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.

[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.

[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.

[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!"