not have broken the rules.

3. Human sympathy is at a minimum. We do not project ourselves at all strongly into the characters. They are like shapes moving in another world. We feel indeed that the pattern of their movements has a prfound relevance to our own life, but we do not imaginatevely transport ourselves into theirs. The story of Orpheus makes us sad; but we are sorry for all men rather than vividly sympathetic with him, as we are, say, with Chaucer's Troilus.

We do know Bilbo and the dwarves better than Frodo and the Fellowship. We sympathize with him. That's about all that I can see in the Hobbit to go with this one.

4. Myth is always, in one sense of that word, 'fantastic'. It deals with impossibles and preter-naturals.

Gandalf's magic...dragons...talking thrushes...talking crows. Yup. Definitely has that. Shape changers.

5. The experience may be sad or joyful but it is always grave. Comic myth (in my sense of myth) is impossible.

The Hobbit is undoubtedly funny. However, it's grave too. Kili and Fili, the youngest dwarves, died. Thorin died. Thorin and Bilbo barely had a chance to make up because of the Arkenstone. An entire town was destroyed. And at the end, Bilbo comes back to people selling off his hole and he has to buy back all his possessions. So typical of life, isn't it?

6. The experience is not only grave, but awe-inspiring.

Sorry, but the Hobbit isn't exactly awe inspiring.

Another thing about myth is that it appeals to us. It appeals to our desires. Does the Hobbit do that?

I leave you with this final quote:

Successful myths rise to probe the ultimate mystereis of existence, simultaneously arousing the reaader's wonder and awakening in him a desire that these insights might be true."

-- Rolland Hein.

Based on the things I have outlined, I would have to conclude that the Hobbit is not a myth per se, but a fantastical story with mythical elements.