The Hobbit (original 1937; edition 1981)

I have just reread The Hobbit for the first time since I was 14 years old. At the age of 14, I read it because it was a Book That Must Be Read. Everyone says so. Everyone loves it. It may have been the very first book I ever read because someone else loved it, a habit I have never given up since.

At 14, I remember finding the book to be rather tedious, and not at all about what I thought it should be about. (I thought it might be about some small, furry animal rather like an enormous mouse. I had not expected it to be about a furry little man, and was somewhat grumpy that it was.) I recall liking the adventure but finding that it contained far too much traveling and not much excitement. I marked down in my book journal that I liked it, and moved on to The Lord of the Rings, which first book I found SO tedious that I put it down and didn't pick it up again until I was in college.

I haven't reread the trilogy since college, but when I picked those books up again then, I was able to see beyond the epic traveling scenes and occasionally dry bits of history and mythology to the beauty and glory of Tolkien's tales, enjoying them ever so much more than I could have at 14. But I did not go back and reread The Hobbit.

Now, the first of the (ridiculously extended) Hobbit movies is about to come out, and I could not go see it without being properly re-versed in the tale itself.

I was shocked, after reading the first couple chapters, to discover how light-hearted the telling of this tale is, in comparison to my memories of The Lord of the Rings. It has the feel of a fable told by a skilled bard beside a midsummer bonfire, the narrator conscious of his own telling and of the opinion of the audience. There are clear lines between good and evil, and then less-clear lines as well. There is a series of encounters that are not all strictly vital to the thread of the story, but which are delightful of themselves, atmospheric even, and the stuff that Tolkien's immense world is built on.

It was also interesting to me, while reading this, to ponder how much of the forthcoming Lord of the Rings trilogy Tolkien already had in his head, while composing The Hobbit (if any), and if that was not yet more than a glimmer, to see how tidily the fairly shallow (innocent?) telling of The Hobbit managed to lay the groundwork for the much deeper and darker events that would follow.

For example: at first it bothered me how incidentally Bilbo found the Ring, simply lying there in the dark. With the whole wide dark underground to bumble about in, what REALLY are the chances he would just stumble upon it? Left to its own telling, that is a coincidence that would not hold up in the annals of Good Fiction. But then I recalled, from later stories, that the Ring has a will of its own. It wants to be found, and tied to the dark powers that it is, can arrange affairs to suit its will.

Gollum himself was also of interest. He has quite a backstory, but how much of it did Tolkien have laid down upon this writing? Perhaps more than I might guess. Did he know the whole story of the origins of Ring when he wrote that first scene in Gollum's lair, or was it simply a magic talisman necessary to make the rest of this tale succeed? Curious and intriguing, to me.

And now my next assignment is to take on at least part of the Silmarilion, which may be more than I'm strictly interested in, but it's on the nerdy book club's list, and I understand is largely to blame for The Hobbit movie being stretched into three parts, so I shall go see what I can do. ( )

I loved this book so much, can't believe I didn't read it sooner! ( )

Who didn't read this as a teen-ager? ( )