'The Hobbit' Book Discussion

[Fiver]

As per this thread, I now launch a reading/discussion of the classic J.R.R. Tolkien novel, The Hobbit. I've never participated in one of these book discussions, let alone begun one, so any advice as to structure and pace would be appreciated.

I've got the 60th-anniversary hardcover edition of the book. It's printed on 288 pages of very fine paper and has illustrations by Alan Lee throughout, many of them in color. Thror's map at the front and the map of "Wilderland" at the back are both printed in black and red ink.

Of course, we don't all have to be so fancy, and any edition will do for purposes of this thread. We'll just not refer to passages by page number, okay?

I'm currently halfway through the first chapter, "An Unexpected Party." The dwarves have just finished helping Bilbo put away his dishes and have brought out their musical instruments.

Who's in for this discussion?

[Maeglin]

If it's Tolkien, I'm in by definition.

[Johanna]

One notable thing about the Unexpected Party is those very musical instruments. Right there is practically the only mention of musical instruments in Middle-Earth. (Except for the drums of the Woses in the Druadan Forest, but that's another story.) There are many, many songs in Middle-Earth, but no tubas.

[Alatariel]

What Maeglin said.

Unfortunately, I'm at work, no book handy, but you'll be hearinf from me soon.

[Hello Again]

I am a huge Tolkein fan, but I'm kinda "eh" on The Hobbit. I didn't hate it, but it didn't change my life or anything either. I have re-read LotR many times but never felt the need to re-read The Hobbit, except to page through the "important scene" -- important to LotR that is.

Are you reading it for the first time?

[Dinsdale]

SPOILER ALERT!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The butler did it.

[Bartman]

Sure, I'm in. Are we restricting discussion to just the Hobbit or are broader implications in regards to Tolkein's other on topic as well? In addition what about spoilers. Are we to limit ourselves to what Fiver has read or can we wander more freely?

[Fiver]

Jomo Mojo, you make a good point. The dwarves are depicted in The Trilogy as very pragmatic (if avaricious). Music doesn't seem like something that would interest them.

But their behavior in The Hobbit, especially in "An Unexpected Party," is uncharacteristic. Their impish behavior, what with playing the instruments and singing about cracking Bilbo's plates and all, is more elvish than dwarvish, it seems to me.

I think this is partly because the novel was written for children; it needs this playful scene at the start. Moreover, the song about the dragon's takeover of the Lonely Mountain serves a dual purpose: exposition, and awakening the "Tookish" side of Bilbo that wants to go on an adventure. See here:

...he wished to go and see the great mountains, and hear the pine-trees and the waterfalls, and explore the caves, and wear a sword instead of a walking-stick.

It's really that paragraph that sets up the rest of the book. And I think it's the mood evoked by the instruments the dwarves are playing, as much as the words to the song itself, that stir Bilbo's adventurous spirit.

rmariamp: I read it several times as a teenager, but this is my first time back in many, many years.

Bartman: I'd like to stay focused on just The Hobbit, although of course we can't discuss it without frequent reference to the rest of Tolkien's oeuvre. And, while obviously I'm not the boss of anyone's reading pace, I'd like us to stay on the same page (pun only partially intended) for discussion purposes.

Howsabout we restrict our discussion to the first chapter until a post from me indicates we've advanced to the next?

[Katisha]

Count me in! I love the Hobbit -- of course, it doesn't achieve the same grandeur as LotR does, but it's so much fun.

Oh, and as for the musical instruments -- there aren't any tubas in TH either! All the ones mentioned are basically OK for the medieval-ish world of Middle-earth... (I did a setting of this song a few years ago. It worked out pretty well, actually...)

[casdave]

Most folk come to Tolkein through 'The Hobbit' in their early teens but of course it is partway through a much greater whole.

Then they usually go on to the trilogy before finally going on at last to Silmarillion which is really the first in the series and carries the predictions.

Do you think there is anything to be gained doing it this way ? The whole seems to have been written to be approached like this which causes much backtracking and referencing, almost in the manner of a certain holy book in some ways.

[Hello Again]

it makes sense because The Hobbit is the easiest read (actually intended for children unlike LotR). The Sillmarillion is an unusually dense book and I think most people starting there would be put off continuing! You have to develop that deep and abiding love/obsession for Middle Earth before The Sillmarillion is worth it. Even then, I'm no so sure.

[Soup]

I've read 'The Hobbit' and LOTR several times, yet I'm still not sure why Gandalf suggested to the dwarves that Bilbo be a part of the mission to take back their mountain. He seems to be putting a hobbit that he is supposedly "quite fond of" in a great deal of danger. Are there any clues to the reason for this in the first chapter?

[A Monkey With a Gun]

<short highjack: Fiver, when my sixth grade teacher(way back when) gave us "Watership Down" to read, I thought it was going to be a Naval Thriller. Imagine my suprise...... Still loved the book, though.>

casdave, I do think the books should be read in that order. I've always thought of The Hobbit as the prologue, the trilogy as the actual story, and the Simarillion as an appendex (along with Unfinished Tales and other "unessential" works).

Anyway, count me in.

-Beeblebrox
_______________
"Bet you weren't expecting to see me again," said the monster, which Arthur couldn't help thinking was a strange remark for it to make, seeing as he had never met the creature before. He could tell that he hadn't met the creature before from the simple fact that he was able to sleep at nights."

[KeithB]

I'm in, too.

Two remarks:

I think an instrument is mentioned at the end of ROTK when everyone is recovering from the battle at the Morannon. They mention a troubador wandering about singing songs of great praise to Frodo, I *think* it mentions an instrument.

Soup:
I am sure that is explained that Gandalf sent Bilbo because of one of those coincidences that may have been Providential. (Caps intentional) Gandalf was using his Maia foresight and "saw" that there was a bigger part to Bilbo's going than just the adventure to Lonely Mountain. Sorry, I do not have the book handy, but try reading the passage when Gandalf is talking to Frodo at Bag End.

[lucie]

Back to the instruments, briefly.

I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but I think there is mention of harps in use at Rivendell in FOTR. Very much in passing, not important to what's going on, just setting the scene. IIRC, it is after the feast in Frodo's honor, when he see's Bilbo again for the first time.

Anyway, I read TH at 11 for the first time and moved right in. Tried to tackle LOTR at 13, but was not entirely successful (I didn't understand a third of what was going on, but I sure liked it). Now I've read them all, including the Silmarillion, several times. Happy to jump in on any discussion.

Regarding Gandalf's choice of Bilbo, Gandalf is mentioned to have known several of Bilbo's antecedents, particularly on the Took side, and as KeithB pointed out, he's pretty good at making judgement calls. Hobbits have qualities which make them good thieves, as any D&Der knows, and Gandalf probably saw something in Bilbo that Bilbo would never have seen in himself - interest and ability.

[obfusciatrist]

I didn't like the Hobbit. Normally that would make me eager to participate, if only to provide a dissenting voice.

Unfortunately, I discovered I didn't like it 15 years ago and haven't been back since. But I will read this thread with interest.

[Fiver]

I think you called it, lucie. We could assume Gandalf can see the future, but I think ascribing that power to him diminishes his character: Gandalf is wise and intelligent, and a shrewd judge of character. He could see the resourcefulness, the adventurous Took spirit, that lurked within Bilbo, even though Bilbo himself couldn't.

(And Beeblebrox, I never understood how a grassy field could get the name "Watership" either.)

[Arnold Winkelried]

I always thought that Tolkien didn't have the overarching vision we see in 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Silmarillion' when he wrote 'The Hobbit'.

a) In 'The Hobbit' he refers to "goblins" and uses the word "orc" only once or maybe twice.
b) In 'The Hobbit' there is not the "clear-cut" division amongst men, elves, dwarves that we see in LOTR. For example Beorn shows up with no good explanation of how he would fit in that scheme.
c) The elves are not the noble characters that we see in 'The Silmarillion' and 'LOTR'.

To intelligently discuss the book "chapter by chapter" I'll have to go back and re-read it, because knowing the whole story as I do I can't really say what my impressions would be having only read the first chapter. I remember when I read it originally that I thought Bilbo was a fool running out without a handkerchief. (I'm prone to allergies and a handkerchief is a very useful thing.)

[unwashed brain]

from this page:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/829/829079.html

"(chorus)
Let me go
Back to my little hole"

The chorus is a reference to Bilbo Baggins' demeanor throughout "The Hobbit." He just wanted to go back to his hobbit hole.

Yes, that's right folks. I made a subtle reference to Mr. Baggins in the Chorus of my (former) band's song, Black Licorice.

hehe...just thought you might find this mildly amusing.

[Smeghead]

I don't know that I'll have any particularly original ideas, but I'll participate. I just finished rereading this and the trilogy a month or two back.

As my first unoriginal thought, I'll point out that Tolkein had to do a pretty fair amount of 'splaining in the beginning of LOTR to fit the Hobbit into the same world.

[Northern Piper]

Jomo Mojo, you make a good point. The dwarves are depicted in The Trilogy as very pragmatic (if avaricious). Music doesn't seem like something that would interest them.

Not so!!

From In Moira, in Khazad-dûm:

Unwearied then were Durin's folk;
Beneath the mountains music woke:
The harpers harped, the minstrels sang,
And at the gates the trumpets rang.

[Bartman]

Well I think that part of the reason the Dwarves get a bad rap is we never see them in their homes. We get many views on hobbits (The Shire, Bree); Elves (Rivendell, Lorien); and Humans (Bree again, Rohan, Gondor). The only view we see of dwarves are while they are on quests. In my view this sceen is one of the best on views of dwarves. Like all people they just want to live in peace and prosperity. In this case we see the dwarves just about to undertake a dangerous mission that was taking them from their families and homes. They were risking much, with an opportunity to gain much. I have always view the instruments as the natural way of dwarves being put away, much like a US soldier going to a dance club just before being shipped off to Monte Cassino.

Of course the Hobbit was never originally intended to fit into Middle Earth (which at this time just consisted of unpublished versions of the Silmarillian). So several of the characters are not fully realized. Gandalf is certainly the chief of these. A wizard meant a lot less here than it did later on. Quite a few changes were made after the first print run to get it to fit in with the later books. In this chapter for example Gandalf originally asked for a tomato rather than a pickle. The change was made to make the book seem older as tomatoes are a new world plant. However some anachronisms were still left in, such as Bilbo sounding like a train leaving a tunnel.

As far as why Gandalf choose Bilbo. Tolkien wrote several explanations one of which was supposed to be in Return of the King (RotK) but was edited out. Evidently Gandalf had know Bilbo as a youngster fairly well. And at that age Bilbo had been much more 'Tookish.' Gandalf felt that the Shire would soon need leaders with some 'foreign' experience and thought of Bilbo. Of course Bilbo had settled down quite a bit from his irresponsible youth and become fat and lazy. Of course he almost gets rejected from the outset by Thorin but Galdalf obviously convinces the old dwarf otherwise. At least part of the choice of Bilbo is chance or insight. Gandalf later admits so himself. So not an ability to see the future per say, more of an ability to sense possibilities.

[Smeghead]

Hmmm. Interesting thought, Bartman. There are definitely hints throughout the trilogy that Gandalf was aware that the time was coming for him to leave Middle Earth. It would make sense for him to start raising up some good leaders here and there. Of course, I doubt that Tolkein was thinking that far ahead when he wrote the first chapter of the Hobbit, but still.

[Fiver]

I've just finished the first chapter. In the last few pages Gandalf and Thorin talk about the dwarves' loss of the Lonely Mountain to Smaug, and the diaspora which followed.

It made me think of the Jews. I'm sure Tolkien didn't intend this allegory, but it is an interesting parallel. Hebrews = dwarves, Romans = Smaug. Like the Jews, the dwarves were cast out of their home and its former glory and were dispersed throughout the world, getting by however they could and hoping for the day they could go back and reclaim their rightful home. The allegory probably breaks down at that point, though. Unless the Battle of Five Armies = World War II, and since the book came out in 1937, that's not likely.

[Alessan]

Originally posted by Fiver
I've just finished the first chapter. In the last few pages Gandalf and Thorin talk about the dwarves' loss of the Lonely Mountain to Smaug, and the diaspora which followed.

It made me think of the Jews. I'm sure Tolkien didn't intend this allegory, but it is an interesting parallel. Hebrews = dwarves, Romans = Smaug. Like the Jews, the dwarves were cast out of their home and its former glory and were dispersed throughout the world, getting by however they could and hoping for the day they could go back and reclaim their rightful home. The allegory probably breaks down at that point, though. Unless the Battle of Five Armies = World War II, and since the book came out in 1937, that's not likely.

Considering the Professor's attitude towards allegory, I'm quite sure that the connection is mainly coincidental.

However, I've always noted the similarity between Dwarvish and Hebrew - in consonants, cadence and word structure. The phrase Khazad-Dum, for instance, sounds suspiciously like "Gamad Kadum, or "Ancient Dwarf". Tolkien knew Hebrew, and while most of his linguistics were based on the Anglo-Saxon, I wouldn't be surprised if he threw a bit of his other knowlege into the story.

Plus, you have the beards. And the gold smithing.

[Humble Servant]

Originally posted by Bartman
Well I think that part of the reason the Dwarves get a bad rap is we never see them in their homes.

Right you are Bartman, though it is a bit strong to say the dwarves got a bad rap--remember, they were created by someone (can't remember who) with hubris and good intentions but without proper authority. They are the most secretive and private of the peoples--no one ever sees their women or children either.

Originally posted by Fiver
It made me think of the Jews. I'm sure Tolkien didn't intend this allegory, but it is an interesting parallel. Hebrews= dwarves, Romans= Smaug.

This is very interesting. I have always thought of the orcs as nazis. From a moral and plot perspective, it is very convenient to have creatures thoroughly evil, who can be slaughtered without compunction and without nagging concerns about the justness of their deaths. If only the nazis had been subhuman so that they too could have been proper objects for heroes to slay in great heaps--alas, the real world isn't quite like Middle Earth.

[Johanna]

In the FoTR chapter "Many Meetings" we read: "As Elrond entered and went towards the seat prepared for him, elvish minstrels began to make sweet music." A few pages later, "But those near him were silent, intent upon the music of the voices and the instruments...." It doesn't say what instruments. But they are there.

Then in the RoTK chapter "The Field of Cormallen" it says: "...and horns and trumpets sang...".

So this is why I said practically the only mention of musical instruments in Middle-Earth. I thought I remembered the trumpets.

The maker of the Dwarves was Aulë the Smith; he made them secretly and hid them from the knowledge of the other Valar until he awoke their forms. Even though they were not fair as the Eldar, eventually they were accepted as "children of Ilúvatar."

[Astroboy14]

I'm in! I've read The Hobbit and the trilogy maybe 30 or 35 times (when I'm bored I go back to the classics!)... the Sillmarillion bored the SNOT out of me, and continues to do so to this day! IE: I read the first few pages...

My only input so far: IMO, The Hobbit was written as a lark... then JRRT started thinking about it, and came up with the rest if TLR. So, to compare, or even group! The Hobbit with TLR is foolish... there are discrepancies that are the result of writing a novel off-hand and then pondring it for a while and then writing a more in-depth series of novels later...

I have a BA in English! You cannot argue with me! Don't try it! (I'm also drunk right now... but that's incidental...) I know all! I see alll! I understand all!

[Astroboy14]

Originally posted by Astroboy14
I'm in! I've read The Hobbit and the trilogy maybe 30 or 35 times (when I'm bored I go back to the classics!)... the Sillmarillion bored the SNOT out of me, and continues to do so to this day! IE: I read the first few pages...

My only input so far: IMO, The Hobbit was written as a lark... then JRRT started thinking about it, and came up with the rest if TLR. So, to compare, or even group! The Hobbit with TLR is foolish... there are discrepancies that are the result of writing a novel off-hand and then pondring it for a while and then writing a more in-depth series of novels later...

I have a BA in English! You cannot argue with me! Don't try it! (I'm also drunk right now... but that's incidental...) I know all! I see alll! I understand all!

UM... all I can say about the previous post is what I said before... IE: I'm drunk right now... Sorry!

But I stand behing almost evrything!

I'll pick and choose later which things I stand behind...

But I've read tghe series MANY times... at least 30 or so...

Maybe Ill just stagger off to bed now...

[Northern Piper]

The maker of the Dwarves was Aulë the Smith; he made them secretly and hid them from the knowledge of the other Valar until he awoke their forms. Even though they were not fair as the Eldar, eventually they were accepted as "children of Ilúvatar."

Aulë made the dwarfs, but he didn't awake them - i.e. - give them the power to act independently. He made them without the permission of Ilúvatar, and when Ilúvatar rebuked him for doing so, Aulë went to destroy them. Ilúvatar then gave the dwarfs independent capabilities to reward Aulë for his submission - all rather reminiscent of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.

[Fiver]

I've just read the second, short chapter, wherein Bilbo is rushed out of his house without his hat or pocket-handkerchiefs to meet the dwarves and embark on his Adventure.

By the end of the chapter they've met Bert, Tom and Bill, the three trolls, escaped their clutches as they turned to stone, and taken their plunder. This is an important moment in the story, as it's Bilbo's first brush with death, but also because it introduces Sting, the large dagger/short sword used by Bilbo and later Frodo throughout the rest of the stories.

I couldn't help but notice the dialogue used by the trolls. I think it's Cockney, but anyway it's quite a different dialect from that used by Bilbo and the dwarves. It's decidedly working-class speech, with none of the "Good mornings" or "At your service"'s we heard at the Unexpected Party.

Is this classism on Tolkien's part? Well-spoken = good, semi-literate = evil? I shall pay close attention to the speech of the other characters we're introduced to.

Discuss.

[Katisha]

Originally posted by Astroboy14
My only input so far: IMO, The Hobbit was written as a lark... then JRRT started thinking about it, and came up with the rest if TLR. So, to compare, or even group! The Hobbit with TLR is foolish... there are discrepancies that are the result of writing a novel off-hand and then pondring it for a while and then writing a more in-depth series of novels later...

The impressive thing, though, is how Tolkien managed to work TH into the greater Middle-earth mythos in spite of the inconsistencies. The classic exacple, of course, is what mariamp called the "Important Scene" (Bilbo's encounter with Gollum) which had to be revised in order for it to be consistent with LotR's take on the nature of the Ring. But it wasn't just a simple retcon -- Tolkien (via his literary role as "translator") actually made this inconsistency a part of the larger story. The copy of TH that I have has a preface to this effect -- I assume more recent editions retain it?

As for the accents -- working-class/rural-type accents aren't used exclusively for evil characters. Orcs aren't particularly articulate, either (though the orcs of LotR don't speak the same way the trolls in TH do), but many of the bit-player Hobbits in LotR have distinctly non-upper-class accents, as does Sam Gamgee. Of course, the differences in speech are subtler in LotR, leading to the (IMO unfounded) charge by some critics of Tolkien that all his characters speak alike.

In any case, Bilbo is a "bourgeois" hobbit (yes, I've read Author of the Century; why do you ask? ) and most non-human, non-hobbit characters do sound rather posh...

[Akatsukami]

Originally posted by Fiver
It made me think of the Jews. I'm sure Tolkien didn't intend this allegory, but it is an interesting parallel. Hebrews = dwarves, Romans = Smaug.

He did. Khuzdul (the Dwarvish language) was quite deliberately modelled by Tolkien on Hebrew, which he knew.

[Bartman]

Smeghead, I wasn't refering to Gandalf leaving but instead to the upcoming troubles. If I wasn't trying to avoid spoilers, I would mention the fact the Gandalf proved correct on this, as the ones who lead the Shire out of its problems were all influenced by Bilbo rather than by local custom (in the Scouring of the Shire). As it is I won't mention it to avoid confusing those who may actually be reading the books for the first time.

Fiver as far as classism is involved I would think not. I have read quite a few essays on Tolkien's supposed racism etc. and they genreally fall far short of the mark. JRR seems to have actually be fairly free from such sentiments especially for a man of his time. That said I think the language of Burt et al. is simply useing a different dialect for comedic affect. Obviously he could have choosen from many. However any step from the more correct English being used by the primaries would probably had the same result. So I don't view this as classism any more than when say the Pythons did it in Flying Circus.

Now for a couple of new observations. It has always seemed to me that Tolkien at this point is gradually taking us away from a more recognizable place to one more removed or remote. The first chapter and part of the second seems to take place in mid 19th century England. The characters eat foods which are reminiscant of the period. There are references to clocks, mantleplaces, steam engines, pocket-handkerchiefs, steam kettles, etc. As we progress in the story we seem to step back in time as much as through a physical space. We approach something that is much older. I have always felt that this was a great method to bring young children into the story. Start at a place that is fairly familiar and work to the less familiar. It no doubt does not work as well now as it did then. But for the 'gentry' children who were likely to be reading his book when it was written Bilbo must have appeared to be a very familiar fellow. What do you all think?

[sjc]

I am not reading the Hobbit right now but I have read TH, LotR and the Sillmarillion. I have read TH and LotR many times.

For those of you who think The Hobbit is lightweight compared to The Lord of the Rings, I say POOH ON YOU! I disagree wholeheartedly. As for the inconsistancies between the two, I disagree as well. JRRT wrote much of the Sillmarillion before he wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. So he definitely had a base story to start from.

As for the differences in style of the two books, I think that is one of the best things about them. The Hobbit is written from an entirely different perspective from the Lord of the Rings. The same world is being described, it is just being seen by someone (Bilbo) who knows less about the world he is traveling in.

I wish I could express this more clearly, I feel like I am not really explaining myself. I am tired but I wanted to respond to the Hobbit-Bashers among the posters of the SDMB. I'll come back to my arguments (not that I really want to debate this, but I do want to be able to explain why the Hobbit kicks ass.)

[Katisha]

Originally posted by sjc
As for the inconsistancies between the two, I disagree as well. JRRT wrote much of the Sillmarillion before he wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. So he definitely had a base story to start from.

Indeed, but it's rather well-documented that Tolkien didn't initially intend for TH to take place in the world of the Silm, although he threw in a few proper names (Elrond, Gondolin). This isn't any particular slight on TH, though.

Bartman, I agree, mostly -- hobbits are something of an "in-between" people in Middle-earth. They seem far more "modern" than the rest of ME, but to the reader, they also recall an idealized past...so they bridge the gap between the everyday world and the epic world. (I'm indebted to Tom Shippey's recent book on JRRT for much of this point -- I highly recommend it for anyone interested in literary criticism of Tolkien. It's called J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century.)

[Johanna]

When my kids were younger, I read The Hobbit aloud to them as a bedtime story. When I did the mock-British voices for the trolls, you should have heard them laugh! It was a hit. But even though the three stone trolls make a return appearance in The Fellowship of the Ring, the other trolls in LoTR who are still ambulatory do not speak, and they are not comic, they are very, very horrifying. The Olog-Hai. Brrr.

In that chapter, Fiver (are you a Richard Adams fan, by the way?) you get one of the little glimpses of the enormous depth to the backstory. From the troll cache they retrieve magical Elven swords of Gondolin. You can't know what major resonance the name of Gondolin holds until you read LoTR, and you won't get the full story until The Silmarillion. Gondolin was the greatest Elven city of the Elder Days, in the region of Beleriand which sank beneath the sea several thousand years before the Lord of the Rings takes place. To get a sword from Gondolin is heav-v-y. That's why Sting kicked butt everyplace.

[slortar]

I just came from reading the Silmarillion directly into reading the Hobbit. The change in tone is almost excruciating. Think fingernails across chalkboard.

Plus the inconsistencies are driving me nuts. At one point in the Hobbit, the narrator refers to the lands Bilbo is travelling through as being far from the King. wtf?

There are some neat consistencies, though. Mentioning Gondolin as a source of the swords, for example.

As it is, I keep falling back on the "being narrated by Bilbo" dodge a lot to keep from going insane.

[Fiver]

Good feedback regarding the working-class accents, everybody. I guess I jumped too quickly to a conclusion regarding the trolls. I will be paying close attention to the accents as I read the rest of the book.

Akatsukami, I don't think we can conclude Tolkien meant the dwarves to be allegorical Jews just because he modeled the dwarvish language on Hebrew. It does make the parallels more intriguing, though, doesn't it?

And Bartman, really good call about the passage from Hobbiton to Rivendell taking the reader "backward in time." Tolkien even describes how the roads get rougher...here, I'll tell it in Tolkien's own words:

Now they had gone on far into the Lone-lands, where there were no people left, no inns, and the roads grew steadily worse. Not far ahead were dreary hills, rising higher and higher, dark with trees. On some of them were old castles with an evil look...

This is the first part of the adventure that Bilbo doesn't enjoy, where he realizes adventuring is more than just a pony ride. He's in feudal, Dark Ages Europe now, effectively.

That famous article about Tolkien on Salon.com discussed the sense of melancholy that pervades Lord of the Rings. I think we're seeing some of it here in The Hobbit too.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
One notable thing about the Unexpected Party is those very musical instruments. Right there is practically the only mention of musical instruments in Middle-Earth. (Except for the drums of the Woses in the Druadan Forest, but that's another story.) There are many, many songs in Middle-Earth, but no tubas.

What about the toy instruments mentioned in connection with the Long Expected Party? Well OK, toy instruments aren't the same as real ones, but one would think they have real instruments as antecedents.

[Akatsukami]

Originally posted by Fiver
Akatsukami, I don't think we can conclude Tolkien meant the dwarves to be allegorical Jews just because he modeled the dwarvish language on Hebrew. It does make the parallels more intriguing, though, doesn't it?

No, Tolkien stated that (see The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien). I agree, though, that my saying, "Tolkien modelled the dwarvish language on Hebrew, therefore he meant for them to be allegorical Jews" was bogus.

[Northern Piper]

Similarly, some commentators have wondered if JRR modelled the hobbits on the Jews, in the context of WWII. In the foreward to Fellowship of the Ring, he said that was not his intention, in line with his strong dislike of allegory.

[Fiver]

On we go to the Last Homely House, where we find mysteriously carefree elves who seem to know everyone's name without asking.

I notice that elves are never described in this, their first appearance in the book. This is very interesting, as there are many conceptions of elves in the public mind: little Keebler-type elves; ethereal fairy-like elves; Elfquest elves. We should have some guidance if we're to picture these fellows in our minds.

But all Tolkien gives us in this regard is to call one of the elves a "tall young fellow." Tall compared to what? The other elves? Bilbo? Gandalf? We just don't know.

How lucky for Thorin and company, that Elrond just happened to study the map with them on the one day of the year when the moon-letters would show up!

[Balance]

Originally posted by Fiver
How lucky for Thorin and company, that Elrond just happened to study the map with them on the one day of the year when the moon-letters would show up!

Fate at work again, no doubt--part and parcel with the way Bilbo has been swept along throughout the journey. He's in a river already, and the twists and turns in it were set long before he fell in. I always felt that the sense of inevitability at this point plays well against Bilbo's choices later.

Of course, in the context of LotR, it could be the Ring at work, subtly influencing events in its effort to return home.

[Akatsukami]

Tolkien undoubtedly meant the Elves to be thought of as like to the Ljosalfar (Light Elves) of Nordic myth. They spent their days in dancing and singing, were noted as weavers, and, although beautiful beyond description, proved to be older than the trees and mountains when tricked into revealing their ages.

Tolkien drew a great deal upon Nordic myth for background (although he also drew upon other sources). Comparatively little of that shows up (in a pure form) in The Hobbit; it may well be considered a more creative (or at least better digested) work than The Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion is undoubtedly a greater and more creative work than either, but the long span of time over which it was worked on (more than half a century), and its limited reading appeal (although it should be remembered that it was edited and published after JRRT's death by his son Christopher) probably make it less impressive a work to many.

[Bartman]

slortar hath said: Plus the inconsistencies are driving me nuts. At one point in the Hobbit, the narrator refers to the lands Bilbo is travelling through as being far from the King. wtf?

There are two explinations I can give you. The first one is that this once again shows how Tolkien initially never intended the Hobbit to tie into middle earth. No more than Farmer Giles of Ham does. If he had the whole story maped out at this time he never would included anything like this. Of course this grates a little, far from what king, Theoden? Certainly there was no known living king who claimed the land in question. The only one who did claim the title and land was not recognized and actually wasn't far at all. As he (Aragorn) was living in Rivendell at the time.

However if you work at it you can come up with a story internal answer. My theory is that the Hobbits looked fondly on the past when they were given the Shire by Aragorn's ancestors. The kings kept the peace. So a saying for the wilds was "far from the king." When the kings and their men were diven off and presumed killed the saying had been in use for so long it stayed in use. By Bilbo's time the origin of the saying had been lost and they continued to use the phrase. The narrator is thus echoing Bilbo's thoughts when he states they are "far from the king." What do you think?

Fiver hath said:
I notice that elves are never described in this, their first appearance in the book. This is very interesting, as there are many conceptions of elves in the public mind: little Keebler-type elves; ethereal fairy-like elves; Elfquest elves. We should have some guidance if we're to picture these fellows in our minds.

I honestly don't know why we don't get a discription at this point. One option would be that he just assumed everyone would have a mental image of fair, small, pointy haired fairies. Keebler and Elfquest are both later additions to the public mind and owe their existance in part to Tolkien.

The other option is that he was already thinking of these elves being related to the Noldor. He had after all already included references to Gondolin. In which case he may have left out a description as his mental image did not agree with that of his readers and he didn't want to jar them

My guess is that it falls somwere in between. Tolkien for all his careful attention to details tended to leave these kinds of descriptions light or even forget them entirely. There is a set of fans which to this day argue about certain scenes and if Balrogs have wings or not, among other things. So it is very likely that Tolkien gave them a brief amount of screen time so to speak and didn't want so show anything other than that they were light hearted and carefree. To keep the pace flowing he may just decided to skip any description. After all it was dark, the charcters are tired. They themselves might not have been able to give a good description.

[Humble Servant]

Originally posted by Bartman
Keebler and Elfquest are both later additions to the public mind and owe their existance in part to Tolkien.

Tell the truth now: did you just stick this in to see if anyone was paying attention? If you mean this, and you can demonstrate just one way in which Tolkien's elves are like the Keebler elves, I'll send you a pack of E. L. Fudge cookies, and then I'll send you over to this other thread where I'm sure your little theory will be greeted with much enthusiasm.

The Keebler elves owe their existence in part to Tolkien? I'm crying for humanity here.

[Johanna]

Keebler is a very jarring note in a Tolkien discussion. Cutesy elves was the very sort of thing that irritated him the most!

But as soon as I picked up an Elfquest comic book, their being based on the Tolkien conception of Elves (a noble, terrible, ancient race close to nature, and far more refined than those crude humans) was immediately obvious.

[casdave]

One reason I think that TH works so well is that the transition from civilised Middle Earth to the rest of the world is that in some ways it parallels the differances between the First and Third worlds today.

At first it seems a bit like an adventure holiday or rough guide to the world type trip but it soon gets serious.

[Fiver]

Bartman, you little pixie, of course I know Keebler and Elfquest elves came later than Tolkien; my point was that someone coming to The Hobbit will have been exposed to many different concepts with the word "elf" attached to them. It doesn't matter that they came after Tolkien if today's new reader has been exposed to them first.

Tolkien abandons the task of assigning his elves to one of those concepts.

And I'm with Humble Servant: it's on you to explain how Keebler elves were based in any way on Tolkien's elves. They seem to me more like the small, tree-loving, fairy-esque elves that have been in the public imagination for hundreds of years, and which are very unlike the man-sized (we later learned in LotR) elves of Middle-Earth.