The Hobbit - Chapter 01 - An Unexpected Party

[Child of the 7th Age]

Tuor -

I'm also using the Annotated Hobbit (the modern one published in 2002). Also like you, I am enamored of the illustrations. I especially like the fact that the drawings come from editions of the Hobbit that have been published in different countries. It's the only source I know that does this.

Esty -

I'm glad that you mentioned Belladonna Took. It's always struck me as a little odd that Belladonna figures so prominently in the first chapter, if only by name, but that she is the only female explicitly mentioned in the entire book. We don't even have a character like Shelob, let alone a Galadriel or an Arwen! (If someone else can cite another female character in The Hobbit, please let me know.) Maybe this is simply because his listeners were his sons John and Michael rather than anything more than that? Younger sister Priscilla was apparently too young to join the group.

I love how Tolkien uses the parents to set up the two different sides of Bilbo's personality: the staid Baggins type and the adventurious Tooks. How intriguing that Tolkien suggests a possible tie-in between the Tooks and the fairies (presumably the Elves). Even in the 1937 edition, long before LotR or Frodo was a glimmer in the eyes of the author, JRRT mentions the local belief that the Tooks may have had an ancestor who married into a fairy family. I think he picks up on this idea again in the beginning of LotR when he talks about the differences between Harfoot, Fallohides, and Stoors. The Fallohides look and act a bit like miniature Elves!

Why does Tolkien throw open the possibility of a fairy/hobbit union? Is the physical and personality resemblance of the Tooks completely a coincidence, or could there actually have been a union between a Took and an Elf back in the old days when Hobbits were still wandering about Middle-earth before their settlement in the Shire? There have been plenty of fanfictions which are built on the latter premise, and I know it's been discussed in the Books section before. I doubt the latter idea seriously crossed Tolkien's mind when he was writing down the text of The Hobbit, but could he have remembered the possibility later on when he composed LotR and went on to discuss such things as "the light in Frodo's eyes"?

As you can see from this post, I am very guilty of one thing. I find it almost impossible to read The Hobbit on its own. When I first read this book, I was about 13 years old and had not yet read LotR. (The Ballentine edition hadn't even come out then, so very few people in the U.S. knew anything about Sauron or Frodo.) At that time, I was able to read The Hobbit on its own, appreciating it for what it is and not asking that it be anything more. Now I keep remembering things In LotR or in Unfinished Tales, and demanding to know why Tolkien changed this, or how something in The Hobbit foreshadows something else in LotR. In a way that's too bad, since I've lost the immediacy of the text. Plus, at first, I felt fairly guilty about this way of approaching things. Surely, the author wouldn't want us to read his book "backwards", which is sort of what I am doing.

But then I remembered what happened to Tolkien when he told the story: the characters from the wider Legendarium kept knocking on the door and inserting themselves into his children's story. I guess life is like that. You can't compartmentalize things you've experienced or thought about: they all run together and influence each other!

I know Davem has mentioned that he views The Hobbit as outside Tolkien's Legendarium. His statement struck me. I suppose that could be so, depending on how you define "Legendarium". But my gut feeling is that it's difficult to exclude the Hobbit from this wider body of writings. The story is just too important in how it set up the main characters and the story line for LotR. Frankly. I have an easier time including The Hobbit as part of the Legendarium than I do some of the earliest material in The Book of Lost Tales, which seems to be radically different than the later writings by Tolkien. I can't think about Bilbo in The Hobbit without considering what was to happen to him later. Maybe that's right or wrong but it's a given I can not change.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

We discussed the background for Belladonna's name on this thread, so I won't go into that here.

I found it interesting to look up her sisters' names on the family tree, since they are not mentioned elsewhere: Donnamira and Mirabella. That is a chain of syllables, and each sister shares half of her name with each of the others. However, that is not really relevant to this chapter...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

If ever a sentence has cried out for a fan fiction (or RPG), it is this one:

Quote:
...the fabulous Belladonna Took, one of the three remarkable daughters of the Old Took...
Wouldn't you just love to meet Bilbo's mother (at least in her younger days)? Of course, add to that the following one about the 'fairy wife' of a Took ancestor; I know of at least one well-written fan fiction on that notion (by mark12_30).

On the one hand the saga of the Took daughters would
have made a great read, pity JRRT didn't get around
to it (perhaps with the lifespan of an elf he might have).
On the other hand, it's an example of his use of barely
glimpsed vistas to give depth to his tales (as he alludes
to in "Letters"). It's one of the parts of his writings that
makes them so much more real then, say, Isaac Asimov's
Foundation trilogy, which just doesn't have that "historic/mythic"
feel to it.

And what did the Took girls do that made them so remarkable?
Imagine the mother/father debates of Bilbo's parents when
he evinced his tookish adventurous side.

[davem]

No, I'm not going back on what I said & joining in as a regular - just popping my head round the door...

Originally Posted by Child

I know Davem has mentioned that he views The Hobbit as outside Tolkien's Legendarium. His statement struck me. I suppose that could be so, depending on how you define "Legendarium". But my gut feeling is that it's difficult to exclude the Hobbit from this wider body of writings. The story is just too important in how it set up the main characters and the story line for LotR. Frankly. I have an easier time including The Hobbit as part of the Legendarium than I do some of the earliest material in The Book of Lost Tales, which seems to be radically different than the later writings by Tolkien. I can't think about Bilbo in The Hobbit without considering what was to happen to him later. Maybe that's right or wrong but it's a given I can not change.

Now I keep remembering things In LotR or in Unfinished Tales, and demanding to know why Tolkien changed this, or how something in The Hobbit foreshadows something else in LotR. In a way that's too bad, since I've lost the immediacy of the text.

And that's the problem I have with including TH in the Legendarium. I wish Tolkien had left it as it was - with the original Riddles in the Dark chapter, the references to Policemen & Tinkers, et al.

Of course, Bilbo's story is referred to in LotR (& The Quest of Erebor), so it is part of the Legendarium. This version of it, however, should be kept to one side as a children's story, a kind of 'Fantasia' on Middle-earth, an introduction if you like - imo, of course.

The line Esty quotes: 'One morning long ago in the quiet of the world, where there was less noise and more green..' is so evocative (as is the reference to 'the wild were-worms in the Last Desert), that the 'Tookish' part of me wants to run off & see Mountains!

I love getting lost in the world of TH but I think its overshadowed by LotR & The Sil if you include it in with them & that simple sense of wonder it inspires can disappear if you're trying to force it to fit. So, for me LotR & the Sil are the 'true' account of events in Middle-earth, while TH is a version of it that has passed down through various hands, minds & voices. In many ways its more magical than the Legendarium because of the unexplained vistas. The borders of the story of TH could open up onto any landscape - its only LotR that 'fixes' it in a particular place & time & removes it from the world of fairy story & takes it up into the realm of high myth - which, for me, is a place it doesn't belong.

Anyway.....

[Formendacil]

I can only disagree with Davem regarding The Hobbit's inclusion in the Legendarium, the lines Aragorn says regarding green grass as a part of legend springing to mind for some reason.

But this thread is not devoted to Davem's inclusion of The Hobbit in the Legendarium, but about Chapter 1 of The Hobbit.

For me, this is where it all began, something like eight years ago, when in a fit of boredom, I went browsing through my dad's bookshelves, and discovered The Hobbit. I knew the title thanks to C.S. Lewis (having been a Narnia fan), and on the strength of that tenuous connection, I pulled down the book with a lovely dragon and horde on the front, and began to read:

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit..."

So this chapter was my very first introduction to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, and it sucked me right in, with its charming feeling of "real" world, but a real world in which Dwarves coming to visit, while not exactly normal, was not the life-shaking event that it would be if it ever happened here.

Although, of course, we soon learn that it DOES, in fact, shake poor Bilbo's life up far more than he expected.

There is an element of the traditional children's story in the repetitiveness of the arrival of the Dwarves, that familiar feeling of "here we go again". And one has to wonder, from within the context of the Legendarium, precisely why the Dwarves arrived by twos and threes, the answer (I believe) from Unfinished Tales being that Gandalf didn't want to shock Bilbo all at once.

The descriptions of food in this chapter tend to set me salivating- getting in touch with my Hobbit side, so to speak. In fact, between this and Narnia, I early on got into the habit of eating when reading, a habit that would be best broken, but doesn't seem likely to happen...

"Far over the misty mountains cold,
through dungeons deep and caverns old,
we must away ere break of day,
to sake the pale, forgotten gold."

This whole Dwarf-song, which I cannot remember in completion, is one of my favourite pieces of verse in Tolkien's work, possibly because it's the first one I encountered, but also because of the way it is incorporated into the story. Like Bilbo, I feel drawn away to a long-lost dwarfen kingdom, seeing it again in its forgotten splendour...

And like Bilbo, when I reach the end of this first chapter, I'm somewhat tired at the "cacophony" of events that have torrentially arrived in the space of a chapter, and leave with the feeling that surely it will calm down somewhat soon.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I love getting lost in the world of TH but I think its overshadowed by LotR & The Sil if you include it in with them & that simple sense of wonder it inspires can disappear if you're trying to force it to fit. So, for me LotR & the Sil are the 'true' account of events in Middle-earth, while TH is a version of it that has passed down through various hands, minds & voices. In many ways its more magical than the Legendarium because of the unexplained vistas. The borders of the story of TH could open up onto any landscape - its only LotR that 'fixes' it in a particular place & time & removes it from the world of fairy story & takes it up into the realm of high myth - which, for me, is a place it doesn't belong.

Anyway.....

Well, I'll stir up a little more argument (which shall continue after I've logged off no doubt and end up in "nurrr nurrr" style chidings ) about TH in the legendarium. I think it does 'fit' as it is simply another account of Middle-earth, one from a different perspective; different peoples in our own world have different views of it, and in that respect, Tolkien's providing us with three main different views of Middle-earth only serves to give the whole legendarium more depth to me. I'm also not so sure that LotR itself is without 'unexplained vistas' - that's part of the appeal. All of Tolkien's work is filled with 'unexplained vistas', I think this may be part of its appeal and what keeps drawing us back, the hope we'll find something new (and I usually do).

I recommend the Annotated Hobbit. I've been looking at it this evening, and there are some really interesting notes. One concerned the choice of 'Baggins', which has always struck me as similar to the word 'baggin' - meaning a workman's lunch. Apparently in the OED 'baggin' is listed as 'bagging'; Shippey ppointed out that Tolkien knew that this was an incorrect spelling according to the people who actually used the word, as it's a dialect word from the north. Tolkien was a member of the Yorkshire Dialect Society (which I did not know!) and so knew that the correct term was 'baggin' and used it as the name for a food-loving Hobbit.

the other note which interested me was that a Bullroarer is a slither of wood on the end of a string which when whirled round the head makes a horrendous noise; apparently children used to like to play with them. I liked this, as I've always pictured Bullroarer as a loud and slightly obnoxious (but not in a bad way) Hobbit. It has also made me want to make a Bullroarer and see just how loud and horrible they really do sound.

[Alchisiel]

What a coincidence that a chapter by chapter read of The Hobbit has just started as I have just started reading it myself. Instead of getting into whether or not The Hobbit should be included in the Legendarium I will answer Estelyn's questions in her first post.

When did you first read The Hobbit? How did it affect you and what did it mean to you?

I first read The Hobbit roughly three years ago I'm afraid. I was 29 years old. I wasn't even aware that the books existed until The Fellowship of the Ring movie came out. I learned that the books existed when a co-worker of mine told me about them. Of course I went out right away and bought The Hobbit and began to read becoming quite hooked on Middle Earth. Having read it around the time of September 11th, it became the epitome of a good vs. evil story to me.

Bits and pieces of information are scattered throughout this chapter, on Dwarves, dragons, the Necromancer, and the Wizard Gandalf. Which do you find most interesting or helpful?

The information about the dwarves and dragons were important to the story but it was the information about Gandalf's adventures and the pieces of information about the Necromancer that left me wanting to find out more. I think Tolkien does this intentionally and does this very well. I'm even going to go out on a limb and compare it to the television show Lost. Every week the show answers questions you want to know but it also leaves you with more questions at the same time. Tolkien does this as well, such as Tom Bombadil, Belladonna Took and her sisters, the Old Took, etc.

[Thinlómien]

As many others here, I've fallen in love with the dwarves' song. It just sounds so beautiful. I first became familiar with it in Finnish, and it's one of the best poem/song translations in Finnish. I remember listening to my father reading the poem aloud and how magical it sounded. I could almost hear the chilly wind on the mountains and see the dark caves. The song full of promise of distant lands and places, yet dangerous. I think that it , better than any other thing said by anyone gives the feeling of a becoming adventure.

Bilbo's behaviour in the first chapter has always amused me, I don't know why. I pity him. He being little and stupid and fearful, but trying to play an expert. I think Gandalf was a bit rude to do him so, present him as a master burglar. I can imagine him laughing to his beard and watching Bilbo struggle with his new role. Gandalf isn't cruel, but his somewhat malicious.

As he lay in bed he could hear Thorin humming to himself in the best bedroom next to him: Far over misty mountains cold...

Somehow this always makes me smile. It's funny. I can imagine nervous Bilbo, trying to get sleep with wild thoughts running in his head, and Thorin in the neighbouring room humming. Maybe it's the humming dwarf that has always amused me.

I like Gandalf in this chapter. His the man here. He knows the most, he keeps the secret. He's not as serious with the journey as the dwarves are (=he doesn't have personal feelings mixed up) and he isn't as nervous as Bilbo. He controls the situation. (In fact, he's the same kind of character to the end.)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

One concerned the choice of 'Baggins', which has always struck me as similar to the word 'baggin' - meaning a workman's lunch. Apparently in the OED 'baggin' is listed as 'bagging'; Shippey ppointed out that Tolkien knew that this was an incorrect spelling according to the people who actually used the word, as it's a dialect word from the north. Tolkien was a member of the Yorkshire Dialect Society (which I did not know!) and so knew that the correct term was 'baggin' and used it as the name for a food-loving Hobbit.

I'm surprised that this is all the information they give for the names. The names are actually much more rich than this, although I was unaware of the lunch thing, which is fascinating:

A bilbo means both an iron bar that was used to fasten a prisoner's legs together, or a sword (from the Spanish city of "Bilboa" which was known in the renaissance and before for its steelworks).

"Baggins" is a compoud of 'bag in', which echoes the name of the hobbit's home, Bag End, which is the literal English transation of cul de sac ('end of a bag'): French for a dead end. Another interesting work is the Greek kalypsomenoi (from which the witch Calypso gets her name in the Odyssey) which means "To have one's head in a bag" to describe someone who is blind to his duty or ignoring his responsibilities.

"Took" is both the past tense of the verb to take (so contains the possibility of theiving? Bilbo must learn to take the treasure??), but also has older meanings -- it is also a sword or a triumphant/defiant blast on a trumpet made by way of challenge or before setting out on a venture.

So put all this together...

Our protagonist has two last names -- Baggins and Took -- that provide him with the two sides of his identity that will be in conflict with one another throughout his journey: the Baggins half that years to return to the comfortable dead end that is his home (end of a bag, bag-in); and the Took that wants to become a thief, wear a sword, and trumpet his greatness.

These two different possibilities are not set in direct opposition to one another though, because his first name is the combination of both: bilbo = imprisoning shackles, bilbo = sword. It's almost as though Bilbo has to learn to move beyond thinking of himself as being divided by his last names and toward realising a new a complex identity as contained by his first name.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Professor Tolkien was no slouch of a philologist!

[davem]

The oddest thing is that he wrote TH for his children, none of whom would have got any of that. He never expected anyone else to read TH, so all that stuff must have been written as a private entertainment.

So, I suppose we could say that he wrote TH as much for himself as for his children. It seems like what he actually wrote was two Hobbits in one.