The Hobbit

 The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien was originally published in 1937 by George Allen and Unwin. This is a classical children's fantasy novel that has received world wide acclaim, awarded the Best Juvenile Fiction prize from the New York Herald Tribunes and was nominated for the Carnegie Medal. There is also a three part movie directed by Peter Jackson (which I will mention later in this review) that has reinvigorated the public's interest in the book, if only to complain about the movies.

For those who do not know, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, follows the adventures of a well-to-do Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins who is tricked into hosting a meeting for some traveling dwarfs and is then hired to be a "burglar" for the party as they attempt to return to their homeland and steal back the treasures from the dragon, Smaug, who killed most of their people and stole their mountain many years ago. As they travel to the mountain, they encounter several different enemies and obstacles that begin to reveal the dwarf's pride and greed as well as Bilbo's resourcefulness and cunning. 

One complaint some people have of the book is there does not seem to be an over-arching plot like we are now used to in our series. The events of the book easily lead into each other but don't directly affect one another. While many people are not fans of the grand quest style of the story, I think it is pleasant and easy to follow. I also know that the Hobbit was originally meant to be a bedtime story Tolkien told his kids with another part of the adventure happening each night. The only reason he wrote it down was because his children complained when he changed some detail in between each telling. With that perspective, the quest plot makes more sense. Imagine reading one chapter each night before bed and you have a continuing story that can also be read as shorter stories. 

There is also more character growth on Bilbo's part as the story continues. At first, he is focused on fitting into the Hobbit culture by being a well-off and respectable Baggins. He appears neurotic, especially at the beginning of his adventure when he forgets his handkerchief and other gentry pleasures in his haste to join the dwarfin party. By the end, however, he has learned how to be self-reliant while also saving himself and the dwarfs a few times at this point. Some people might still consider him neurotic at this point, but I prefer to read it as a growth and the speech patterns a literary standard of the time.

Over all, I love this book. It's one of my favorites from middle school and I still read it once a year. It is also my little brother's favorite book, and he hates reading, so it's always something that we can talk about. 

Now . . . the movies . . . 

I believe everyone can agree the hobbit movies from Peter Jackson are not . . . good. They're not terrible, but they're not Lord of the Rings level. Part of this is because they tried to create more of an over-arching plot with the orcs who are pursuing Thorin and by adding in the Necromancer for Gandalf to deal with while also hinting at events to come in the Lord of the Rings. Upon my recent re-read, I was surprised to realize the Necromancer is mentioned in the books but only in passing and as something that is already widely known. What this does for the movies, is over complicate a bedtime story.

The first movie does well with the content. It is more tightly written while still giving enough development to the various dwarfs and building their relationship with Bilbo. The events in the first movie also closely follow the books while also showing Bilbo's transition from flustered to cunning and resourceful. Martin Freeman does a wonderful job as Bilbo. 

The problems only really begin appearing in the second movie. While i think this book does deserve two movies in order to cover everything that occurs, I think the added love triangle between Kili, Tauriel, and Legolas is stupid and unnecessary. It is not in the original, it does not add to the story or the world, and it does not impact anything going into the Lord of the Rings. I know people have also complained about the lack of women in Tolkien's works but I think adding a love triangle was not the way to remedy this. Either remain true to the original by following a group of men or use the female characters to point out the flaws of the men or directly impact events that would lead into Lord of the Rings. Even the actors didn't want there to be a love triangle and were annoyed when it was added to the script. 

Finally, the third movie is a hot mess. It is literally a single chapter and the epilogue of the book, the one which Bilbo is actually unconscious for the entire time. In the book, he does not want everyone to fight each other and decides to leave the battle in order to take the moral high ground. After a blow to the head, he wakes up to learn several of his friends are now dead and the goblin army has been defeated. He finally returns home and has to fit back into his gentry life. They take this simple idea, and make it an entire two hour movie. It is a grand spectacle but that's it. Just a spectacle. They could have easily tagged this onto the end of the second movie and everything would have been fine but by this point, there were too many loose ends that they'd created with all of their B plot elements that they didn't have time to do this and needed the third movie. Also, Lord of the Rings was a trilogy and that made a ton of money, so the Hobbit needs to be a trilogy and make a ton of money. No.

Now, again, I love Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He does a great job showing the character's growth. Richard Armitage makes a great Thorin. He has a commanding presence and does a great job showing Thorin slipping into madness. And, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug and Sauron is a lot of fun. You can tell he's enjoying the rolls. But the movies are not a good representation of the book. 

As a children's book, this is actually one of the most approachable stories by Tolkien. He was highly talented and helped create fantasy as we know it today, the term Tolkien fantasy is a real thing, but it is hard to jump into his other works. The Hobbit is streamlined and meant to entertain, not describe the "true" history of the world and explain the cultural origins of his invented languages and deities. If you want to see why so many people love Tolkien but aren't sure if you can stomach reading the history of every tree branch, please consider reading The Hobbit. It's short. It's well done. And it's fun.