4 ms·
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
by sarchertech 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo agoBut that's only known if you read other material, it's not in The Hobbit.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- rsynnott 8mo agoThat'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 8mo agohttps://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 8mo agoNeither the "before" nor "after" here have "small slimy" https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html
- sarchertech 8mo agoYeah 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 8mo 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 8mo agoHats off for going to the Primary Source!
- sarchertech 8mo agoIt’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 8mo agoWhy rude?
- Paracompact 8mo agoNot rude, just direct.
- edgyquant 8mo agoNope, it’s rude and abrasive
- taneq 8mo ago
- pkteison 8mo 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 8mo agoThat’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 8mo 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 8mo agoAragorn isn't in The Hobbit.