Whatever happened to The Hobbit?

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

To address the question of canon, I think that LOTR, Sil, and Hobbit are equally canon. They can exist separately, but are all part of the same story.

I read TH after LOTR, and I did enjoy it quite a bit...but I will admit that I didn't get into it as quickly as I did LOTR, possibly because at the time I was 14 or so, and looking for something a little heavier in a book. I have only read it two or three times. It isn't my favorite Tolkien work, but at the same time, it does have a lot of charm.

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Specifically, should The Hobbit be the children's tale that Tolkien actually wrote for his own little ones, or should it be the adult prelude to the LotR? If so, why or why not?

Hmmm.

I think that the ideal thing would be a balance between the two ends of the childlike-dark scale. It certainly should not have the intensity of Return of the King, or even of The Two Towers. At the same time, though, I'd hate to see it turn out too Disney-ish, all magic and whimsy and happily ever after. Because that's not really the Middle-earth of my imagination. Something close in tone to FOTR would suit me pretty well: light and dark in the correct places, perhaps sad/scary/dark in parts, but not as a whole...and with a general tendency towards light, rather than dark.

I don't necessarily want TH to be the "adult prelude" you mention...but I think that it wouldn't necessarily be bad for it to grow up a little. I think there is the danger of completely missing out the adult/teen audience of LOTR, if TH is presented entirely as a children's story, just judging by the fact that many Tolkien fans don't particularly care for it already just because it doesn't match LOTR in tone.

It's true that TH is a children's story, but it does touch on darker parts of Middle-earth: there are the giant spiders, death, goblins/orcs, Gollum, the Ring (of course!), and perhaps the Necromancer and Dol Guldur, though I could be wrong on the last couple--it has been a while since I last read it.

I think we should perhaps keep in mind that when TH was written, LOTR was barely planned out at all, I believe...so these things don't hold as much weight in TH as they might have if it was written after LOTR. However, the movie is being made in a post-LOTR world, so I feel like it might be good to lend a little more weight particularly to the Ring and Gollum, if nothing else.

I think that as long as the director is sensitive to both the children's story-nature of TH, but also the audience, and more importantly, the ties to LOTR, he or she should be able to strike a good balance.

[davem]

Well, I suppose most of us will have seen TOR.n by now, specifically the interview with Greg Wright on the Hobbit movie. He makes some interesting points here, but the most interesting comment was this:

Complicating matters is the general perception amongst many fans—a sentimental, romanticized, and unexamined perception—that The Hobbit is a light, whimsical fantasy. It is not. It is, in fact, an allegorical bildungsroman, a coming-of-age tale, a story of loss of innocence. It’s about children no longer covering their eyes in terror and imagining giants and bogies, but rather coming to see the world with eyes wide open and finding out that the most dangerous monsters may be some of their fellow adventurers. The conventions of fantasy may dispose of Smaug quite neatly; dealing with Thorin—or Bilbo’s own complicity in a Great Wrong—is another matter entirely, but one which is at the heart of The Hobbit.

Now that's interesting. Is Thorin a greater (& 'truer') 'monster' than Smaug - in fact, is he the 'real' monster that Bilbo has to confront? Or rather, is the fact that Thorin can turn from a decent, kindly (if pompous) friend, to a greedy, cruel thug, to a hero who saves the day, to someone who learns from his experience & regrets his rash actions - in fact undergoes a transformation from 'sub Grimm's fairytale Dwarf' to 'human being', the heart of the story? Is the fact that Bilbo is forced to betray his friends 'for the greater good (by stealing the Arkenstone) the thing that brings about his 'coming of age' rather than going down the passage to face Smaug? Is Wright right? We don't have to face Dragons, but we do have to deal with Thorins.

The style of the Hobbit may be whimsical, typical of an 'Edwardian' children's book, but is the content? Would a more 'adult' take on the story really be out of place, or would it actually bring out the real themes of the story more effectively?

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Yes, I do hope that whoever takes up the challange, looks at the book's story, aside from its connection to LotR and the stigma of being a children's book. It really has the detail to be a fine story on its own, if taken seriously. It need not be too dark to work effectively, or too giddy. I for one hope they don't ratchet up the drama at the expense of the story, like they did in LotR. It is good enough without all the artifice.

[Rhod the Red]

It's the subject of racketteering you might say, over 'rights', etc.

[Mithalwen]

While I am in the camp who find the Hobbit irritating in its style when I go back to it now but it is still a great story and while i would have loved tolkien to have written an adult version - a full version of the "Quest of Erebor" as glimpse in Unfinished tales, I am delighted personally that Peter Jackson will not be directing The Hobbit and I hope that it will be taken on its own terms.

While, I think that the "artistic impression" of the LOTR films were their great strength, Tolkien's own pictures for the hobbit are so memorable that I hope that they will inspire whoever does make the film. I also hope they go easy on the CGI ......

The Hobbit does have it's darknesses - but most good children's fiction does. I hope it is done as a family film and not souped up - I really don't want to see Bilbo liberating the dwarves as some Die Hard sequel

[Lalwendë]

I don't have this problem with The Hobbit. To me it's just part of Tolkien's work and as it's on Middle-earth I don't get hung up on the style. What's the point of over-intellectualising it? But I think that it only really became a sticking point in the wake of Jackson's films anyway; these are dark, epic films and really do ramp up that element of LotR, when in fact the books are often whimsical and that's something Jackson glosses over a lot with his films. So we've got to a point where almost by osmosis readers just accept The Hobbit as "A Kids' Book". Funny thing is, there are plenty of people out there who also think of Lord of the Rings as "A Kids' Book".

And like LotR has whimsical elements, The Hobbit is also quite dark.

As long as Smaug gets all due respect as one of the Best Dragons Ever and is done well, and any new director does not portray the Hobbits as slightly deformed, big-headed creatures (like the Hildebrant brothers' nasty portrayals) then it should be OK whether it's light, dark or preferably somewhere in-between.