6 ms·
Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)
- kwertyoowiyop 7mo agoThe dragon is just great. These are so charming.
- jonah-archive 7mo agoI've been thinking about that illustration of Smaug for nearly 40 years and I never knew where it came from (I didn't recall it was from a Tolkien-related thing, but I remember it vividly otherwise)! I must have seen it at a friend's or the library since as far as I know we never had these at home.
- hosaka 7mo agoAs someone who loved the Moomintroll illustrations I find this both familiar and hilarious. I suppose I might have a different opinion if I'd actually read any of Tolkien's works. > "She even made some of the characters especially tiny to elevate the landscapes." wish there were more examples of this in the images shown in the article.
- kevinpet 7mo agoThe article seems to be more of a review of the new book than any attempt to actually discuss the topic.
- FarmerPotato 7mo agoJansson’s illustrations were reused in one of the annual Tolkien calendars. I kept it on my wall for years, changing the month every so often. So… 13 illustrations reprinted Here are some book covers: https://www.amazon.com/Hobitti-eli-Sinne-ja-takaisin/dp/9510427926 https://www.amazon.com/Hobitti-eli-Sinne-ja-takaisin/dp/9510... https://www.amazon.com/Hobbitten-Eller-Ud-hjem-igen/dp/8702382210 https://www.amazon.com/Hobbitten-Eller-Ud-hjem-igen/dp/87023...
- summa_tech 7mo agoI... actually really liked these. And yes, sure, they aren't completely obedient to Tolkien's descriptions of the characters, but the atmosphere feels right. But then again, I grew up with the Moomins.
- jojobas 7mo agoMoomins don't depict anything like saving the world, it's a whimsical universe dealing with whimsical non-issues. I can see why Tolkien lovers are upset at these even though I'm not really one of them.
- Sharlin 7mo agoThe Hobbit is also a whimsical children's book, and doesn't have anything to do with saving the world (a world that Tolkien had not developed anywhere near the state in we see in LoTR when he wrote The Hobbit almost 20 years earlier).
- jojobas 7mo agoIt was a children's book and probably isn't anymore.
- hackyhacky 7mo agoWas its license rescinded by the International Society of Children's Books? Thanks for letting me know, I'll be sure to tell my child to stop enjoying it.
- tokai 7mo agoHow could that status ever chance? Being widely read by adults doesn't change if its an children's book or not.
- npinsker 7mo agoTheoretically it could change via literacy rates and attention spans going down?
- NoboruWataya 7mo agoThese are lovely. I knew about the Moomins of course but I didn't know about the other stuff she did, some of which I really like. I wish the website had more of the illustrations but I guess there might be copyright issues. I'd be particularly interested in seeing more of her illustrations for Alice in Wonderland and The Hunting of the Snark (the latter is a great poem if you haven't read it: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29888/29888-h/29888-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29888/29888-h/29888-h.htm)
- taneq 7mo agoDoes anyone here not know that ‘twas brillig, when the slithey toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe?
- danparsonson 7mo agoIsn't that from Jabberwocky?
- pnathan 7mo agoI'd have to see more to have a final thought. As presented, Gollum is badly off, I reckon - missing the books textual description. The flowers are out of line. The dragon scene is wonderful and captures the situation. The dwarves are a bit dopy looking but I think could cohere with the early introduction in the Hobbit.
- A_D_E_P_T 7mo ago> As presented, Gollum is badly off, I reckon - missing the books textual description. The flowers are out of line. This is addressed in the article. "Paul Gravett writes in his new book about Tove Jansson: ‘Her Gollum towered monstrously large, to the surprise of Tolkien himself, who realized that he had never clarified Gollum’s size and so amended the second edition to describe him as ‘a small, slimy creature’." We have Jansson to thank for the clarification, it seems!
- jfengel 7mo agoTolkien made significant changes to the Gollum chapter. In the first edition Gollum gives up the ring willingly. The ring was not yet the Ring, and Gollum was not yet a Hobbit. The man took retcons as an intellectual challenge. Sometimes the retcon itself spun off a whole new story. But it makes The Hobbit really incompatible with its own sequel, even after his changes. (You have to read it as having a very unreliable narrator.)
- duskwuff 7mo ago> You have to read it as having a very unreliable narrator. Perhaps even Bilbo himself. :) One can imagine him telling a heavily fictionalized version of his adventures to some impressionable young hobbits.
- jfengel 7mo agoIndeed: the intro to The Lord of the Rings explains that previous editions of The Hobbit, where the ring was a gift rather, were Bilbo's original lie to cover up the theft. Perhaps that was all the influence of the Ring itself.
- wileydragonfly 7mo agoDreadful and painfully Nordic.
- B1FF_PSUVM 7mo agoPoor sods never know if they are getting devoured by a polar bear or not, and it shows.
- boomboomsubban 7mo agoWe're these only used in Sweden? I know I've seen some of them before, but I'm not sure if it's from decades on the internet or my school having a specific thirty year old edition of The Hobbit. I seem to recall thinking Gollum was big, but honestly could be remembering the Shelov scene. It was long time ago.
- 3836293648 7mo agoThis gets posted every few months, so you probably got it from the internet
- rasjani 7mo agoI read Finnish version of Hobbit that had Tove's art about 40 years ago.
- commieneko 7mo agoThose are wonderful! It's really interesting to see Jansson's take on the characters and settings. When I read _The Hobbit_ in the early 1970s, there was already a well established tradition of how to portray Tolkien's world. Jansson's seems very fresh to me. Also of interest, and probably just as upsetting to some, is Gene Deitch's version of _The Hobbit_ which was made in the mid 1960s in an attempt to retain the movie rights. Made in 30 days! https://youtu.be/UBnVL1Y2src?si=rpd-dOk-t4BYFP_Q https://youtu.be/UBnVL1Y2src?si=rpd-dOk-t4BYFP_Q
- p-e-w 7mo agoThe Hobbit is today usually viewed through the lens of The Lord of the Rings, and The Lord of the Rings is viewed with the baggage of 70 years of post-Tolkien epic fantasy culture. Being deeply embedded in that culture myself, I must admit that these illustrations don’t appeal to me at all, and don’t match my mental imagery of the story. But I can see how they might have looked like a perfect fit to someone who read The Hobbit with a fresh eye when it was still fresh. I wish I could have read it like that.
- galaxyLogic 7mo agoI inhaled Lord of the Rings on first reading. I lived inside it. And it had no illustrations except maps, right? But later when the movies came out they were a big disappointment for ne, they were not the world I had visited. And they were boring. Had I not read the books before, they might have been just fine.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7mo agoYeah, the (Peter Jackson) movies were basically LotR seen through the lens of decades of D&D and Warhammer Fantasy, a peculiar aesthetic which of course grew off LotR itself. I'm guessing that Tolkien would have deeply hated it all with a burning passion.
- rerdavies 7mo agololz. I am so glad you told me why it was made. Otherwise it would be completely unforgivable.
- socalgal2 7mo agoI'm always of two minds about this kind of stuff. First of, the illustrations are great. I love them. Separate though, if they don't represent the original material then why not just make some new IP instead if effectively taking a piss on someone else's?
- NoboruWataya 7mo agoThey do represent the original material, as interpreted by the illustrator. And Tove was hardly pissing on anything - she was commissioned to illustrate a version of the book by the publisher.
- socalgal2 7mo agoThat she got permission's got nothing to do with it. Abrams got permission to turn Star Wars into a Lord of the Rings fetch quests for the secret talisman. That doesn't mean he didn't piss all over "Star Wars".
- AlotOfReading 7mo agoI don't think it's pissing on the source material, it's adapting it. Alastair Reynolds once expressed this sentiment in a nice way: I didn’t want to be slavishly bound by the earlier story. So I made the decision that House of Suns would take its cue from the events and characters in the shorter piece, but it wouldn’t be afraid to contradict them if that made for a better story. [0] https://www.alastairreynolds.com/release/house-of-suns-2008/ https://www.alastairreynolds.com/release/house-of-suns-2008/
- rawling 7mo agoEasier to say when the source is your own material.
- mwkaufma 7mo agoThe "original material" was modified significantly - Tove's illustration of Gollum, e.g., was not inconsistent with the 1937 edition she was working from, before Tolkien rewrote the scene to bring it more in-line with the version of the character from the Lord of the Rings in the second edition.
- caconym_ 7mo agosomewhat comforting to know that this kind of reflexive fan bitching about departures from canon has been around forever
- iambateman 7mo agoIt has a real “where the wild things are” feel…which is the art used to decorate my local library. A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother—-including Peter Jackson—-and have missed out on the absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing. The Hobbit does a wonderful job of introducing the ideas and characters of LotR in a way which is accessible for children and I think the art presented here is a valid artistic take on a children’s book about a dragon.
- sarchertech 7mo agoIt’s as valid as any art. But as an illustrated book, it’s lacking. If I had read this version as a kid, I’d be extremely confused as to why Gollum was 20 feet tall and wearing a flower crown. And then I’d be mad and consider it a bad illustration. (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”) If there’s a character in a book who is known for wearing a red shirt, you might think it’s interesting to subvert expectations and give him a green shirt. But when the picture with the green shirt appears next to text describing a red shirt, it fails as an illustration. Especially in a book meant for children.
- ggm 7mo agoTolkien and Jansson shared one thing: people did translations of their work which they totally hated So it's sort-of funny that she wound up pissing him off with artwork which didn't fit his mental model, when they both experienced people trying to do the translation and failing to hit the mark. (I think I read this of both of them, in respective biographies)
- shevy-java 7mo ago"I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size" Well, he was a hobbit once, right? So a 10 meters tall Gollum makes less sense than a Gollum that has about the same size as other hobbits, give or take.
- 7mo ago
- KnuthIsGod 7mo ago"In her illustrations in Bilbo – en hobbits äventyr, Jansson concentrated on the landscapes, she was not as interested in the characters of the story. She even made some of the characters especially tiny to elevate the landscapes. The illustrations consisted more of her impression of the story than literal repetitions, which many Tolkien fans found unsatisfying. According to them, Jansson overlooked many of the central characteristics of the characters. ...she edited the pictures many times to avoid them being too much like the Moomin illustrations. However, the readers saw the illustrations as more Jansson like than truly Tolkien like."
- stogot 7mo agoGollum as massive creature is so inaccurate to the book that i criticise too
- adzm 7mo agoThe book never stated Gollum's size. In later revisions, Tolkien actually added that after these illustrations for that reason!
- cobbzilla 7mo agoI love these illustrations! It’s always hard for me not to automatically conjure pictures from the Ralph Bakshi animated film when I think about The Hobbit, these give me another very cool perspective.
- the_af 7mo agoI'm vaguely aware of what the Moomin are, yet I really like these drawings. Ok, unsure about Gollum, but the dwarves and the dragon rock.
- delichon 7mo agoI'm a fan of Tolkien's art and have a couple of prints on my wall, The Hill and The Tree of Amalion. They have been up for years now and I haven't gotten a bit tired of them. They convey Tolkien's voice to me almost as effectively as his books. He didn't need an illustrator. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/jrr-tolkiens-estate-publishes-rare-lord-of-the-rings-paintings-and-maps-online-180979674/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/jrr-tolkiens-estat... https://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/2/20/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_The_Tree_of_Amalion.jpg https://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/2/20/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_Th...
- culebron21 7mo ago"Snuffkin (Snusmumriken) and the ring", that's what I see. Or Mummy troll. I saw some cartoon adaptations of the LotR, never liked it much because of the dead seriousness, but this makes it carelessness, which probably could have made me read it.
- shevy-java 7mo agoWell ... it looks more like a midget-man than a hobbit. But what exactly is a hobbit? In the movie "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" from 2001, the hobbits shown pissed me off. When they started to jump on the bed, I started to root for Sauron. It got much better in the movie "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" from 2012 but even then they look mostly just like midget humans, with a bit of an elfish touch (and I hated the elves in the movie from 2001; the depiction was just lame). The only hobbit-like entity I liked was Gollum. So how does a hobbit really look like? "Tolkien presented hobbits as a variety of humanity, or close relatives thereof". So based on this, while Tove's pictures look more like a parody, I don't really see it as intrinsically wrong. It's just less of a "standard" depiction - Tolkien could have assumed hobbits to be anything but midget-humans, but they are mostly midgets with stronger feet.
- 1313ed01 7mo agoFunny that the first Swedish translation, from 1947, also had an illustration of a huge Gollum, and Tolkien already commented on that long before Tove Jansson's did her version. > The translation of the name 'Hobbit' to 'Hompe' was not the only thing that annoyed Tolkien about this edition. Already in 1948, he wrote to Rosemary, a young fan, that "the picture of Gollum in the Swedish edition of The Hobbit makes him look huge." https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Hompen https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Hompen Overall seems like a weird edition.
- FarmerPotato 7mo agoI believe Tove Jansson also painted the color cover for the first authorized American edition of Fellowship of the Ring (1965). In _Letters_ one can read Tolkien’s reaction. He was quite taken aback, calling out the Emus (!) in the foreground. As if “ the illustrator hadn’t read my book.” The 1973 Ballantine editions carried only Tolkien’s own paintings on the covers and slipcase. I only learned of her involvement after becoming a huge Jansson fan. I had to take another look at the Emu.
- ThisNameIsTaken 7mo agoIt seems those were drawn by Barbara Remington [1] who didn't have time to read the books before making her illustrations. Apparently, the Lord of the Rings was in public domain in the US for a short while, so the publisher (and Tolkien) had to rush for a new 'authorized' version. [1]: https://arrgle.com/emus-and-piracy-the-story-behind-the-lord-of-the-rings/ https://arrgle.com/emus-and-piracy-the-story-behind-the-lord...
- FarmerPotato 7mo agoOh. Well that puts the emus out to pasture. So, two illustrators Tolkien wasn’t pleased with. I see how I conflated them.
- michalu 7mo agoVery typical arrogance of the so-called modern "artist" mind - "it was an adventure for me", getting an assignment to complement a great work of art and making it about herself. The problem with these modern artists is they're not working hard to improve a skill, but rather keep doing more of what comes easy hoping the world maybe recognizes their "natural genius" ... as a result they go hard on pushing that one thing unique to them (whatever it is, scriblles, splashes, infantile characters) ... And yeah let's not forget the "you just don't understand modern art" shaming.
- mrbukkake 7mo agothis comment is very typical arrogance of the modern computer nerd raised on capeshit hahahha
- EastLondonCoder 7mo agoThis was my first literary experience, my mother read it to me when I was three years old. Seeing Janssons rendering of Smaug made me remember it was this version she read for me.
- acuozzo 7mo agoMy favorite art for The Hobbit is from the version released in the USSR. https://www.openculture.com/2014/03/discover-soviet-era-illustrations-of-j-r-r-tolkiens-the-hobbit-1976.html https://www.openculture.com/2014/03/discover-soviet-era-illu...