3 ms·

It 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

It 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 ago
It’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 ago
  Tolkien 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.
  - riffraff 7mo ago
    But that's only known if you read other material, it's not in The Hobbit.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - rsynnott 7mo ago
    That's a retcon. There was no indication that he was a hobbit in The Hobbit (and as others have mentioned, in the original there was no physical description at all.)
    - sarchertech 7mo ago
      https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Hobbit-Ch.-5-Riddles-in-the-Dark-1937-Edition.pdf https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho... This version says it’s the 1937 edition. It has the pre change story about Gollum offering the ring which Tolkien said is what he changed. But it also says he was a small slimy creature.
      - rawling 7mo ago
        Neither the "before" nor "after" here have "small slimy" https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html
        sarchertech 7mo ago
        Yeah it's entirely possible the version that I have that is supposed to be from 1937 was tainted with later versions despite it not containing any of the more well known 1951 changes. That is maybe someone reconstructed it by taking a 1966 copy and undoing the changes, but forgot about the small slimy creature change. But apparently there were dozens of different versions that actually ended up in print that had different amounts of the changes caused by some printers mixing old plates and new. So it's entirely possible that small slimy appeared in some versions around 1951 but not others and that's what that page is working off of.
- Paracompact 7mo ago
  > (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.”) This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken. http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf Page 83: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was." Mind explaining the source of your mistake?
  - belZaah 7mo ago
    Hats off for going to the Primary Source!
    - sarchertech 7mo ago
      It’s not a primary source is a scan of a 2016 reprint that I can’t find much information on. And I she a version that purports to be the 1937 edition which does have the small slimy creature line. https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Hobbit-Ch.-5-Riddles-in-the-Dark-1937-Edition.pdf https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho... That version has the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring if he wins”.
  - fifilura 7mo ago
    Why rude?
    - Paracompact 7mo ago
      Not rude, just direct.
      - edgyquant 7mo ago
        Nope, it’s rude and abrasive
    - taneq 7mo ago
- pkteison 7mo ago
  "a small slimy creature" was added after this picture was drawn, in the 1966 edition. Other languages adaptions had larger gollum's also - see some at e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/vy7vij/before_the_1966_edition_of_the_hobbit_it_wasnt/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/vy7vij/before_the_196... (It's difficult to find an excellent authoritative link clearly explaining that the change was in the 1966 edition - there is 'The History of The Hobbit' by John D. Rateliff, but I can't find it online)
  - sarchertech 7mo ago
    That’s not correct as far as I can tell. I found a 1937 version complete with the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring” and small slimy creature was there. https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Hobbit-Ch.-5-Riddles-in-the-Dark-1937-Edition.pdf https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...
- orthoxerox 7mo ago
  > 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. Should Aragorn wear pants in the illustrations?
  - Thorrez 7mo ago
    Aragorn isn't in The Hobbit.
shevy-java 7mo ago
"absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing" There is the bed-jumping scene, so there is childishness in the movies too. (I also hated that scene; I started to root for Sauron when I saw that scene.)
- eru 7mo ago
  Apropos rooting for Sauron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
JrProgrammer 7mo ago
> A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother Do you refer to the LOTR trilogy as The Hobbit's older brother here? I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?
- Steve16384 7mo ago
  Obviously true, but LOTR is also obviously more mature than The Hobbit, which I think was OP's point.
- gwbas1c 7mo ago
  > I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga? Yes: But the Hobbit is much shorter and is a much easier read. It also was edited after LOTR was published to fix some minor plot holes. WRT the movies: Peter Jackson added a lot to the "Hobbit" trilogy that wasn't in the book, such as the whole story arc about Gandalf when he wasn't with the dwarves, or the other wizards. The book isn't the epic that the movie makes it out to be.

sarchertech 7mo ago

It’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 ago
Tolkien 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.
- riffraff 7mo ago
  But that's only known if you read other material, it's not in The Hobbit.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  That's a retcon. There was no indication that he was a hobbit in The Hobbit (and as others have mentioned, in the original there was no physical description at all.)
  - sarchertech 7mo ago
    https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Hobbit-Ch.-5-Riddles-in-the-Dark-1937-Edition.pdf https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho... This version says it’s the 1937 edition. It has the pre change story about Gollum offering the ring which Tolkien said is what he changed. But it also says he was a small slimy creature.
    - rawling 7mo ago
      Neither the "before" nor "after" here have "small slimy" https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html
      - sarchertech 7mo ago
        Yeah it's entirely possible the version that I have that is supposed to be from 1937 was tainted with later versions despite it not containing any of the more well known 1951 changes. That is maybe someone reconstructed it by taking a 1966 copy and undoing the changes, but forgot about the small slimy creature change. But apparently there were dozens of different versions that actually ended up in print that had different amounts of the changes caused by some printers mixing old plates and new. So it's entirely possible that small slimy appeared in some versions around 1951 but not others and that's what that page is working off of.
Paracompact 7mo ago
> (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.”) This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken. http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf Page 83: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was." Mind explaining the source of your mistake?
- belZaah 7mo ago
  Hats off for going to the Primary Source!
  - sarchertech 7mo ago
    It’s not a primary source is a scan of a 2016 reprint that I can’t find much information on. And I she a version that purports to be the 1937 edition which does have the small slimy creature line. https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Hobbit-Ch.-5-Riddles-in-the-Dark-1937-Edition.pdf https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho... That version has the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring if he wins”.
- fifilura 7mo ago
  Why rude?
  - Paracompact 7mo ago
    Not rude, just direct.
    - edgyquant 7mo ago
      Nope, it’s rude and abrasive
  - taneq 7mo ago
pkteison 7mo ago
"a small slimy creature" was added after this picture was drawn, in the 1966 edition. Other languages adaptions had larger gollum's also - see some at e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/vy7vij/before_the_1966_edition_of_the_hobbit_it_wasnt/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/vy7vij/before_the_196... (It's difficult to find an excellent authoritative link clearly explaining that the change was in the 1966 edition - there is 'The History of The Hobbit' by John D. Rateliff, but I can't find it online)
- sarchertech 7mo ago
  That’s not correct as far as I can tell. I found a 1937 version complete with the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring” and small slimy creature was there. https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Hobbit-Ch.-5-Riddles-in-the-Dark-1937-Edition.pdf https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...
orthoxerox 7mo ago
> 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. Should Aragorn wear pants in the illustrations?
- Thorrez 7mo ago
  Aragorn isn't in The Hobbit.

shevy-java 7mo ago

"absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing" There is the bed-jumping scene, so there is childishness in the movies too. (I also hated that scene; I started to root for Sauron when I saw that scene.)

eru 7mo ago
Apropos rooting for Sauron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer

JrProgrammer 7mo ago

> A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother Do you refer to the LOTR trilogy as The Hobbit's older brother here? I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?

Steve16384 7mo ago
Obviously true, but LOTR is also obviously more mature than The Hobbit, which I think was OP's point.
gwbas1c 7mo ago
> I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga? Yes: But the Hobbit is much shorter and is a much easier read. It also was edited after LOTR was published to fix some minor plot holes. WRT the movies: Peter Jackson added a lot to the "Hobbit" trilogy that wasn't in the book, such as the whole story arc about Gandalf when he wasn't with the dwarves, or the other wizards. The book isn't the epic that the movie makes it out to be.