Who's read The History of The Hobbit?
Steve Morrison
here -- probably months' worth of fully on-topic threads But how
many would be able to take part in those threads?
BTW the author, John D. Rateliff, has a website at
http://www.sacnothscriptorium.com/
and the older entries on his blog often discuss /THoTH/ and the
reaction to it.
Simon J. Rowe
> There is all sorts of material in THoTH which could be discussed
> here -- probably months' worth of fully on-topic threads But how
> many would be able to take part in those threads?
<waves hand>
Dirk Thierbach
> There is all sorts of material in /THoTH/ which could be discussed
> here -- probably months' worth of fully on-topic threads But how
> many would be able to take part in those threads?
I haven't read /THoTH/, but I would certainly follow a discussion
with interest.
- Dirk
Paul S. Person
wrote:
I've read it but how well I remember it is another story.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
calvin
wrote:
> I've read it but how well I remember it is another story.
As one who has not read it, and doesn't intend to, I'm
curious about what might be there to change my mind.
I'm very happy with the 2nd edition of The Annotated
Hobbit, and what is told there and elsewhere about the
revisions to The Hobbit *after* its first publication. But
as for the period before its first publication, what would
a Tolkien enthusiast (who has and enjoys the complete
HoMe) find to be essential knowledge about the development
of The Hobbit before first publication?
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> As one who has not read it, and doesn't intend to, I'm
> curious about what might be there to change my mind.
> I'm very happy with the 2nd edition of The Annotated
> Hobbit, and what is told there and elsewhere about the
> revisions to The Hobbit *after* its first publication. But
> as for the period before its first publication, what would
> a Tolkien enthusiast (who has and enjoys the complete
> HoMe) find to be essential knowledge about the development
> of The Hobbit before first publication?
THoTH is, of course, quintessential reading! I could really not
imagine talking to anyone who has not read it, as it would require me
to explain so many things I normally take for granted that my speech
would be not only twice as long-winded as usually - and as my students
know, I enjoy choosing the longer, but more scenic path through the
land of rhetorics over the straight, but dull highway - but also
unusually boring and annoying both for the listener and myself. The
book gives so many details about the blessed inspirations and strikes
of fate that lead to the creation of this magnificent work that it is
impossible not to stand in awe in front of it and celebrate the author
with great praise. The importance of this book cannot be overestimated
in any scholarly Tolkien debate and should be stressed in any
discussion about preferred reading and resource lists. Quite frankly,
I do not see how anyone could not read this book and still get up in
the morning without a sharp pain in his heart, where self-loathing
about one's own ignorance and failure to read this book tears like a
wild animal on the very essence of one's soul.
Noel
Bqggz
<noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
>
> THoTH is, of course, quintessential reading! I could really not
> about one's own ignorance and failure to read this book tears like a
> wild animal on the very essence of one's soul.
>
> Noel
You know, after all these years of our "friendship", I can see at one
glance when Noel is just his usual verbose self, and when he's extra
blusterous to cover up that he, in fact, didn't read something.
--
Bqggz
Paul S. Person
At least one draft before the one that got published (as I said, how
well I remember it is another story: I /think/ there were two
pre-publication-version drafts, but I could be wrong).
It also has a lot of background material on dwarves, elves, dragons,
names, etc, etc; however, since I have not read The Annotated Hobbit,
for all I know this may be partially or wholly duplicated therein. Or
not duplicated at all; is there anyone who has read both and is
willing to clarify this?
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> You know, after all these years of our "friendship", I can see at one
> glance when Noel is just his usual verbose self, and when he's extra
> blusterous to cover up that he, in fact, didn't read something.
>
> --
> Bqggz
It's amazing how you always post minutes after I do, Bqggz. Do you sit
at your computer all day, waiting for me to say something? What does
your boss say about this when you do it on the job? (You are still
working as a lackey for that ridiculous sentient handkerchief, aren't
you?)
Noel
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet
news:94586118-00a7-42cb...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> THoTH is, of course, quintessential reading! I could really not
imagine talking to anyone who has not read it, as it would require me
to explain so many things I normally take for granted that my speech
would be not only twice as long-winded as usually - and as my students
know, I enjoy choosing the longer, but more scenic path through the
land of rhetorics over the straight, but dull highway - but also
unusually boring and annoying both for the listener and myself. The
book gives so many details about the blessed inspirations and strikes
of fate that lead to the creation of this magnificent work that it is
impossible not to stand in awe in front of it and celebrate the author
with great praise. The importance of this book cannot be overestimated
in any scholarly Tolkien debate and should be stressed in any
discussion about preferred reading and resource lists. Quite frankly,
I do not see how anyone could not read this book and still get up in
the morning without a sharp pain in his heart, where self-loathing
about one's own ignorance and failure to read this book tears like a
wild animal on the very essence of one's soul.
You speak the truth. I have not read "The History of the Hobbit", and my
emotions with regard to this negligence are exactly those descrived in your
post.
�jevind
hen...@swirve.com
Insolent englische pigdog! Ve haff vays to make people liek you
schpiek. You vill regret your insolence, Orkenscheisse. Schneider!
Bringen Sie bitte den Thumbschreuber.
Horus Engels
Steuard Jensen
Morrison <rim...@toast.net> wrote:
> There is all sorts of material in /THoTH/ which could be discussed
> here -- probably months' worth of fully on-topic threads But how
> many would be able to take part in those threads?
I finally had a chance to read both books this past spring. They were
fascinating, and I'm kicking myself a little for not noting down
points that I wanted to discuss as I went. I'd be happy to
participate in that discussion (assuming I have time, since I'm going
to be moving across the country a few weeks from now... yikes!).
One of the most interesting parts was the massive rewrite of the book
that Tolkien started late in his life and then abandoned; I actually
felt a bit indignant about some of the changes he was contemplating
(and grateful that he opted against finishing the project).
Steuard Jensen
calvin
> One of the most interesting parts was the massive rewrite of the book
> that Tolkien started late in his life and then abandoned; I actually
> felt a bit indignant about some of the changes he was contemplating
> (and grateful that he opted against finishing the project).
I felt the same way, and dismayed, about the changes he was
contemplating for his 'legendarium', as described in the 'Myths
Transformed' section of 'Morgoth's Ring'.
Stan Brown
<ste...@slimy.com>:
> One of the most interesting parts was the massive rewrite of the book
> that Tolkien started late in his life and then abandoned; I actually
> felt a bit indignant about some of the changes he was contemplating
> (and grateful that he opted against finishing the project).
Care to share one or two of these changes, if you remember them>
I know for myself that I felt he made a huge mistake trying to
rewrite Silm to start with a round Earth and alter the origin of Sun
and Moon.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Steuard Jensen
> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:10:38 -0500 from Steuard Jensen
><ste...@slimy.com>:
>> One of the most interesting parts was the massive rewrite of the book
>> that Tolkien started late in his life and then abandoned; I actually
>> felt a bit indignant about some of the changes he was contemplating
> Care to share one or two of these changes, if you remember them>
The biggest thing was just a complete change in tone, from the chapter
titles down all the way down to word choice. Every instance of the
narrator's personal voice is gone, and I was surprised by how
different the story felt without them. Here's a sample from early in
Chapter 1: "A Well-Planned Party" to give you a feel for it:
"The hobbit was very well-to-do, it was said, and his name was
Baggins. The Bagginses had lived in the neighborhood of Hobbiton
for time out of mind, and people considered them very respectable,
not only because most of them were rich, but also because they
never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell
what a Baggins would say on any question without the trouble of
asking him. But this story tells how a Baggins had an adventure,
and found himself saying and doing things altogether unexpected.
He got caught up in great events, which he never understood; and he
became enormously important, though he never realized it."
I could go on indefinitely: maybe it's just because I've read this
book so many times, but great swaths of the rewrite just leave me
feeling subtly queasy. There are a lot of memorable phrases and
passages in /The Hobbit/, and in many cases it feels like the magic
and wonder has been sucked out of them in the revision, leaving a much
drier and less enjoyable tale.
Also, as is evident at the end of the quote above (and as Rateliff
emphasizes in his notes), Bilbo's implied level of competence and
knowledge takes a serious hit in the revision. Maybe Bilbo really was
clueless about the importance of the Council of Elrond and all that
surrounded it, but that certainly wasn't my impression at the time.
As the story goes on, Bilbo proves to be incapable of crossing a river
without someone to hold his hand, and somehow manages to be even less
useful in the encounter with the Trolls than in the original tale.
But apparently Tolkien shared the manuscript with an unknown friend,
and that person performed a great service by saying something like
"this is wonderful, but it's not /The Hobbit/". Tolkien apparently
listened to her, and the rewrite went no farther. (I'm quite happy
that it was never published, but it's interesting to see some of the
details that were fleshed out in the rewrite nonetheless, as opposed
to details that were changed. I'm willing to accept that many of
those were simply Tolkien giving a more complete picture of the story
and its setting than he had taken the time for in the original.)
> I know for myself that I felt he made a huge mistake trying to
> rewrite Silm to start with a round Earth and alter the origin of Sun
> and Moon.
Agreed. My take on that is that reconciling Middle-earth with
real-world astronomy and geography would be entirely impossible in any
case, so attempting to bring them closer together really wouldn't
accomplish much.
Steuard Jensen
calvin
> ... Here's a sample from early in
> Chapter 1: "A Well-Planned Party" to give you a feel for it:
Changing the title of chapter 1 from "An Unexpected Party"
to "A Well-Planned Party" is shocking enough, without any
other details being given.
Tamf Moo
> Changing the title of chapter 1 from "An Unexpected Party"
> to "A Well-Planned Party" is shocking enough, without any
> other details being given.
that sounds more like alternative history than an alternative hobbit to
me. there's something to be said for letting published books stand.
--
tamf
see ei ole minu kohuke.
Paul S. Person
<ste...@slimy.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-30, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:10:38 -0500 from Steuard Jensen
>><ste...@slimy.com>:
>>> One of the most interesting parts was the massive rewrite of the book
>>> that Tolkien started late in his life and then abandoned; I actually
>>> felt a bit indignant about some of the changes he was contemplating
>
>> Care to share one or two of these changes, if you remember them>
>
>The biggest thing was just a complete change in tone, from the chapter
>titles down all the way down to word choice. Every instance of the
>narrator's personal voice is gone, and I was surprised by how
>different the story felt without them. Here's a sample from early in
>Chapter 1: "A Well-Planned Party" to give you a feel for it:
Which, no doubt, is what prompted the reader to report that it was
very good, but it was /not/ /The Hobbit/.
At which point JRRT gave up on the idea.
Stan Brown
<ste...@slimy.com>:
[I asked Steuard to share some of the contemplated changes in The
Hobbit]
>
> Here's a sample from early in
> Chapter 1: "A Well-Planned Party" to give you a feel for it:
>
> and he became enormously important, though he never realized it."
>
> emphasizes in his notes), Bilbo's implied level of competence and
> knowledge takes a serious hit in the revision. Maybe Bilbo really was
> clueless about the importance of the Council of Elrond and all that
> surrounded it, but that certainly wasn't my impression at the time.
Agreed -- I think he was humble, but not clueless. When he offered to
take the Ring to Mordor, Elrond himself perceived that Bilbo was
making a great offer, and my impression is that Bilbo knew that very
well, even though (in the Hobbit way) he made it in the form of a
jest.
But I think even earlier, Bilbo knew of his own importance. When he
gave the Arkenstone to the Allies, he fully expected that he would be
preventing a war.
> As the story goes on, Bilbo proves to be incapable of crossing a river
> without someone to hold his hand, and somehow manages to be even less
> useful in the encounter with the Trolls than in the original tale.
Yikes! I might get The H of the H from the library, just to see how
bad that incident was.
Bilbo's initial ineptitude in the published /Hobbit/ works because he
grows out of it, just as Sam's ignorance and naivet� work in LotR
because he grows out of them. If either stayed that way through the
whole story they'd be cardboard cutouts, quite uninteresting.
Clams Canino
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.24b7c2402...@news.individual.net...
> Agreed -- I think he was humble, but not clueless. When he offered to
> take the Ring to Mordor, Elrond himself perceived that Bilbo was
> making a great offer, and my impression is that Bilbo knew that very
> well, even though (in the Hobbit way) he made it in the form of a
> jest.
>
> But I think even earlier, Bilbo knew of his own importance. When he
> gave the Arkenstone to the Allies, he fully expected that he would be
> preventing a war.
Yes, I think in his humble Hobbit way, he knew that a single determined
Hobbit could do great deeds in the world at large. And that he was capable
of doing such deeds if he had to.
-W