Ceridwen's Reviews > The Hobbit, Or There and Back Again
The Hobbit, Or There and Back Again
by J.R.R. Tolkien, Jules Bass , Arthur Rankin
by J.R.R. Tolkien, Jules Bass , Arthur Rankin
Ceridwen's review
bookshelves: childrens, dragons, fantasy, rule-britannia, what-would-scooby-do, grandparental-overshare, tolkien-uber-alles
Sep 19, 09
bookshelves: childrens, dragons, fantasy, rule-britannia, what-would-scooby-do, grandparental-overshare, tolkien-uber-alles
Recommended to Ceridwen by:
Grandma Dory
Recommended for:
the boy
Read in September, 2009, read count: 7
I've undertaken to read this to the boy; our first real book with chapters. Richard and I alternate reading at bedtime, so the experience is kind of fractured, but so far I'm loving it. I got to be trolls tonight. I do brilliant trolls.
-----
When I was six, my dad, who was more the reader-at-nighter of my parents, endeavored to read The Hobbit to me. He got to the part about the giant spiders in Mirkwood, and I promptly lost my damn mind, and begged him to stop reading. He did. My room at the time was this odd room that couldn't rightly be said to be on any floor of the house but its own: you reached the top of the stairs to the second floor, and then there was a door at the end of the long, Victorian hallway, then then another set of maybe five stairs to a small room with sloping ceilings, kind of like a dormer, but not. I couldn't be called an arachnophobe, exactly, but I was regularly terrified by mosquitoes that would somehow get into the bedroom while I was sleeping, drink my blood, and then whine around me in the dark. The ceilings were dotted with the bug and blood marks when my dad would have to come in after I started screaming and hunt down the offending insects with a shoe. So boo on you, mosquitoes, and boo on giant spiders.
When I was eight, he started again, and the intervening two years gave me the composure necessary to finish the tale. I loved it. I didn't really go on a big rampage of reading fantasy at this point, although I did like the Lloyd Alexander stuff I found in the school library. But something about this story made me want to write it myself, and I set to telling the tale of some creature who never went on adventures until he did and then all manner of craziness ensued. I don't know where any of this writing has gone, and in truth I don't think I really want to see it, but I'm now stuck by the power of Tolkien's writing to make other people want to write. I just recently finished reading Meditations on Middle Earth , and if there is any commonality to the stories of latter day fantasists, it's that being readers of Tolkien made them writers. (I mean, shit yeah, writers are always readers first – duh – but I'm just going to go on record as saying that if an author claims never to read, then they aren't an author, they're a dumb word product generator/marketer, and no reader should ever encourage them. There's enough crappy word-product coming out of people who actually give a tinker's damn, bless them.) There's something exceptional about Tolkien's world that drives people to tell stories themselves, something weird and hind-brain, coiled up in our mystical and commonplace daily word usage that jumps from the dinner table anecdote to the broad, unending vistas of the otherworldly. Man, just thinking about it makes me all hot.
I started reading this to my own son now that he is six. I fretted a bunch about the giant spiders, but of course it turns out that I am not him, or he is not me, and we don't share the same fears. I've read The Hobbit maybe a half dozen times, or had it read to me, but I've never before been in the position to read it aloud to someone else. I thoroughly recommend having some babies for the purposes of reading stuff aloud to them. Barring that, as that could possibly be irresponsible and expensive, take a very patient lover and spend some time in a darkish room in your pajamas and really roll the tale out. (This stuff may not be sexy in the strictest sense, but literacy is hot however you slice it, and this is the kind of tale for the telling.) Be the freaking trolls, wield String while you shout attercop and slash down your arachnid foes, smoke and steam and lie like Smaug in the ruined halls, squeak and scheme and try to avert a battle of five armies, and fail, but fail in the honesty of smallness. The story rips along for the most part, a busy enough tale to keep the attention of distractable six year olds for maybe half the time. This may sound like I'm damning it with faint praise, but half is maybe the best for which a parent can hope.
This most recent reading has given me an appreciation for the role of the narrator in The Hobbit. The narrator's often a tricky beast, capable of bringing down the entire narrative house of cards with his or her weird intrusions and extra-narrative knowledge. Who the hell are you, narrator? Stop that right now! But when done well, the narrator can be this sly commentary on the mechanics of plot and character. I'm thinking here of the narrator in Persuasion , whose voice rings with the authority and social barbarism that is everything the (very beloved, and almost idealized) main character is not. Narrators are often genderless, but the Persuasion narrator is almost a counterpoint to Anne's hyper-femininity, not male exactly, but differently female. You see this when one of the Musgroves injures herself in the seaside town. The prose is simple, descriptive, a series of declarations. Anne within this narrative takes charge in the most feminine of ways, and manages to tell everyone what to do without ever using the imperative; indeed, I think even without finishing a sentence, but I don't have the book in front of me. (I'm so far off topic, it's awesome to behold. I'll try to bring it back around.) The narrator details the domestic with her clear prose; the character is the domestic with her silence and demurrals.
Tolkien's not much interested in the questions of gender. Now that I've typed maybe the most insanely obvious statement I've ever written in a review, (gold star! high fives!) when I give it some thought, I realize that women in The Hobbit function as a sort of bracketing device. There's some mention of Bilbo's mother at the start, descended from the Old Took himself, and Bilbo has to confront the acquisitive Sackville-Bagginses when he gets home, but at its heart, The Hobbit is concerned with what happens when a quiet boy is thrust into the world of men. Bilbo is not child at the beginning, but he's comfortable and domestic, puffing about getting seed cakes and dratting unwelcome visitors who mess up his kitchen. Throughout the tale, he pines for food and bed, and those lovely old standards of feminine affection, the pocket handkerchief. I don't think anyone much uses those anymore, but my Grandfather did, and those worn and frayed squares of cloth, washed, folded and placed habitually in the pockets of his jackets by my Grandmother, are one of the few items I took from his belongings when he died. For me, and it's possible that I'm an eccentric in this regard, the pocket handkerchief is an emblem of the quiet and commonplace intersections that take place between partners in traditional gender roles, and Grandpa's hanky, and his love for Grandma, and her love back makes me all weeping and nostalgic for a social structure that I habitually scorn, wasn't raised in, and have no interest in bringing back, even if such a project weren't doomed to utter failure.
The narrator in the Hobbit consistently situates the events of the story in a mythic past, while the story itself plays out a very different set of values than the a traditional heroic legend. The story begins more in the style of the anecdote, with its digressions and definitions, and only very slowly works into the mode of the fairy tale. The narrator defines hobbits, gossips a bit about Gandalf, Bilbo's parents and house, and then a few pages in does the “once upon a time” thing: “By some curious chance one morning long ago in the quiet of the world, when there was more green and less noise...” The dwarves – my spell check is insisting on dwarfs, but it can go screw itself – intrude on Bilbo's peace, tell tales of gold and dragon slaying and other glorious pursuits, and it's the tale that sent him puffing out the door. Bilbo, the most hobbitest of hobbits, which is by definition the most domestic, social and quiet of beings, gets swept off into the world of legends, and I think it's totally fascinating that Bilbo here functions as a kind of reader-proxy. I sit in the most domestic of settings, as my father did, read out this tale of adventure to my children in the safety of their own bedrooms, and Bilbo's constant whining and dratting undercuts the honor of war and the mythos of danger. The boy loves the wizards and dangers, but part of the fascination is born of fear, and Bilbo keeps reminding us that the fear is real, hungry and uncomfortable.
This is where the narrator comes in. He – and I'm going to call the narrator a he, because it's the only thing that makes sense – is the voice of the present, who simultaneously places this story in the mythic past and then confounds the story's mythic status. There are lots of fairy tales and the like about plucky younger sons who make their ways through the world using luck and wit, and I think one could mistake Bilbo for one of these, he's really much more of a Shaggy-from-Scooby-Doo-style bungler and coward. I mean this in the best possible way. We all hate Fred, with his fearless masculinity, (or should, because c'mon, man) and Shaggy/Bilbo isn't so much feminine as differently masculine, the kind of masculine that doesn't sit upon hordes of gold with nothing to eat, but instead pines for a good meal and a hanky. The hanky ends up being the standard of femininity, carried with Bilbo on his journey, pined for in the dangerous world of men, their heroic wars, travels and squabbles. Bilbo carries idea of the handkerchief with him, trying to apply the less aggressive, less “heroic” modes of conflict resolution to the problems ahead of him. He sneaks, he burgles, he riddles: all the quiet activities of the clown, the the weakling, the sensitive boy, the Shag and Scoobs of the world.
I realize now I have a hobby horse about Tolkien and his experience with WWI, but I'm going to get up and ride it anyway. The heroic tale of the national hero, whose ethnic identity is wound up with his goodness, managed to get his ass completely mowed down by the mechanism and mass-production of the world wars. There are no heroes in WWI, only silly and tragic figures like the Red Baron, who flew the symbol of the future of warfare using the outdated social models of the Romantic Past. Bilbo puts a face on the cannon fodder, and doesn't so much speak to power as pick its pockets, get knocked in the head, and survive due to to love of comfort over the love of glory. Here is Bilbo's response after being found, unconscious, at the end of the battle:
And again, after being led to the Thorin's bedside, as Thorin lays dying he says to Bilbo:
I'll try not to go off about Tolkien's directional metaphors; how the West is often synonymous with tradition, the conservative, the homey, even while it carries the implications of death and stagnation. The East is where you go to find your death and salvation, in Tolkien's most Christian of terms, but it is not a path of ease and comfort.
I was also struck, in this reading, by Tolkien's fierce and loving descriptions of landscape. One of the reasons Middle Earth seems so real is that Tolkien conjures dirt and rock, tree and water in this incredibly solid way. I was lucky enough to be the one who read the section in which Smaug batters and destroys the rock ledge where Bilbo and the dwarves had been camped in their attempts to infiltrate the mountain, and the majesty and violence of that description really moved me. It made me think of the devastation of Europe, the earth itself laid low by the engines of war. The earth of Middle Earth is a love song and a eulogy to the lost landscape of Tolkien's youth. He and many other young men were swept out the door on the path to glory and victory, and the dragons they slew ended up being the myth of progress and heroism. Tolkien was savvy enough to see that the heroic quest is almost coded within the language, and that rewriting such a thing requires not just a simple reversal, but a reordering of heroism. Thorin, by all rights, is the hero of the story; his is the will that sets the plot in motion, and his temper and anger are the hallmarks of heroes stretching back to Achilles. Bilbo is not an anti-hero, who simply turns his anger and his will against the things for which the hero stands, but something subtler and more cunning: the fool. Sure, nothing would ever get done with a Bilbo in charge, but let us hope and pray that our Thorins can have clown such as Bilbo there to remind them that a myth is more useful in the nursery than on the battlefield.
Tolkien was famously irritated that fairy tales had been “relegated to the nursery”, but I humbly think he's wrong, that the telling of such stories to boys who will become men is the first order of business for we mothers who pray and hope for world in which the test of manhood is not glory but some courage and some wisdom, blended in equal measure.
Cross-posted on Readerling
-----
When I was six, my dad, who was more the reader-at-nighter of my parents, endeavored to read The Hobbit to me. He got to the part about the giant spiders in Mirkwood, and I promptly lost my damn mind, and begged him to stop reading. He did. My room at the time was this odd room that couldn't rightly be said to be on any floor of the house but its own: you reached the top of the stairs to the second floor, and then there was a door at the end of the long, Victorian hallway, then then another set of maybe five stairs to a small room with sloping ceilings, kind of like a dormer, but not. I couldn't be called an arachnophobe, exactly, but I was regularly terrified by mosquitoes that would somehow get into the bedroom while I was sleeping, drink my blood, and then whine around me in the dark. The ceilings were dotted with the bug and blood marks when my dad would have to come in after I started screaming and hunt down the offending insects with a shoe. So boo on you, mosquitoes, and boo on giant spiders.
When I was eight, he started again, and the intervening two years gave me the composure necessary to finish the tale. I loved it. I didn't really go on a big rampage of reading fantasy at this point, although I did like the Lloyd Alexander stuff I found in the school library. But something about this story made me want to write it myself, and I set to telling the tale of some creature who never went on adventures until he did and then all manner of craziness ensued. I don't know where any of this writing has gone, and in truth I don't think I really want to see it, but I'm now stuck by the power of Tolkien's writing to make other people want to write. I just recently finished reading Meditations on Middle Earth , and if there is any commonality to the stories of latter day fantasists, it's that being readers of Tolkien made them writers. (I mean, shit yeah, writers are always readers first – duh – but I'm just going to go on record as saying that if an author claims never to read, then they aren't an author, they're a dumb word product generator/marketer, and no reader should ever encourage them. There's enough crappy word-product coming out of people who actually give a tinker's damn, bless them.) There's something exceptional about Tolkien's world that drives people to tell stories themselves, something weird and hind-brain, coiled up in our mystical and commonplace daily word usage that jumps from the dinner table anecdote to the broad, unending vistas of the otherworldly. Man, just thinking about it makes me all hot.
I started reading this to my own son now that he is six. I fretted a bunch about the giant spiders, but of course it turns out that I am not him, or he is not me, and we don't share the same fears. I've read The Hobbit maybe a half dozen times, or had it read to me, but I've never before been in the position to read it aloud to someone else. I thoroughly recommend having some babies for the purposes of reading stuff aloud to them. Barring that, as that could possibly be irresponsible and expensive, take a very patient lover and spend some time in a darkish room in your pajamas and really roll the tale out. (This stuff may not be sexy in the strictest sense, but literacy is hot however you slice it, and this is the kind of tale for the telling.) Be the freaking trolls, wield String while you shout attercop and slash down your arachnid foes, smoke and steam and lie like Smaug in the ruined halls, squeak and scheme and try to avert a battle of five armies, and fail, but fail in the honesty of smallness. The story rips along for the most part, a busy enough tale to keep the attention of distractable six year olds for maybe half the time. This may sound like I'm damning it with faint praise, but half is maybe the best for which a parent can hope.
This most recent reading has given me an appreciation for the role of the narrator in The Hobbit. The narrator's often a tricky beast, capable of bringing down the entire narrative house of cards with his or her weird intrusions and extra-narrative knowledge. Who the hell are you, narrator? Stop that right now! But when done well, the narrator can be this sly commentary on the mechanics of plot and character. I'm thinking here of the narrator in Persuasion , whose voice rings with the authority and social barbarism that is everything the (very beloved, and almost idealized) main character is not. Narrators are often genderless, but the Persuasion narrator is almost a counterpoint to Anne's hyper-femininity, not male exactly, but differently female. You see this when one of the Musgroves injures herself in the seaside town. The prose is simple, descriptive, a series of declarations. Anne within this narrative takes charge in the most feminine of ways, and manages to tell everyone what to do without ever using the imperative; indeed, I think even without finishing a sentence, but I don't have the book in front of me. (I'm so far off topic, it's awesome to behold. I'll try to bring it back around.) The narrator details the domestic with her clear prose; the character is the domestic with her silence and demurrals.
Tolkien's not much interested in the questions of gender. Now that I've typed maybe the most insanely obvious statement I've ever written in a review, (gold star! high fives!) when I give it some thought, I realize that women in The Hobbit function as a sort of bracketing device. There's some mention of Bilbo's mother at the start, descended from the Old Took himself, and Bilbo has to confront the acquisitive Sackville-Bagginses when he gets home, but at its heart, The Hobbit is concerned with what happens when a quiet boy is thrust into the world of men. Bilbo is not child at the beginning, but he's comfortable and domestic, puffing about getting seed cakes and dratting unwelcome visitors who mess up his kitchen. Throughout the tale, he pines for food and bed, and those lovely old standards of feminine affection, the pocket handkerchief. I don't think anyone much uses those anymore, but my Grandfather did, and those worn and frayed squares of cloth, washed, folded and placed habitually in the pockets of his jackets by my Grandmother, are one of the few items I took from his belongings when he died. For me, and it's possible that I'm an eccentric in this regard, the pocket handkerchief is an emblem of the quiet and commonplace intersections that take place between partners in traditional gender roles, and Grandpa's hanky, and his love for Grandma, and her love back makes me all weeping and nostalgic for a social structure that I habitually scorn, wasn't raised in, and have no interest in bringing back, even if such a project weren't doomed to utter failure.
The narrator in the Hobbit consistently situates the events of the story in a mythic past, while the story itself plays out a very different set of values than the a traditional heroic legend. The story begins more in the style of the anecdote, with its digressions and definitions, and only very slowly works into the mode of the fairy tale. The narrator defines hobbits, gossips a bit about Gandalf, Bilbo's parents and house, and then a few pages in does the “once upon a time” thing: “By some curious chance one morning long ago in the quiet of the world, when there was more green and less noise...” The dwarves – my spell check is insisting on dwarfs, but it can go screw itself – intrude on Bilbo's peace, tell tales of gold and dragon slaying and other glorious pursuits, and it's the tale that sent him puffing out the door. Bilbo, the most hobbitest of hobbits, which is by definition the most domestic, social and quiet of beings, gets swept off into the world of legends, and I think it's totally fascinating that Bilbo here functions as a kind of reader-proxy. I sit in the most domestic of settings, as my father did, read out this tale of adventure to my children in the safety of their own bedrooms, and Bilbo's constant whining and dratting undercuts the honor of war and the mythos of danger. The boy loves the wizards and dangers, but part of the fascination is born of fear, and Bilbo keeps reminding us that the fear is real, hungry and uncomfortable.
This is where the narrator comes in. He – and I'm going to call the narrator a he, because it's the only thing that makes sense – is the voice of the present, who simultaneously places this story in the mythic past and then confounds the story's mythic status. There are lots of fairy tales and the like about plucky younger sons who make their ways through the world using luck and wit, and I think one could mistake Bilbo for one of these, he's really much more of a Shaggy-from-Scooby-Doo-style bungler and coward. I mean this in the best possible way. We all hate Fred, with his fearless masculinity, (or should, because c'mon, man) and Shaggy/Bilbo isn't so much feminine as differently masculine, the kind of masculine that doesn't sit upon hordes of gold with nothing to eat, but instead pines for a good meal and a hanky. The hanky ends up being the standard of femininity, carried with Bilbo on his journey, pined for in the dangerous world of men, their heroic wars, travels and squabbles. Bilbo carries idea of the handkerchief with him, trying to apply the less aggressive, less “heroic” modes of conflict resolution to the problems ahead of him. He sneaks, he burgles, he riddles: all the quiet activities of the clown, the the weakling, the sensitive boy, the Shag and Scoobs of the world.
I realize now I have a hobby horse about Tolkien and his experience with WWI, but I'm going to get up and ride it anyway. The heroic tale of the national hero, whose ethnic identity is wound up with his goodness, managed to get his ass completely mowed down by the mechanism and mass-production of the world wars. There are no heroes in WWI, only silly and tragic figures like the Red Baron, who flew the symbol of the future of warfare using the outdated social models of the Romantic Past. Bilbo puts a face on the cannon fodder, and doesn't so much speak to power as pick its pockets, get knocked in the head, and survive due to to love of comfort over the love of glory. Here is Bilbo's response after being found, unconscious, at the end of the battle:
“Victory after all, I suppose!” he said, feeling his aching head. “Well, it seems a very gloomy business.”
And again, after being led to the Thorin's bedside, as Thorin lays dying he says to Bilbo:
“There is more good in you than you know, child of the kindly West. Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure. If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. But sad or merry, I must leave it now. Farewell!”
Then Bilbo turned away, and went by himself, and sat alone wrapped in a blanket, and whether you believe it or not, he wept until his eyes were red and his voice was hoarse.”
I'll try not to go off about Tolkien's directional metaphors; how the West is often synonymous with tradition, the conservative, the homey, even while it carries the implications of death and stagnation. The East is where you go to find your death and salvation, in Tolkien's most Christian of terms, but it is not a path of ease and comfort.
I was also struck, in this reading, by Tolkien's fierce and loving descriptions of landscape. One of the reasons Middle Earth seems so real is that Tolkien conjures dirt and rock, tree and water in this incredibly solid way. I was lucky enough to be the one who read the section in which Smaug batters and destroys the rock ledge where Bilbo and the dwarves had been camped in their attempts to infiltrate the mountain, and the majesty and violence of that description really moved me. It made me think of the devastation of Europe, the earth itself laid low by the engines of war. The earth of Middle Earth is a love song and a eulogy to the lost landscape of Tolkien's youth. He and many other young men were swept out the door on the path to glory and victory, and the dragons they slew ended up being the myth of progress and heroism. Tolkien was savvy enough to see that the heroic quest is almost coded within the language, and that rewriting such a thing requires not just a simple reversal, but a reordering of heroism. Thorin, by all rights, is the hero of the story; his is the will that sets the plot in motion, and his temper and anger are the hallmarks of heroes stretching back to Achilles. Bilbo is not an anti-hero, who simply turns his anger and his will against the things for which the hero stands, but something subtler and more cunning: the fool. Sure, nothing would ever get done with a Bilbo in charge, but let us hope and pray that our Thorins can have clown such as Bilbo there to remind them that a myth is more useful in the nursery than on the battlefield.
Tolkien was famously irritated that fairy tales had been “relegated to the nursery”, but I humbly think he's wrong, that the telling of such stories to boys who will become men is the first order of business for we mothers who pray and hope for world in which the test of manhood is not glory but some courage and some wisdom, blended in equal measure.
Cross-posted on Readerling
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Hobbit, Or There and Back Again.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-50 of 144) (144 new)
message 1:
by
Robert
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Aug 01, 2009 08:54pm
Who gets to do Smaug, though?
reply
|
flag
*
Both kids were so bored last night that I stopped reading and they didn't notice because one was dancing and the other was reading a Lego Magazine. What did I do to deserve these low-culture children? Or maybe I just get the boring bits where they plan trips or get stuck sleeping in caves on mountain passes.
The boy liked the idea of riddles, when I was telling him about it. And I was terrified of the giant spiders - if he is too, maybe he'll pay closer attention.
For me it was Gollum. My friends in high school could still get me to leave the room immediately just by starting a teasey, "My Precious" reenactment. Brrr. That just freaks me out. Excellent Shaggy comparison. So true. Also, wonderful point about the narrator's voice. I think one of the hardest things in writing fiction would be picking a killer narrator voice and being really consistent with it.
Terrific review C. I was also inspired to write when I read this and LOTR in high school. Me and a friend started to co-write a satire. Alas is too is gone, but we thought it hilarious at the time.You mention how he writes about the woods, funny I was hiking last week in the White Mountains and it was very Tolkienish. Near the top of the mountain is was very eerie, all rocks, mist and silence.
Your room sounds like it was very cool.
Ceridwen, you are my hero! Not only did you discuss Persuasion at length but I want "literacy is hot" on a t-shirt.I'm not sure I agree with you about Bilbo being unable to make and execute a plan though. I think he could organize and execute a really good garden party, the type that involved tea cakes and where people wear hats, even a lot of people. It's because he is now working outside of his previous experience and he doesn't know how to apply it (nor does he really want to) that makes him so inept. Although, continuing the Shaggy comparison, I remember him making huge, complex, and impressive sandwiches in seconds. He's great at things within his experience. He has no interest in being great in these other (ghost-hunting) things.
And it is Dwarves. Ignore Microsoft, my Mac says it's fine!
Tolkien deliberately changed it from Dwarfs to Dwarves (an older form) because he thought it sounded better (more becoming to the dignity of a dwarf, and less like some silly character in a kid's book). I completely agree with him. This is a lovely review! The digressions make it especially hobbitlike. I can't think of any better book to read to kids. I hope my son will let me read it to him someday.
Might be. Since I'm generally fonder of British poets and novelists than US, I tend to forget which spellings go on which side of the Atlantic a lot.
Apparently, dwarfs is the plural for people who have dwarfism, while dwarves is the plural for the mythical creature. It's like the hanged/hung thing. And Elizabeth, I know when I wrote that part that I wasn't being entirely clear, but I was lazy and let it slide. I meant that hobbits aren't ambitious, in the worldly sense of the word. They may have ambitions to have a well-run farm, or a sparkling dinner party, but not towards running a multi-national corporation bent on world domination or whatnot. You know? The standards of success aren't feminine, exactly, but they're more cooperatively masculine.
Hey, and Gary, did you ever see Bored of the Rings ? I recently picked up a used copy for 2 bucks or so. The humor tends to go for the low-hanging fruit, but parts are surprisingly funny. Parts also make you cringe.
You're telling me, then, that "I'm well hung" doesn't mean I've been successfully executed? I think I've been using it wrong.
I don't think wanting to run a multinational corporation is a masculine trait. :-) I'm up for it, any time.
We should get our boys together soon for a reading of some lighter fare. We're now reading The Dawn Treader of the Narnia Chronicles and my son is able to sit or squirm for a reading of about 30 minutes at a stretch. In our off hours we will often "play" Narnia or Watership Down. I'm quite happy that you read as much as you do and that you review as much as you do because I thoroughly enjoy reading your reviews. Thank you.
I loved the bit about Bilbo's handkerchief. It suddenly struck me that it might be a cousin of Ford Prefect's towel in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, another of my all-time favorite pieces of fictional fabric...
Lol! Except that Ford kept the towel and Bilbo ran off without his handkerchief. At least he wasn't still in his dressing gown.
I suppose my argument is that the exaggerated importance of the towel's presence and the handkerchief's absence are used for comic effect in similar ways. If anyone writes a paper based on this idea, please mention me in a footnote!
I had forgotten about the towel - you may be on to something here. I was terribly amused when Bilbo does get a hanky in the end - given to him by the dwarves at the end of the battle. It's red silk, which struck me as really really funny. My sense of humor may be off, but red silk is so sexy, all that shiny redness, and so not hobbit-like. And Scott, yes yes on getting the boys together! Our swing-set has begun to fall over in a major way, and things are looking pretty ghetto in the backyard. Sigh. I've never actually read/been read the Narnia books, because my dad kind of hates CS Lewis, and he was the reader-at-nighter. Watership Down went okay though? I've been thinking Charlotte's Web too.
Yes... somehow it's impossible to think of hobbits as sexy. I wonder why? I always thought one of the best jokes in Bored of the Rings was the blurb on the back cover. Frito is being seduced by a treacherous elfmaiden:"Hairy toes!" she moaned, "I love hairy toes..."
@Ceridwen c'mon over today. The boy should be home around 4:15 or 4:20. He'd love to see the Lego Master.Watership Down was always anticipated. The only spots of boredom occurred when Williams went on and on about the types of trees, plants and animals in the landscape. The appearance of the Black Rabbit of Inlé calling out Thlayli's name was requested again and again though.
I loved Watership Down but lately I found out that Adams took all kinds of liberties with rabbit behavior, making the female rabbits into non-characters in the story, when the real truth is they would have been central to the story if he'd been true to his stated source material about rabbits. I'm trying to decide if that feminist issue means I have to dislike the story I formerly loved. I do think it gives me permission not to read his other animal books like about Traveler and Shardik the bear. But I'm not sure if I have to give up Watership Down, too.Maybe if I taught each person I read it to about its lack of good female characters and we had a discussion about the history of sexism in western literature, it would be okay. Because I'd really hate to give it up entirely. It's not like good stories are so common that we can afford to weed out the sexist ones. What do you think, C? Do you worry about stuff like that or is it just me?
I have a friend who changes the genders of the characters when she reads to her children. If the last story was about a boy, the next story will be about a girl, whether it really is or not. And if the mommy character is at home during the day, she adds a reason (like she works at night, etc.) which balances the story.I know she did it with younger reader books. I've got to ask her how she's going to handle the Hobbit now that the child is about that age...
Tolkien totally gets off the hook because of Luthien, who was so thoroughly badass, and Eowyn, though it's a shame Arwen only really got to sit at home and sew flags. I guess her dad was a bit overprotective, given her tender age of 1218, or whatever it was?It would be easy to make half the dwarves female, though. Maybe Fili, Ori, Nori, Bofur, and a few more. I think Smaug would totally work as a female dragon, too.
It seems a little bit sacrilegious to change things like that, but I definitely think the lack of good female characters in so many stories has a subconscious effect on kids' biases. And I'd totally like to bring up my kids with as few as possible. That's actually a pretty good idea your friend has. =)
I hate to say that I'd never really given this enough thought - I'm going to get my license to practice feminism revoked - but I was fairly gobsmacked by the fact that, while maybe two women have names in the Hobbit, not one has even a walk-on role. I get the impression that your boy is younger, Tatiana - I'm currently trying to push back against different cultural weirdnesses than sexism. The boy currently loves Bakugan, and the stories, based on a card game, have all this latent stuff about might being right, and victory being the mark of moral superiority and all that. Kind of burns me. Then there's the girl, who is 2 1/2, and she's currently into Dora, which has been fine and good, up until when they hit Dora with a princess stick, which makes me eternally peeved. The boy used to love Dora, and it warmed my heart that there was at least one series for kids that was palatable to both genders. (Although, to be fair, it seems like this stuff aimed at the pre-k set is often more gender neutral or gender inclusive: Backyardigans, Yo Gabba Gabba, etc.)
And like Elizabeth's friend, I had a friend whose mother used to tell stories of Jesusa, the Daughter of God. (You know, speaking of blasphemy.) Hearing this was like a revelation to me, but I'm not sure I could do this with comfort to my own kids. I think about changing Thorin to Thorina, and the whole project seems too thinky or calculated or something. Maybe it's better to let it lie, and then try to speak to it as it is, as you say, Tatiana. I certainly haven't figured it all out, and will probably have all my ideas in place about the time when the kids are going off to college.
I've read The Hobbit alot, and I've read alot of reviews of The Hobbit and writings about The Hobbit. It's not often that I read some new perspective on it.Well done. Excellent review, and better than mine.
It seems to me that if we can only raise children to identify with literary characters that look like they do, then we haven't really got a hope.
"Might makes right" is definitely as scary as "Girls don't Exist or if they do they don't matter." Eventually I guess the kids'll be exposed to the originals and to everything under the sun, so I suppose the best idea is to talk with them about things so they understand. I don't know. But yeah, virgin birth = parthenogenesis = daughters not sons, so there's actually some basis at least for thinking of Jesus as being a woman. I think of him as male, but I can see some people might not. Also, in all societies in which women are oppressed, they tend to get around some of the restrictions by dressing as males. It's got a lot of historical precedent. I guess I believe ideas can't hurt us as long as we keep them out in the open where they can be examined. It's the ones that sneak in subconsciously that do the most damage. =)
My son is now 20 but I didn't adopt him until he was a teenager so the books I exposed him to were like Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn at that age. So yeah by "my kids" above I guess I meant "my nonexistent kids" lol. I would love to read the Hobbit to my grandkids, though!
"I don't think anyone suggested that, Matt."Well of course no one came out and actually suggested that, because it would be tacky and most people are careful cloak their thinking even to themselves, lest they feel like they are being tacky or foolish. I'm tactless, blunt, and clumsy, so I tend to blurt out things that less rude people would never actually say.
But I would suggest that Tolkien, God love him and all his flaws, probably believed that at some level. I think that there is a very good possibility that if Tolkien had had a daughter rather than three sons (John, Michael, and Chris), that there would likely be more female character's in the The Hobbit than there are now because of it. I think Tolkien probably felt that a story told to young boys should probably be about boys (and not girls) and so the Hobbit story, which grows from a story he tells his boys, is very boyish. I think that probably had Tolkien had three daughters, there is a good chance that we'd be speaking of the story of 'Bilba'. But he didn't. He had sons, and so he filled his children's stories with things he considered appropriately boyish.
My girls are 4. I do not believe that it has occurred to them that there aren't alot of girls in 'The Jungle Book' or in 'The Hobbit', and I hope that it never really does occur to them, because I'm fighting really really hard against what I think is a very widespread cultural notion that your heroes can only look like you. No one actually says it that way, but I think you'll find that they do assume that someone's hero will look like they do and I think it isn't that far of a jump from there. I think it is a subconscious thing, but I find this notion is very pervasive and turns up in the strangest places. For example, I'm inclined to think that many of his critics share Tolkien's concern that heroes should look like you in order for you to identify them, and so that consequently the root of their conflict with Tolkien turns out to be precisely that he doesn't look like they do! Tolkien commits the 'crime' of not providing a hero that looks like the critic, or at the very least of not providing for every reader some character that looks like them (which seems to be they way you are officially supposed to get around this problem if you are a white male).
I often wonder, "Am I allowed to have as one of my heroes Frederick Douglas?" "Can I list as being among my literary heroes, Tiffany Aching, Paikea, and Fiona Conneely?" Because there seems to be this sense that there are 'boys stories' about 'boys' and that this is supposed to make a female reader vaguely uncomfortable? Am I allowed to admit that I can read stories about girls without being vaguely uncomfortable?
I don't think anyone suggested that, Matt. Please don't make an assumption about what I may or may not have said.
Let's bring this thread back from (willfully?) misunderstanding feminism to towels*, where it belongs. Ford has a towel. Arthur does not, and is in his dressing-gown to boot. In HGT2G the towel is an indispensable and multi-use piece of galaxy-traveling kit; You can wrap it around your head, use it as a weapon, a rope, a blanket, a tissue, and for killing bacteria on passed-around bottles of alcohol (though to the opposite effect intended). One would rarely dry oneself with their towel, unless one is the Captain of Ark B. Even then, the towel wouldn't get used much as he never really exited the tub. The point is, Arthur was unprepared for his journey and his lack of towel represents that.
In The Hobbit, however, the handkerchief represents the missing comforts of home (and thus Bilbo's old boring life). It's not strictly necessary for travel, as Bilbo could use any convenient piece of cloth to wipe his nose. It isn't civilized, but I'm sure his sleeve was covered in Hobbit boogers. Every time he brings up his missing handkerchief (or breakfast) he's usually cold, wet, hungry, alone, or all of the above. He was prepared for the trip—he packed and everything. The handkerchief was just his way of bitching about the hardships and travel. In LOTR pipe-weed serves the same purpose.
Arthur never complains about being dressed in just a robe and having no towel. He's more concerned for the welfare of his planet which the Vogons destroyed, but then he witnessed his house being destroyed just prior to his journey and wasn't expecting to return. He doesn't even really know he needs a towel, how necessary they are, he's so unprepared.
One could see a parallel between Ford and Gandalf, Arthur and Bilbo, the Earth and Hobbiton; however, I don't think the parallel extends to handkerchiefs and towels as they represent very different things.
*c.f. Manny, comment 22
OK, I'm ready to bring this thread back to misunderstanding feminism now.It seems to me that if we can only raise children to identify with literary characters that look like they do, then we haven't really got a hope.
Nobody said that, implied it, or suggested in any way that we should raise our children to identify only with characters that look like themselves.
Well of course no one came out and actually suggested that, because it would be tacky and most people are careful cloak their thinking even to themselves, lest they feel like they are being tacky or foolish. I'm tactless, blunt, and clumsy, so I tend to blurt out things that less rude people would never actually say.
So what you're saying is that we're tacky and foolish because you insist we're thinking what you're saying? And that by being less rude than you, we're really being dishonest? Thanks for your self-aggrandizing honesty, but you're shooting down a straw man that you created all on your own. What's tactless and clumsy is assuming that people mean things other than what they say because it fits some argument you want to have.
I'm fighting really really hard against what I think is a very widespread cultural notion that your heroes can only look like you.
Who has that notion? Where has that notion been put forth anywhere in these comments? Nowhere! Except, of course, from you.
Here's the problem that's been stated in these comments: in The Hobbit, there are no girl characters, only boys. The lack of strong female characters in this book and most other children's books is a shame.
So you see this sentiment and start feeling White Male Oppression with a capital WMO and think it's terrible that girls shouldn't be allowed to read The Hobbit or think Bilbo is a hero because he's not a girl. Despite the fact that nobody said that, or meant it either. You decided that's what it meant. And you're right, it's a ridiculous notion. A great, big, ridiculous, straw-filled notion.
Because there seems to be this sense that there are 'boys stories' about 'boys' and that this is supposed to make a female reader vaguely uncomfortable? Am I allowed to admit that I can read stories about girls without being vaguely uncomfortable?
No, the problem is that there are way more boy heroes than girl heroes, not that girls shouldn't have boy heroes or that boy stories make girls uncomfortable. People's role models are ones they identify with, male or female, and some people here are simply bemoaning the lack of female characters. Boys would benefit from having girl heroes as well, there just aren't nearly as many because the default position for writers has overwhelmingly been boy-centric stories. This leads to an unhealthy view of girls as arm candy or trophies and not as heroic and capable as boys; or worse, that they're just boys with vaginas.
It's been suggested here that when reading these stories we alternate the gender of the hero, which is only a band-aid on the problem and not even a very good one; what we need are more publishers who don't ignore 50% of the population.
The problem is not that Tolkien didn't have daughters, it's that he wasn't a feminist. Even with daughters, he would not have made Bilbo a girl. He was a great writer and I wouldn't change a word (and it's been pointed out on this thread that he does have one or two strong and realistic female characters elsewhere), but he still suffered from the notion that Real Heroes should be boys. Our culture values boy stories more; the perception is that girl stories are about pink princesses who want to be rescued, and besides, boy stories are more interesting to a general audience (i.e. both boys and girls) and therefore more salable. The implication is that boys won't find girl stories interesting, but that girls will find boy stories interesting. Why the double-standard? This is because our culture is still by and large run by boys who don't understand who girls are or what girls are looking for. Girls are not pink princesses or boys with vaginas, and if we had more realistic female heroes, more boys wouldn't assume that they are.
Could you tell me what girls (or women) are looking for, please? I feel this is a big gap in myeducation.
Thanks, Richard. I totally agree. Yes, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of the protagonists are male. I remember my dad asking me why I liked the book "Zorba the Greek" so much when it was so dismissive of women. I was like "you don't think I identify with the women, do you?" Of course girls grow up with the habit of identifying with the male protagonists in their stories and later in good books. Women's roles in most literature are too boring and restricted to be of much interest. There are exceptions, of course, and after a few more centuries of feminism we might collect up some good stories that don't ignore 50% of humanity, but for now it's still a problem. We don't want to feed boys or girls the subliminal idea that only boys exist or matter.
Robert, I think the first step is to actually notice and understand the importance of women's lives. After that, the women themselves will show you what's needed.
I'd be happy to. In this instance, girls and women are looking for equal representation in realistic fictional characters. I'd go so far as saying boys need it as well, if we want them to understand that girls are more than just a deviation from the default boy gender.Unless you're asking for relationship advice, in which case I don't think I can help you there.
Two of my favorite sci-fi authors, Iain M. Banks and Ian McDonald, write about female protagonists (and even antagonists) with regularity. Even where the protagonists are not female, their books typically include strong, interesting, and involved female characters. I can't speak to whether those characters are realistic, however, as opposed to being a male fantasy of strong, interesting women, but at least the characters are there.I apologize if that seemed like a shameless plug for my two favorite authors; I didn't intend it that way. It just seemed relevant to the thread and worth pointing out that there is strong female representation among the characters in modern science fiction novels. Jack McDevitt is another author who likes to create strong, prominent female characters, though I don't think he's nearly the writer that Iain Banks and Ian McDonald are.
I find myself drawn to such novels because I prefer a fictional world that recognizes the importance of both genders. How can we examine substantive issues, reflect upon our own lives, or learn about ourselves if the book leaves out half of humankind?
Actually, I was hinting that there might be a diversity of opinions amongst women as to what makes them tick...I've found that matters are changing; many authors aiming at the kids/teenage market these days have a boy and a girl as equally significant protagonists. Some male writers choose to have a female protagonist; there is much more balance. What I note is not all that balanced is cultural/ethnic diversity.
In the case of Iain Banks, do you think he might have written about the same female character multiple times over?
Holy crap. I actually go off and do actual work for a day and suddenly this thread gets super interesting - I mean, you know, not that it wasn't interesting before - ah, I'm no good at this.Anyhoo. I remember one of my formative moments was going to an art museum with my mother. I was in my teens somewhere. We were looking around in the antiquities room, checking out the Greek statues (I should say they were probably copies.) We were looking at one of the women, maybe Athena but I don't know. Mum tells me to really look at the body. I do. I say something about how pretty she is or something. Mum says, "That's a man's body with breasts. Even if Greek artists had access to nude female models, which they likely didn't, the nude male body was the standard of perfection, and women were poor copies." I look again at the statue, and see the wide shoulders, the narrow hips, the roping arm muscles for what they are. This blows my mind.
I love the Hobbit; I love it unreservedly. I realize I'm not comfortable changing Bilbo to Bilba because the entire story is one about a boy's experience, not how he looks, but how he interacts with other men in a world of men. Changing the pronouns would ultimately be a form of drag, and one that belittles the entire thing. In my humble opinion, the difference between men and women goes deeper than how we look or what pronouns we use, and it is the way stories mediate that difference that really interests me.
I don't know what all women want in fiction. And that's the thing. I'm not interesting in changing The Hobbit, I'm interested in hearing stories that speak to a female experience, one that isn't just putting breasts on men. I want a story as rich and as wonderful as The Hobbit, one that I can ring out in the half-dark of my children's bedrooms and feel good that there is something true and honest in the story, something as true and honest as Tolkien's tale. There are some out there, absolutely. Absolutely. (In particular, Ursula K LeGuin's YA stuff is teh bomb, and even if her protags are sometimes men, her understanding of the mechanics of humanity - humanity, as well as gender - is so nuanced and fucking awesome that I look forward to reading this with the kiddies when they're old enough. Sorry. I've gotten on my UKL hobby horse again, but I think in present company, I will be excused.)
Can anybody name another "YA" book where the white folks are the bad guys, the hero is black and his best friend has the skin of a native American?
Daniel Abraham's A Shadow in Summer has some brilliant female characters. Brilliant characters, full stop. It's a fantasy book that treats women as primary actors while acknowledging their difficulties in a male-dominated world. Even though it's nominally set on a different planet, you get the sense that the POV culture is Asian-ish and the Britain stand-in (Galt) is plotting against them.
Can anybody name another "YA" book where the white folks are the bad guys, the hero is black and his best friend has the skin of a native American? Hiro Protagonist in Snow Crash was black and his best friend was an Eastern European, Vitaly Chernobyl. It also featured an Inuit, but I don't believe that Vitaly ever skinned him.
Ah, yes - well one has to agree with Ceridwen on the "YA" point. It might be the first manifestation in fiction of Stephenson's interest in Japanese culture. Annoyingly flawed book, that one; Zodiac is much better.Drifting back towards the main theme of the thread, what is one to do about the famous books from times where cultural values were much different? Sometimes I find it no effort to ignore (e.g. Tolkien) sometimes I find it so irritating as to seriously detract from my enjoyment (e.g. Last of the Mohicans' attitude to women drove me nuts).


