|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Aug 10, 2011 22:11:34 GMT -6
I am currently rereading The Hobbit in preparation for the movies. I'm not attempting it in real-time, as the "Bilbo's Great Adventure" thread is, but I have some general comments that I wanted to share.
This has been a fascinating experience so far as the book almost seems to have morphed before my eyes. When I first read this years ago, it was my gateway into Tolkien's work. Now, however, I am well-versed in Middle-earth so I'm seeing a whole new level of the story.
So many off-handed references that were simply part of the ambiance at first were later expanded by Tolkien in other books -- the Mines of Moria, the fight against Azog and his forces outside its gates (Battle of Azanulbizar), the ford just before Rivendell (Ford of Bruinen), the swords of Gondolin (just a cool name the first time I read it. Now I know the history of the city and that Glamdring belonged to Turgon), references to ancient conflicts of the Elves and Goblins (War of the Jewels), etc. Reading this book again, I find myself mentally filling in the gaps and seeing connections to Tolkien's other works. It makes the setting that much more cohesive and realistic.
On a similar note, it's quite fun to read this now that I'm a player of Lord of the Rings Online. I can very clearly picture the journey from the Shire to Bree-land to the Lone-lands to the Trollshaws since I've (figuratively) made this trip myself. I've crossed the Last Bridge, crossed the Ford of Bruinen, and gone up into the highlands and down a zig-zag path into Rivendell. I've explored the Misty Mountains and found the Black Crack that leads into Goblin-town. Granted, these things were depicted as the game designers imagined them, not necessarily Tolkien. But it's another layer of reality that's added to the story as I reread it.
Has anyone else had a similar experience? Does The Hobbit seem completely different to you when you read it again years later?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Aug 11, 2011 6:32:39 GMT -6
Yes! Everytime I have re-read The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings books and The Silmarillion, I have gained more insight and understanding of the whole world and how all the pieces fit together. And being a part of Tolkien's Ring and the many discussions we have had over the years has also given meaning and understanding to these books. It is one of the reasons I don't mind going back time and again to re-read, discuss, and rehash the many aspects of Tolkien's World!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Aug 11, 2011 6:39:14 GMT -6
On a similar note, it's quite fun to read this now that I'm a player of Lord of the Rings Online. I can very clearly picture the journey from the Shire to Bree-land to the Lone-lands to the Trollshaws since I've (figuratively) made this trip myself. I've crossed the Last Bridge, crossed the Ford of Bruinen, and gone up into the highlands and down a zig-zag path into Rivendell. I've explored the Misty Mountains and found the Black Crack that leads into Goblin-town. Granted, these things were depicted as the game designers imagined them, not necessarily Tolkien. But it's another layer of reality that's added to the story as I reread it. That is something I feel that I am missing. I bet it is fun and gives you a cool perspective into Middle Earth even if it is the game creator's impression and interpretation. If I didn't work, I would definately be playing the game myself! I can't play it after work because I have so many other things that I have on my plate. Sigh! Someday maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Aug 11, 2011 15:35:14 GMT -6
Oooo! Good Topic, Fredeghar!
I read the Trilogy before I found a copy of The Hobbit. I think this altered my perspective in quite a few ways:
1) My introduction to Gandalf came from LotR, and I remember suspecting him of being a potentially "evil" character. Was he really a "good guy," trying to help Frodo understand and deal with the Ring, or would he prove to be a treacherous sorcerer, out to steal the Ring for himself? Just as Sam did not really trust Strider until after Glorfindel showed up, so I continued to harbour suspicions of Gandalf, until the story reached Rivendell. Had I been prepared by a prior reading of The Hobbit, I think I would have accepted Gandalf as a "good guy" from the first.
2) By reading LOTR first, I got JRRT's background connections before I learned the actual history-narrative of Bilbo's journey. So, by the time I did read The Hobbit, I already knew quite a bit about Bilbo, his trials/ tribulations/ victories -- this may have diluted some of the surprise. Afterall, even before starting The Hobbit, I already knew from LOTR that the mission would succeed, that Smaug would die, and that the Luck Ring, Invisibility Ring would prove to be the most important element of his quest. Had I read The Hobbit first, Bilbo's ring would not have had all its haunting, chilling associations.
3) By reading LOTR first, I was predisposed to seeing The Hobbit as a connected part of Middle-earth history, and it was only later on, reading The Letters and some of the HOME manuscripts, that I developed an understanding of just how much The Hobbit originally was a stand-alone/ independent work, with only a few vague connections to the earlier stories we would later read in The Silmarillion. Because of this, it took me a while to discover just how much work JRRT went through to revise The Hobbit so that it would fit into the backstory of Middle-earth, and then just how much these alterations, caused by the LOTR narrative, would force his 1950s revision of the Elder Ages.
I think DA and I used to (probably still would) argue quite a bit regarding how much (or how little) of The Silmarillion World could be found in the original Hobbit book.
Now, I find, like Stormrider, that each new re-reading still stimulates me with "discoveries." LOL, like my current "logistical" approach to The Hobbit -- which is influenced by comparisons with LOTR, where I think JRRT did carefully check the feasibility of all treks.
I also find new mental images on each re-reading, different things I hardly noticed on earlier readings, suddenly stand out clearly defined, catching my attention, re-engaging my sense of wonder and delight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Aug 11, 2011 17:58:59 GMT -6
I think DA and I used to (probably still would) argue quite a bit regarding how much (or how little) of The Silmarillion World could be found in the original Hobbit book. There's quite a bit of it in there, more than I remembered, even if most of the references are vague. There's the mention of Gondolin and its king obviously and references to ancient wars between the Elves and Goblins. There's the mistrust of the Elves and Dwarves. There's a few cryptic hints about Elrond and his storied past and the fact that he's half-elf, half-human. There are also, I think, mentions of the fathers of Men (i.e., the Edain), though I'd have to reread some of those passages to double check. Granted, I don't know how much of this was Tolkien intentionally calling back to the older stories and how much is me finding connections based on what I know of Middle-earth now. For instance, I don't know if Elrond's part in The Silmarillion had been written yet or if he was shoehorned in later. The conflicts of the Elves and Goblins and of the Elves and Dwarves could simply be referencing Norse/Anglo-Saxon mythology, not specific incidents in Tolkien's work. My guess is that Tolkien simply had preconceived notions about the various imaginary creatures and how they interacted. He chose to make certain things universally true, even if he originally intended The Silmarillion and The Hobbit to be set in different worlds. I've caught myself doing this as a writer as well. For example, I've used the original Celtic-style faeries in several of my stories (no surprise with how I've rambled on about those myths here, right?). One was set in Arthurian Britain and another was a modern superhero adventure. Despite having no intention of these being in the same universe, the faeries were depicted much the same way in both stories. Once you settle on your version of a character or creature, it's hard to divorce yourself from that. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Aug 12, 2011 6:04:26 GMT -6
I read The Lord of the Rings before The Hobbit, too! My Dad had FOTR and he could not get into it! Can you believe that? Immediately upon starting it, I couldn't put it down! Thank God that my Dad didn't like it, because I may never have been introduced to JRRT until the movies came out! GASP! But luckily he gave it to me and I had read the story every 3 or 4 years over and over again after that!
Anyway, I agree with much of what Andorinha says about having read LOTR before The Hobbit. But I didn't distrust Gandalf at all! I really liked Gandalf immediately--no questions asked. But if I had read The Hobbit first, I may have suspected Gandalf of being evil with all of his disappearances throught that story...what was this guy up to?
Within the first two chapters and all the talk of Bilbo and The Ring, it made me very curious to know more about Bilbo. I did not realize that there actually was a book of Bilbo's adventure and thought it was only some back history reference.
When I went to buy The Two Towers, was I surprised to see all the material out there! So I bought TTT and ROTK and The Hobbit all together. But by that time, I was near the end of FOTR, otherwise I may have stopped reading LOTR and went to The Hobbit first. If I had known in the first chapter of FOTR that there was a book on Bilbo's adventures, I would have stopped reading then and there and gotten The Hobbit and started out right!
It would be interesting to have read the very first edition of The Hobbit to see what Silmarillion references were missing and later worked in. I agree with Fredeghar that there are many references now!
|
|
|
|
Post by orwell on Aug 15, 2011 4:56:19 GMT -6
I read The Hobbit many times before I even knew LotR existed, having failed to read the frontispiece of my Edition and not seen there was a LotR until a friend told me about it two years after first reading it. l fell in love with The Hobbit in blissful ignorance of other works, well and truly, and I still prefer it (just) to LotR. As to gaining more from the book when rereading it, I have to agree, I'm always discovering new facts as well as obtaining new insights. Having read the History of the Hobbit, my appreciation of the book shows no sign of waning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Aug 16, 2011 13:04:54 GMT -6
From two of Fredeghar's messages above, I'd like to connect the JRRT Letter quoted below. From Fredeghar: "So many off-handed references that were simply part of the ambiance at first were later expanded by Tolkien in other books -- the Mines of Moria, the fight against Azog and his forces outside its gates (Battle of Azanulbizar), the ford just before Rivendell (Ford of Bruinen), the swords of Gondolin (just a cool name the first time I read it. Now I know the history of the city and that Glamdring belonged to Turgon), references to ancient conflicts of the Elves and Goblins (War of the Jewels), etc. Reading this book again, I find myself mentally filling in the gaps and seeing connections to Tolkien's other works. It makes the setting that much more cohesive and realistic."
From Fredeghar: "8/11/11 at 16:35, Andorinha wrote:
I think DA and I used to (probably still would) argue quite a bit regarding how much (or how little) of The Silmarillion World could be found in the original Hobbit book.
"There's quite a bit of it in there, more than I remembered, even if most of the references are vague. There's the mention of Gondolin and its king obviously and references to ancient wars between the Elves and Goblins. There's the mistrust of the Elves and Dwarves. There's a few cryptic hints about Elrond and his storied past and the fact that he's half-elf, half-human. There are also, I think, mentions of the fathers of Men (i.e., the Edain), though I'd have to reread some of those passages to double check." __________________________ I am not certain if I have used this quote before, in the extensive debate on the backstory mythology of Middle-earth and its connections to the original published version of The Hobbit. From Humphrey Carpenter, The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Letter #257 to Christopher Bretherton, 16 July 1964, pp 344 -349. "I returned to Oxford in Jan 1926, and by the time The Hobbit appeared (1937) this 'matter of the Elder Days' was in coherent form. The Hobbit was not intended to have anything to do with it. I had the habit while my children were still young of inventing and telling orally, sometimes of writing down, 'children's stories' for their private amusement -- according to the notions I then had, and many still have, of what these should be like in style and attitude. None of these have been published. The Hobbit was intended to be one of them. It had no necessary connexion with the 'mythology', but naturally became attracted towards this dominant construction in my mind, causing the tale to become larger and more heroic as it proceeded. Even so it could really stand quite apart, except for the references (unnecessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin, Puffin 57 (hardback 63); the branches of the Elfkind, P. 161 (hardback 173) or 178, and the quarrel of King Thingol, Luthien's father, with the Dwarves, P. 162." Here, I think we get Tolkien's own confirmation of Fredeghar's explanation: Fredeghar: "My guess is that Tolkien simply had preconceived notions about the various imaginary creatures and how they interacted. He chose to make certain things universally true, even if he originally intended The Silmarillion and The Hobbit to be set in different worlds.
"I've caught myself doing this as a writer as well. For example, I've used the original Celtic-style faeries in several of my stories (no surprise with how I've rambled on about those myths here, right?). One was set in Arthurian Britain and another was a modern superhero adventure. Despite having no intention of these being in the same universe, the faeries were depicted much the same way in both stories. Once you settle on your version of a character or creature, it's hard to divorce yourself from that." Yes, Freddie, nicely done, you and JRRT seem to be following similar patterns in your writing efforts! And then, of course, once his publishers started clamouring for "more Hobbit stories," he found that the only way to get his Silmarillion material under the public eye, would be to subsume both The Hobbit and the "new Hobbit tale," LOTR under the Elder Days mythology. Hence the alterred versions of The Hobbit, and a deliberate, heavy infusion of the Mythology into LOTR. |
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Aug 16, 2011 13:09:04 GMT -6
Hi Orwell!
That's interesting, read The Hobbit without realizing the LOTR was available! Must have been quite a pleasant shock to get your hands on the next three volumes!
Re Orwell's: "... and I still prefer it [The Hobbit](just) to LotR.
You know, I think, in many ways, I also prefer (at least marginally!) The Hobbit over LOTR!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Aug 17, 2011 18:00:18 GMT -6
From Humphrey Carpenter, The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Letter #257 to Christopher Bretherton, 16 July 1964, pp 344 -349. "I returned to Oxford in Jan 1926, and by the time The Hobbit appeared (1937) this 'matter of the Elder Days' was in coherent form. The Hobbit was not intended to have anything to do with it. I had the habit while my children were still young of inventing and telling orally, sometimes of writing down, 'children's stories' for their private amusement -- according to the notions I then had, and many still have, of what these should be like in style and attitude. None of these have been published. The Hobbit was intended to be one of them. It had no necessary connexion with the 'mythology', but naturally became attracted towards this dominant construction in my mind, causing the tale to become larger and more heroic as it proceeded. Even so it could really stand quite apart, except for the references (unnecessary, though they give an impression of historical depth) to the Fall of Gondolin, Puffin 57 (hardback 63); the branches of the Elfkind, P. 161 (hardback 173) or 178, and the quarrel of King Thingol, Luthien's father, with the Dwarves, P. 162." Just got to this part. I had forgotten about these references entirely! There is mention of the "High Elves of the West" and the "Deep-elves" (i.e., the Noldor), the "Light-elves" (Calaquendi), the "Sea-elves" (Teleri), and that some clans did not go "west to Faerie" (Valinor). It also talks about a dispute over treasure between a great elf-king and the Dwarves (Thingol and the Necklace of the Dwarves). So Silmarillion material is all over this chapter! These references, while still vague and fairy tale-like, are pretty overt to those who know the material. These were added as he wrote, correct? Not in a later edition? My memory is that the only direct changes in the later edition were to Gollum and the Ring, to conform with their depiction in LOTR. Side note related to the order you guys read the stories in: I had a whole other experience. I saw the Rankin-Bass cartoons before reading either of them. So I knew the story's beginning ( The Hobbit) and its end ( Return of the King) but totally missed the middle. I kind of regret this, as I already knew how things would turn out when I finally read the trilogy. |
|
|
|
Post by newworld11 on May 23, 2013 19:41:02 GMT -6
Hello,it sames that your experience is so fantasy,right? i didn't read the book before i saw the movie in the cinema. i ever watched The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.they are amazing,i can't believe the scenery before my eyes when the Rivendell.that's so unbelievable.This is more magnificent than HogWats buildings. people are contains a lot of species.i love the elf most,they are so beautiful.especially the Legolas. dynam sky trainHow i wish i can be a member of them,even i will lose my life  |
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on May 24, 2013 6:34:26 GMT -6
Hello NewWorld:
Welcome to Tolkien's Ring. Tolkien's Middle Earth and all of it Folk are truly a wonderful experience for us all.
Now that you have seen the movies, have you read the books? There are a few differences compared to the movies. I really enjoyed reading the books over and over again thru the years (since 1969). I read them over many times every 3 or 4 years or so.
I was very excited when Peter Jackson was able to start making the movies. He did a beautiful job capturing the lands, buildings, and feeling of Middle Earth that Tolkien described so well. Some of the characters I picture differently than PJ did, but he didn't do too badly in that either.
|
|
