Why I prefer the hobbit

[Tinman]

I've been a fan of the hobbit since I was 11 years old. My grandmother, the year she passed away, surprised me by ordering me a limited edition hard cover of the book. There is an illustration on nearly every page (Some original art, some from the movie), as well as 2 or 3 fold out pages to show large battle scenes.

Since then, ive read and reread the book 15 times. Every chance I got in highschool for a book report, I did it on the hobbit. Unlike most students, who didn't actually reread the book and just reported on what they already new, I actually (gladly) reread my book.

How many times have I read LOTR? I managed to get halfway through the fellowship after my first read of the hobbit. After the movies came out, I managed to reread fellowship, and get halfway through the two towers. I finally finished the series with audio books.

So why can I enjoy the hobbit for so many rereads, but not make it through lord of the rings? Ive considered this:

1. The narrative. The lord of the rings is just so dry to me. The witty narration of the hobbit makes it fun to read, and a little more interesting to me. I love character interaction, and LOTR doesn't keep my interest in between these scenes.

2. Bilbo. He's one of my favorite characters, and his absence from the lord of the rings story discouraged me from it.

3. The lack of explanation. The hobbit briefly touches and hints on a lot of things. The ruins bilbo see's while going to rivendell, beorns past, the necromancer, the unknown blades from some "goblin war". I liked that the hobbit mentions these things, but left it up to my own imagination to wonder what they were all about. In a sense, LOTR, while fascinating, kind of ruined that. Every think is given in full detail, and what isnt is thrown into an appendix in the back. I love learning this stuff, but at the same time, i miss the wonder that the hobbit created.

Most people, actually all people, i've talked to about this seem to completely disagree with me. But that's my view on the whole thing.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Tinman

I've been a fan of the hobbit since I was 11 years old. My grandmother, the year she passed away, surprised me by ordering me a limited edition hard cover of the book. There is an illustration on nearly every page (Some original art, some from the movie), as well as 2 or 3 fold out pages to show large battle scenes.

Since then, ive read and reread the book 15 times. Every chance I got in highschool for a book report, I did it on the hobbit. Unlike most students, who didn't actually reread the book and just reported on what they already new, I actually (gladly) reread my book.

How many times have I read LOTR? I managed to get halfway through the fellowship after my first read of the hobbit. After the movies came out, I managed to reread fellowship, and get halfway through the two towers. I finally finished the series with audio books.

So why can I enjoy the hobbit for so many rereads, but not make it through lord of the rings? Ive considered this:

1. The narrative. The lord of the rings is just so dry to me. The witty narration of the hobbit makes it fun to read, and a little more interesting to me. I love character interaction, and LOTR doesn't keep my interest in between these scenes.

2. Bilbo. He's one of my favorite characters, and his absence from the lord of the rings story discouraged me from it.

3. The lack of explanation. The hobbit briefly touches and hints on a lot of things. The ruins bilbo see's while going to rivendell, beorns past, the necromancer, the unknown blades from some "goblin war". I liked that the hobbit mentions these things, but left it up to my own imagination to wonder what they were all about. In a sense, LOTR, while fascinating, kind of ruined that. Every think is given in full detail, and what isnt is thrown into an appendix in the back. I love learning this stuff, but at the same time, i miss the wonder that the hobbit created.

Most people, actually all people, i've talked to about this seem to completely disagree with me. But that's my view on the whole thing.

I found the hobbit to be a more lighthearted and fun adventure.

LOTR is more serious (in general) and dire.

overall it comes to a matter of taste. I prefer the hobbit, both both are a good read.

[The Gaffer]

I think there is a writing style issue. Lots of people find LOTR completely unreadable. I think you either like / tune in to the overblown way he writes or you don't.

I agree that The Hobbit is the better book in lots of ways.

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree that The Hobbit is the better book in lots of ways.

I disagree. The Hobbit, as Tolkien wrote it, is for young children or used to introduce a person to Middle Earth. In fact, Tolkien, in a way, had a child "edit" it by sending him numerous copies and asking for comments. Also: the hobbit is written very simply; the plot is easy to understand. Tolkien wrote it as a stand-alone...he did not know that he would continue the story, and there is therefore none of the symbolism and sense of real time and history leading up to Bibo's story. Although the hobbit might be a good starter, it can never match the beauty and symbolism in the Lord of the Rings.

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Tinman

2. Bilbo. He's one of my favorite characters, and his absence from the lord of the rings story discouraged me from it.

Actually, Bilbo plays a major role in the Lord of the Rings, and he is in no way absent.

1. He begins the story by choosing to leave the ring with Frodo.
2. He give Frodo his sword, Sting, which helps the Fellowship detect goblins while in Moria
3. He gives Frodo his chain main of mithril, which saves Frodo's life in Moria

I could list much more...I hope you get the point.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Although the hobbit might be a good starter, it can never match the beauty and symbolism in the Lord of the Rings.

I prefer the Hobbit. I like Lord of the Rings, but I prefer the Hobbit if I were forced to choose. Maybe because I like Smaug so much and the riddles between Bilbo and Gollum. The Hobbit is a good tale, and whomever Tolkien wrote it for doesn't change that.

Beauty and symbolism is in the eye of the beholder. There's no right and wrong answer

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I prefer the Hobbit. Beauty and symbolism is in the eye of the beholder. There's no right and wrong answer

Actually, you're wrong. As Lewis says, there is no middle ground. Nothing truth or goodness can be defined by the beholder. It is either beautiful and good or not, and it is NOT up for your opinion or mine. it is what it is.

[The Gaffer]

No, Lewis was wrong. It is a matter of opinion. FACT.

As you say, JRRT didn't know he was going to release LOTR / Sil etc when The Hobbit was first published. The Hobbit was written as a story to stand on its own. As such, the way it is put together is far more accessible and clearly structured as a story.

From a literary perspective - style, development, story - I think The Hobbit is the better book.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Actually, you're wrong. As Lewis says, there is no middle ground. Nothing truth or goodness can be defined by the beholder. It is either beautiful and good or not, and it is NOT up for your opinion or mine. it is what it is.

What did I write? The following: "Beauty and symbolism is in the eye of the beholder"

Immanuel Kant argues that beauty is something universal, as he argues that truth is universal, and thus he sets out his thesis about moral universalism. But Kant makes a point that if beauty is universal, and a beholder of an object, f.ex. a book, states that the book is beautiful then for it to be true then it is beautiful to everyone else. It must be inherently beautiful, on its own terms, and not in relation to anything else but itself. Thus as a beautiful stroke on a painting is beautiful because it is just right on that particular painting, a beautiful story in a book must thus be beautiful because, set against what the story is about and how it is written and what it describes, it is just right.
Thus something beautiful, according to Kant, is beautiful unrelated to time, place, culture, etc. A red stroke across a morning sky is beautiful, because it is quite plain to most viewers wherever they are from and what they like, that it is beautiful, bar any tastes they have for scenic paintings.
This seems to be the definition of beauty that you are pointing to EllethValatari.

Concerning beauty I can agree partly with Kant, but I think that if there is universal beauty then it is very general and most likely not at all present in one literary work. I think there are some things that anyone can see to be beautiful. Those things I usually confine to the natural world and to some of the symmetry and colours that we can find there, but then again I may even be wrong about this and that even these things aren't universally beautiful.
But if that is the case, I think it would be because we as human beings have a common denominator in the natural world as our birth place.

There are other things that appear beautiful to some but entirely ordinary to others, like girls In most cases, when people speak of beauty, they are really speaking about something that their eyes and senses really take a great liking to and which they call 'beautiful'. But this type of beauty is often tied into the interests and subjective likings of that individual, and thus it can't be said to be universal beauty, but beauty dependent on 'the eye of the beholder'.

So I write then about this book "Beauty and symbolism is in the eye of the beholder", as beauty in a work of literature can vary according to the literary preferences of the individual and what that individual rates as beauty. For example there are many LOTR fans whom like the descriptions of places as different as Lothlorien, the Undying Lands, the great halls in Moria and the countryside of the Shire. Again some fans like poems and songs sung by the hobbits, Tom Bombadil, the Elves, etc. Many fans find relationships between characters like Arwen and Aragorn, and Frodo and Sam to be beautiful. But it is a subjective beauty, dependent on the preferences of the reader. These imageries, descriptions and characters may appear beautiful to many people, but not all people. Some even find Tolkiens writing in LOTR to be boring, cliché, dull, flat, repetitive and not at all beautiful. That is their opinion, and not a universal truth, as is your and anyone elses opinion concerning beauty in LOTR.

I find a great many things beautiful in the story but they are dependent on what symbolism I prefer and what works for me and what connections I can draw to past experiences and other things I consider beautiful. Most of all the things that are beautiful to me in LOTR are the things that I as an individual imagine, and as we all know everyone possesses an unique imagination with a unique set of tastes and preferences.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

This got heavy awful quickly.

I prefer different books in different moods. I also believe beauty is a perception, not an absolute, whatever the professional philosphers might say.

[shesabrandybuck]

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are written a lot differently, as you all have already stated. The Hobbit is a light, happy read, whereas LOTR is more complicated and more in depth. I like LOTR more in a sense that the story is just so beautiful, the friendships and the hardships. Of course, you get those things too, in the Hobbit between Bilbo and the Dwarves, but there is something about LOTR that is more compelling. It touches you somewhere deep down, which makes it worth reading.

[Huorn]

I like both. The Hobbit fits a lighter mood. LoTR is for when I want a more serious read.

[barrelrider110]

Although JRRT did tell the story to his children, I firmly disbelieve it was written as a children's book. According to his own account, while rating students' essays he scribbled the words "in a hole in the ground lived a hobbit." In true Tolkien fashion, he set out to find out what a hobbit was, and he began to flesh out the story. At some point he put it down on paper and a partial manuscript was discovered by an employee of publisher Allen and Unwin n 1936. Stanley Unwin read it and asked Tolkien to finish. Unwin gave the finished manuscript to his son Rayner, who gave his unqualified approval. It was published as a children's book because at the time, it was thought that the fantasy genre held no appeal to adults. Unwin was stunned by the book's popularity and asked Tolkien to write a sequel which became our beloved Lord of the Rings.

Greedy Dwarves, drunken Elves and murderous dragons aren't quite children's faire.

Why do I love the book? It's light and humorous. I love the whimsical narrator. I love the arguing trolls. I love the interwoven hints of the greater legendarium. I love Bilbo, who changed from a chubby homebody to become brave and courageous without losing his peaceloving nature. I do like it better than the Lord of the Rings.

Peace and fertitlity to all!

[GrayMouser]

"Tra-la-la-lally
Down in the valley"

No, "the Hobbit" is definitely a children's book, including the typical authorial interjections.

From Tinman

3. The lack of explanation. The hobbit briefly touches and hints on a lot of things. The ruins bilbo see's while going to rivendell, beorns past, the necromancer, the unknown blades from some "goblin war". I liked that the hobbit mentions these things, but left it up to my own imagination to wonder what they were all about. In a sense, LOTR, while fascinating, kind of ruined that. Every think is given in full detail, and what isnt is thrown into an appendix in the back. I love learning this stuff, but at the same time, i miss the wonder that the hobbit created.

I know what you mean...I had that reaction even more strongly with The Sil.

[Rían]

I reacted the other way - it was like "oh, cool! THAT'S what they were referring to!"