Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

[This is a review of the 70th Anniversary Edition, not so much of "The Hobbit" itself. I've reviewed the book proper elsewhere, and would rather focus on the actual edition itself.] "The Hobbit" is one of those few books that I have felt justified to buy multiple copies over the years. It is a book I have read and cherished, and a book I dearly love. "The Hobbit" is a novel that deserves to be bought multiple times over, and I always enjoy looking at new editions of this classic work. So imagine my excitement when I found out they would be publishing a 70th anniversary edition of one of my most cherished novels! This has been a big year for Tolkien fans. Christopher Tolkien published "The Children of Hurin", a newly completed version of Turin's legend, in April. We've gotten (at long last), "The History of the Hobbit", expertly handled by brilliant Tolkien scholar John D. Ratcliffe and published in two separate volumes. And of course, we have the 70th anniversary of Tolkien's first primary work, "The Hobbit", which this edition is published in celebration of that momentous occasion. And does it live up as a major new edition of this fantasy classic? That's a pretty easy answer. The answer is NO. First off, here are the positives. The 70th anniversary edition is pretty much how the first edition of "The Hobbit" was actually published back in 1937 with some notable improvements, and conforming to Tolkien's pretty exacting specifications, including how the dust jacket should appear, as well as the art and maps that accompany the text. These are the notable differences between the first edition and this edition. Due to cost, Tolkien was not able from a production standpoint to have the book appear exactly as he envisioned. The 1937 publication cut some of his artwork, the map was not how he so desired, and the dust jacket, due to printing cost, was limited to three primary colours (green, black, and white). Originally, Tolkien wanted the sun on the front cover and the dragon on the back cover to be totally in red, but this was not feasible. Obviously Tolkien's work is successful enough that these production costs are no longer an issue, and so this is a relatively accurate facsimile of what Tolkien would have wanted to publish in 1937 had money not been an object, as it too often is in the real world. For that, this edition has some worth. Now, there are some negatives. And these are big negatives. First off, paper quality and binding. It's bad. Then there's the actual art work. The colour artwork is quite nicely implemented into the main text, and overall I don't have a problem with the colour artwork from a production standpoint. The paintings are bright and colourful, and remain true to higher quality prints of Tolkien's phenomenal painting. But unfortunately the same cannot be said of the black and white illustrations. Like a reviewer said before me, it appears Tolkien's drawings were reproduced on a cheap scanner. Tolkien's artwork is highly valuable, but unfortunately the drawings here are rather badly reproduced in this edition. Then there's the advertisement for "The Lord of the Rings" at the end that's rather annoying. They reproduce the first chapter of "The Fellowship of the Ring: Being the First Part of The Lord of the Rings" and place it at the end of the novel, acting like a cheap plug for Tolkien's masterpiece. I don't have any problem with plugging "The Lord of the Rings", but to me this inclusion of the first chapter just cheapens the whole book, especially when it's supposed to be a major edition of a major work. We all know about "The Lord of the Rings". Do we really need the first chapter here? Rather tacky, to say the least. Then there's the problem of Christopher Tolkien's forward. This is what I was most looking forward too, actually. Having read E. A. Solinas's review, I was under the impression this was a new forward prepared specifically by Christopher for the 70th anniversary of his father's work. Not the case. It's simply a reprint of the forward he wrote for the 50th anniversary of "The Hobbit", twenty years previously. As far as textual authenticity, I must be honest in the fact that I've only browsed it at a Borders bookstore, but I'd be very surprised if they did not use the text from The Annotated Hobbit, as it is the most definitive and accurate text yet established for the book. Still, I can't verify that that is the case. Overall, this is a fair edition of "The Hobbit". It could have been a lot more. What sets this apart from the other copies is this is how Tolkien truly envisioned how he wanted the book to appear, and for that fact alone, this is a valuable edition to the Tolkien collector. Unfortunately the poor production quality of the black and while illustrations, the rather tacky inclusion of "The Lord of the Rings"'s first chapter, and the disappointment of the publishers' just reprinting a twenty year old introduction to the 50th anniversary publication rather brings the whole affair down. I think I'll pass on this one. For those looking for the best edition of Tolkien's book, buy "The Annotated Hobbit", first published in 1988 and republished in a new format in 2003. The second version of "The Annotated Hobbit", is the definitive edition of this phenomenal work as far as I'm concerned. . . . ------ [I originally wrote a review back in 2000 for "The Hobbit", detailing the differences between "The Hobbit", "The Lord of the Rings", and "The Silmarillion". In 2012 I wrote a new review, and am editing my original text to include this new review. Mike London 10-3-2012] New Review 2012: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit." Thus begins the most famous series in fantasy literature. For such a universe of high caliber, the sentence is a rather unassuming beginning for quite an unassuming, down-to-earth race known as Hobbits. Unfortunately "The Hobbit" has become overshadowed by "The Lord of the Rings", seen as an "enchanting prelude" to the more substantial sequel. C. S. Lewis said in "A Preface to Paradise Lost" that to accurately judge an item, you first must know its purpose. The books were written for different purposes - "The Hobbit" as an entertaining story for his children, and "The Lord of the Rings", initially a sequel to "The Hobbit", became much more a continuation of "The Silmarillion". For those who underestimate "The Hobbit" using the criteria of "The Lord of the Rings" as their guide are missing out on a rich work. What are Hobbits, you may ask? If you go researching where Tolkien got inspiration for the Hobbits, you will soon get mixed up in "The Denham Tracks" (a 19th century list of various folk-lore creatures) and E. A. Wyke-Smith's ""The Marvellous Land of Snergs (Dover Children's Classics)". Honestly, neither of these will get you very far. The Denham Tracks reads like a laundry list of folk-lore creatures, and though the actual word "hobbit" appears, there is no context for what a "hobbit" actually is. "The Marvelous Land of the Snergs" will get you a tad bit further. Snergs are creatures about half the height of man (like the Hobbits), enjoy their food (again, like the Hobbits), and there the resemblance ends. The World of the Snergs is far removed from Middle-earth, having more to do with 19th century adventure stories set in fantasy with such dispargant elements as a vegetation Troll (by far the best character in the book), witches, knights similiar to stories of King Arthur, ad a waylaid sea crew hailing from the ship "The Flying Dutchman" Tolkien certainly anticipated the question, for he answered this inquiry within the opening pages of this very book. They are a race two to four feet high, shy of "Big People", and have no beards, unlike dwarves. Hobbits are chubby, "dress in bright colours, (chiefly green and yellow)", and wear no shoes because of the hick tufts of hair and thick leathery soles of their feet. They eat as often as they can. The story of "The Hobbit" is well known, having been published in 1937 and continually in print (save only for a brief interruption in the early 1940s, when Great Britian were facing paper shortages due to World War II). "The Hobbit" began life as an entertaining story of Tolkien's children (as so many of Tolkien's stories began as well). Written between 1929-1933, the book details the adventures of Bilbo Baggins. Gandalf the Wizard meets with Bilbo in the opening pages, telling him he is looking for some "to go on an adventure". Bilbo, not quite as respectible as he would like to believe himself to be, tells Gandalf life was much more interesting when Gandalf was around, but no, he would not have any adventures, thank you very much. Naturally, thirteen dwarves show up, and ultimately Bilbo sets off to reclaim the gold that the Dragon Smaug has stolen from the dwarves. Like the later Aragorn, Thorin Oakenshield, the chief dwarf, is a king-in-exile, and wants to reclaim both his throne and his gold stolen by the dragon.. The real meat of "The Hobbit", and one of the reasons why I believe the book has had such a long lasting appeal, is the book's transformation of Bilbo. "The Hobbit" shows the reader how an unassuming modern character (for though Bilbo lives in the far removed past, he is THOROUGHLY MODERN) goes from being an out-of-place bumbler in situations far removed from his life experience to an equal among beings and races that belong only in the distant past. Although initially inept, Bilbo, just as Gandalf predicted, proves to be a worthwhile companion, coming through for the dwarves on several key occasions, such as freeing them from the Elven prisons, fighting back the spiders, and facing the dragon alone. He even eventually aids in bringing about a resolution to the growing distress between the Dwarves, Men, and Elves after the fallout of Smaug's demise (albeit, rather unconventionally, using the Arkenstone, the Heart of the Mountain and the jewel which Thorin prizes above all others). This journey, this transformation of Bilbo into something more, something greater, is the true heart of the book. Tolkien himself said that he removed Gandalf from the story shortly after Beorn's house, due to the dramatic need for Bilbo to proove himself without assistance from the wizard. Fortunately, Tolkien was able to use Gandalf's absence as a springboard into more expansive story ideas when he began developing "The Lord of the Rings" after the unbridled success of "The Hobbit". Also, the book displays a moral complexity often not seen within the confines of children's liteature. By this, I am referring to the whole matter of Bilbo's handling of the Arkenstone, the chief jewel of the hoard that Bilbo and the dwarves are setting out to recover. The claims of the Elves and Men, and counter claims of the dwarves, and Bilbo's claiming of the Arkenstone and how he wants to use the Arkenstone to move the uprising battle toward resolution are complex and startling legal in tone. For all its story-book qualities, "The Hobbit" is a much different work from its subsequent heir, "The Lord of the Rings". Although early manuscripts explicitly prove Tolkien was casting the "The Hobbit" in the universe of his mythology from initial composition, "The Hobbit" features several elements and passages that are altogether incongruous with "The Lord of the Rings", especially in the First Edition published in 1937. For one, the ring found in Gollum's cave is not the One Ring, the Ruling Ring of Sauron. The magic ring was simply that - a magic ring, a stage prop that, in the words of Tom Shippey helped equalize Bilbo in the archaic world he found himself in. Tolkien only began developing the concept of the Ruling Ring AFTER publication of "The Hobbit" when he was trying to come up with ideas for a sequel. When reading "The Hobbit", readers, especially those who know the sequel, may approach the Ring as though this was truly a dark and sinister ring, which the text does not simply support. Indeed, Bilbo's deception about the ring, so important in "The Lord of the Rings", is not explicit in "The Hobbit". Next, and probably most fascinating of all, is the nature of Gollum himself. We all know he's a hobbit, long ago corrupted by his long possession of the One Ring. However, prior to 1951 when Allen and Unwin (Tolkien's publishers) published the revised version of "Riddles in the Dark" that Tolkien had written in 1947, not only was Gollum explicitly NOT a hobbit, we were not even sure what kind of creature he was (or what his physical size was). He was more akin to Tom Bombadil and Beorn, a one item category unique unto himself. There were no textual indications of Gollum's size in comparison to Bilbo, leading some illustrators in foreign editions to show Gollum as a much larger creature than he would later become. Then there's the matter of the original version of "Riddles in the Dark". Initially Gollum was going to give away his magic ring as a gift if Bilbo won the contest as well as show him the way out; after winning, Gollum is unable to find the ring (naturally, as Bilbo had already found the ring), so he showed Bilbo the way out, constantly apologizing. In "The Return of the Shadow", Book Six of "The History of Middle-earth", we find Tolkien trying to work within the parameters of this original chapter. Naturally, Tolkien ultimately abandoned the original conception and rewrote the chapter in 1947 as a specimen of what a new chapter could look like and sent this to his publisher. Tolkien was quite surprised to see that, four years later, Allen & Unwin published the rewritten version, and Tolkien accepted the text as authoritative. While that's the most interesting of the differences, there are still several passages at odds with Middle-earth as described in "The Lord of the Rings". There is no Shire. There are references to policemen and an unnamed "king". The trolls fit more into fairy-book stories than Middle-earth, and, as Douglas Anderson points out in "The Annotated Hobbit", Tolkien references other trolls with multiple heads, a thing not found in Middle-earth. Then there are the stone giants, which only appear once and then are never heard of again in any other story, before or after. There is speculation that one of Bilbo's ancestors took a FAIRY wife, a conception wholly alien to Middle-earth. There are no fairies in Middle-earth. Then there's the matter of the ruins of the mysterious city upon which Lake-town is built upon. This ruined city is mentioned only in "The Hobbit"; it goes unnamed, unreferenced, and undocumented in any of Tolkien's other writings regarding his legendarium. Probably the single biggest difference between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" is there is no developed nomenclature in "The Hobbit". The majority of the names are simple descriptions of the things involved: Bilbo lives in The Hill, is traveling to the River Running, visits a city named Dale, as neighbors across the Water, etc. There are very few proper names in "The Hobbit". The thirteen dwarves names and Gandalf (with the exception of "Balin") are all simply lifted from "The Devergatal", a section of the Elder Edda In "The Lord of the Rings" however, nomenclature is king, and Tolkien spent vast amounts of time creating vast landscape, cultures, and races all with their own unique linguistic flavour. There are also some geographic inconsistencies between the two works. From the bridge to where Bilbo and the dwarves meet the trolls is within sight; however, in "The Lord of the Rings", this same spot takes Aragorn and company SIX DAYS to go from the river to the spot where the trolls are. Tolkien was aware of these differences, and in 1960 wrote several different passages and revisions to bring "The Hobbit" stylistically more in line with "The Lord of the Rings". These passages were published for the first time in 2007 with "The History of The Hobbit". However, he showed the revised passages to someone (it is unknown who) who discouraged him from changing "The Hobbit". Ultimately, "The Hobbit" is a much different experience than "The Lord of the Rings", much more akin to classical fantasy fairy tale books such as "The Wind in the Willows" and "The Marvellous Land of the Snergs" in both style and tone than "The Lord of the Rings". Too its credit, the success of "The Hobbit" was what prompted Tolkien to write the sequel. In the seventeen years between initial publication and the appearance of the first volume of its sequel (1937-1954), "The Hobbit" never went out of print (save only for a brief period during World War II due to paper shortages) and was a tremendous seller, without support from "The Lord of the Rings". It is indeed a rich work, and is an undisputed classic. This book is so much more than a "prelude" to bigger and better things. It's a keystone work in children's fantasy, and stands among the titans of literature. ----- Original Review 2000: "Inferiour to L.R.? I think not! No, just different!" The biggest problem with this novel is perception. Tolkien wrote this story for children; to be more specific, this was written for HIS children. There were several stories like this, but it was this, The Hobbit, that was his master achievement in children's literature. The Lord of the Rings ( a single epic, NOT a trilogy) was written to cash in on The Hobbit's success. Tolkien wanted to get on with the more serious work of his mythology, and ultimately that is what happened with The Lord of the Rings. It became attached to his mythology, and became as important to him as The Silmarillion. So delineation is required if you want to read this. Do not go in with the thought that The Hobbit is a "precursor" or any such nonsense to The Lord of the Rings. Think of it like you would think of any other children's classics: children's classics. If you take it on The L. R.'s terms, this is a failure, primary because it is not written to be like that. But, on the flipside, The L. R. is as much a failure in children's fiction. It is not children's fiction, it is epic fantasy, and one should not equate it with children's fiction. That is EXACTLY what people try to do with The Hobbit. They try to put it in the same type of genre or playing field as The L. R. They are both masterpieces, and I love them both dearly. But one is for children, the other with adults. Of course, Tolkien is part of the problem. How many books do you know that is a children's book and has an adult sequel? Not very many. The Hobbit, scarcely 300 pages, was written and published in the children's market. He then talked to his publishers, and they wanted a sequel. So he began "the new Hobbit", as C. S. (Jack) Lewis so aptly put it. He was preoccupied with his mythology, and the sequel was drawn into it. So we have two works, spanning two different genres, and as far as surface connections go its little more than prequel/sequel. Instead of looking at The Hobbit as a prequel, a precursor to his ADULT masterpiece, an inferiour version, think of as his CHILDREN'S masterpiece. The Hobbit is top of the class in children's fiction, one of the few contenders against such other great children's works as Narnia and Wrinkle in Time. The Lord of the Rings, likewise, is THE crowning masterpiece of the fantasy genre, of which its influence is incalculable to that fantasy market. Both are as important as the other, just in different fields. I haven't talked about The Silmarillion much. I have already reviewed it, so I won't go real in-depth here. But the same thing happened with it. People, expecting another Lord of the Rings, were inevitably disappointed with the Biblical style of the published version. If Tolkien wrote that book out in narrative form as he did Lord of the Rings, it would be ten times longer than Lord of the Rings. The biggest problem with Tolkien is people have to many preconceptions that are incorrect. So, basically, in conclusion, think of it like this: 1. The Hobbit - Children's masterpiece. He scores big with this one. 2. The Lord of the Rings - a single fantasy, not a trilogy. (Tolkien was always quick to point that out). The Crowning achievement of modern fantasy. 3. The Silmarillion - the Bible of Middle-earth. Much more for students of his work than the causal reader. [From the Amazon.co.uk review: Enjoy Tolkien's Middle-earth! I certainly have! Mike London]