The Hobbit as a Modern Novel

[Muskrat]

I read LotR before The Hobbit and expected them to be similar. I knew The Hobbit was a children’s book, but I expected to see something like a childrens version of King Arthur or Robin Hood that I read as a child. Instead, what I got was a reasonably contemporary novel written for children. Gandalf, Elrond, Beorn, and maybe Bard our characters out of old legends, but all of the other characters seem quite modern, at least to me. Except for the hobbits, and a few men, all of the characters.In LotR seem quite legendary, if not heroic. Do the rest of you get that feeling or did I just get it because I first read The Lord of the Rings?

 

[HurinTheSteadfast]

It's probably because when The Hobbit was written it was not originally intended to have much connection with Tolkien's greater mythology and legendarium. Hence the feeling of antiquity is lost on it. In contrast, The Lord of the Rings, although originally written as a sequel to The Hobbit in its early stages, was quickly revised in the act of writing, so that Tolkien called it more of a sequel to The Silmarillion.

 

[Duguay]

When I read it properly for the first time, all the way through, without any false stops, it struck me as a perfectly enjoyable fantasy novel. To me, I feel like, if it's a children's novel, it is in some sense for grown up children, like myself. I don't think I was ever going to successfully read it when I was younger. I needed to mature as a reader, and even though I read other, longer novels, some that were considered adult, I struggled with The Hobbit as a younger reader.

There's one memorable moment that I'm not as keen on, and that's the telling of the party's previous adventures to Beorn, as the Dwarves trickled in. That's one of the more childlike aspects of it that I still struggle with, as an older reader I picked up on the pattern of events more quickly and it seemed repetitive.

Other than that, it's a great, fun, fantasy adventure novel with an intriguing story structure. It was a great read, and multiple enjoyble re-listens of the unabridged audiobook.

 

[Deimos]

@Muskrat ...could you identify (or excerpt) a couple or three passages as examples of where TH seemed more contemporary to you?
I read it prior to reading LOTR, so I'm curious where this impression struck you.

 

[Muskrat]

Bilbo z”stealing” the Arkenstone to take to the besiegers. This is a tough moral choice, betray your friends or try to stop a war. Two moral imperatives which conflict. I wonder what child readers thought. Stealing from the Elf king and getting the watchmen of the barrels. Elves are Good People, remember. Bilbo seens to feel guilty about both those actions. In LotR the good guys never seem to face these moral dilemmas, only tactical questions about the best way to resist evil. I read LitR first, and was amazed about the moral complexity of little Bilbo.

 

[Olorgando]

For a detailed analysis you'd have to ask Tom Shippey, or for starters read what he has to say about Northrop Frye in "Road to M-e" and "Author of the Century". In Frye's view there are five very general literary modes: Myth, Romance, High Mimesis (= tragedy, epic), Low Mimesis (= classical Novel, Austen, James ...) and Irony (among others antiheroes).
And LotR is just all over the place, especially in the middle three modes. In TH, our title "hero" Bilbo is firmly low mimetic, and the book is mostly told from his viewpoint. The Dwarves stray away from this, as do Gandalf, Elrond and the Elf-king (and the off-stage Necromancer) - but where to put those silly Rivendell Elves? Touches of high mimetic or Romance are there, but sparingly, as seasoning.
That refusal to stay pigeonholed in one of Frye's modes probably accounts for not a little of the baffled rage of critics, who seem to have considered the only appropriate modes for "modernist" writing being low mimetic and / or ironic - assuming those critics were aware of Frye's view.
Another point might be that for TH, critics would condescendingly allow "fairy-tale" elements in a children's book (though TH in parts deviates from standard fare markedly). But to include such elements in a book aspiring to be written for a mature audience - and JRRT repeatedly stated it to be a fairy (or Faërie) story for adults - harrumph! that just will not do! (Imagine the most pompous donkey-synonym you have ever met, or seen on a screen large or small - Robert Morley was almost peerless at such portrayals - snorting this out disdainfully.)

 

[Bellerophon]

"In LotR the good guys never seem to face these moral dilemmas",

I agree, that does seem to me to be the books principal weakness. In some ways the Hobbit is more complex, despite being a children's book. The way in which the death of the dragon creates a power vacuum and those who were united against it become rivals is very well portrayed.

 

[Muskrat]

"In LotR the good guys never seem to face these moral dilemmas",

I agree, that does seem to me to be the books principal weakness. In some ways the Hobbit is more complex, despite being a children's book. The way in which the death of the dragon creates a power vacuum and those who were united against it become rivals is very well portrayed.

We seem to be a minority. Silmarillion is more like The Hobbit, but LotR is like an adult fairy tale.

 

[Aldarion]

"In LotR the good guys never seem to face these moral dilemmas",

I agree, that does seem to me to be the books principal weakness. In some ways the Hobbit is more complex, despite being a children's book. The way in which the death of the dragon creates a power vacuum and those who were united against it become rivals is very well portrayed.

I don't think "moral dilemmas" automatically make for a better work. Sometimes things just are black and white.

 

[Grima]

I do inderstand you. The Hobbit does feel more like a modern children's story than a traditional epic. I also read LOTR first and had the same feeling. The Hobbit is more light-hearted, humorous, and whimsical, while LotR is more serious, dramatic, and grand. I think Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a standalone story for his own children, without much connection to his larger mythology. Later, he expanded the world and the history of Middle-earth in LotR, and made it more consistent with his earlier writings. So in a tome I thought it's a natural result of the different origins and purposes of the two books.

 

[Muskrat]

Bilbo kept a copy of his contract. The dragon knew all about business expenses, as did the master of Lake town and the raffelves. In lLord of the Rings, no one seems to care much about money once you get past Bree. Does no one work for wedges or grow food? How did Balin plan to feed his settlers in Moria? These things arr not important in LotR.

 

[Aldarion]

I think Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a standalone story for his own children, without much connection to his larger mythology. Later, he expanded the world and the history of Middle-earth in LotR, and made it more consistent with his earlier writings. So in a tome I thought it's a natural result of the different origins and purposes of the two books.

IIRC, Tolkien outright stated this exactly. Which is why you have Bilbo apologizing for inaccuracies in the story: first version of the Hobbit had no connections to the Middle Earth, and the One Ring was originally just an ordinary magical ring. Bilbo did win the ring in a riddle game and so on. But once Tolkien decided to incorporate the Hobbit into the Middle Earth, he had to make major revisions... which then became the official version of the story, while wierdness and inconsistencies of the early version were all explained by Bilbo lying.