The Hobbit: The Classic Fantasy Novel and Prelude to The Lord of the Rings

*The Hobbit* is one of the most beloved books of all time. Though actually originally written as a children's story, it almost immediately transcended such a classification, and through the years many adults have read the delightful story of a small, but tough Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. Most folks know the basic premise of the story. If not from reading it, then certainly they know part of it from the prologue to *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring* movie, and likely went out to learn the rest of the tale. A wizard, Gandalf the Grey, goes and visits the son of an old Hobbit friend, and after spending time with him, surreptitiously marks Bilbo's door with a sign that is an advertisement of services for a professional burglar. The dwarves that Gandalf was helping look for a burglar promptly knock on poor Bilbo's door, and up he finds himself enlisted in an adventure to slay a dragon and find lost gold. Initially the dwarves belittle Bilbo, and this just makes him all the more determined to prove them wrong about him, which attitude he does, to put it mildly, regret more than once on their quest. Eventually he finds the Ring and the adventures are many, but that is too much of a spoiler for this review. Suffice it to say, it is one grand adventure after another. It is said that the Hobbit was published on the recommendation of the publisher's son, who heartily endorsed the tale. It also was published on the strong recommendation of Tolkien's friends, including C. S. Lewis. Tolkien was a man of a very exacting nature. The debt owed to Tolkien's close circle of family, friends, and a few close academic peers is incalculable. For their insistence that Tolkien merely "publish it already" ensured the book kept the whimsical tone it may otherwise have lost. *The Hobbit* is often criticized, to be sure, for not having the extremely "serious" tone and "complex" plot lines of its sequel, *The Lord of the Rings*. While this criticism is perfectly fair, it also greatly misses the point. Yes, Tolkien included fantasy elements in the story derived from the epic fictional history of Britain that he was writing. But that was all that these were, small derivatives. There was not a concerted effort when he wrote the *children's* story, to include all of these. Indeed, while Tolkien had to go back and rewrite the section "Riddles in the Dark" to make the story of the Ring and Gollum coincide with the overall story of *The Lord of the Rings*, that is as far that he was able to go. He realized that to make the tone and story of *The Hobbit* match that of it's sequel would effectively make it no longer the fun story that everyone loved. So the question is, what is *The Hobbit*? What kind of story is it? It is lighter, but with a sense of foreboding. It is the story of a fat, happy, contented age coming to a close in a devastating war that will change the face of the earth. It is the origin of a story that is an attempt to explain how a variety of myths can be true. To this, many may object that *The Silmarillion* is the beginning of the story, but this is untrue. *The Silmarillion* is the beginning of *all* stories, and only concerns the events of the later periods of Middle-Earth very faintly, and near the end of that epic narrative. It is the Creation myth, one that connects with the Christian faith of the author surprisingly well. In fact, the light-hearted tone of *The Hobbit* is the pefect bridge for the reader. It is the most "modern" in perspective, and introduces the reader to the peoples, geography, and events that they will find are connected from the First and Second Ages in *The Silmarillion* and the Third Age in *The Lord of the Rings*. J. R. R. Tolkien didn't like allegory, as he himself attested, but he did try to do "applicability", which is really just a way of saying that he didn't directly do "x = x" in the story, but allowed his Christian worldview to mesh with ancient epics in an effort to reconcile the two differing myths, or as he later convinced Lewis, to separate the "one, True Myth" to which the other myths copy and pay homage. Perhaps the most important link, however, to *The Lord of the Rings*, however, (besides the Ring itself, of course) is the importance of characters and the emphasis on certain truths and values. Among these are loyalty, the Providence of God, and the simultaneous righteousness and brutality of warfare. Before entering the military after the outbreak of World War I, Tolkien and his closest friends, who made up the core of a club that was likely the inspiration for the later Inklings and other clubs Tolkien loved to found at the various colleges at which he taught, had this notion of the glory of war, and how they would find renown for their deeds. This is shown in the perspective of Bilbo and the other heroes at the end of the story. While they were happy to have won the battle against evil, they also felt the horrors of war quite keenly. For the careful and patient reader, this book contains so many nuggets of truth for a "children's" book. It is most definitely *not* only a simple story. It is WELL worth your time. Highly Recommended.

Peter Jackson's *The Hobbit* (Part I -- "Into the Wilderness"): TITLE: *Martin's Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is inspired!* [***** 5 stars. Until *The Hobbit, Part I* becomes available on DVD, I'm posting the film review here.] WARNING: Spoilers ahead! While Gandalf the Wizard [Ian McKellan] remains timeless, it was obvious from the start that the Bilbo Baggins of three *The Lord of the Rings* films fame [Ian Holm, now pushing 80 years old] would have to bow out for the making of *The Hobbit*. Director Peter Jackson had surely asked himself, "Who could portray a young Ian Holm?", (but not necessarily a younger Bilbo Baggins since we now perceive Bilbo to look like the actor.) Answer: Martin Freeman. And he was right - Freeman effortlessly coalesced into the lead role. In the first of the two *The Hobbit* entries [sub-titled: *Into The Wilderness*], a more youthful Bilbo Baggins is craftily crow-barred by Gandalf into embarking upon a great adventure (Hobbits *despise* adventures!) and by serving as a burglar for a grumbly troupe of thirteen dwarves, all of whom are determined to reclaim their lost family treasure from the Evil dragon, Smaug; however, the actual battle with Smaug at the Lonely Mountain will have to wait until Part II [to be entitled: *Into the Fire*] is released. Part I largely focuses upon the history of the dwarves and the initial hazards that they encounter during their single-minded quest, chiefly battling orcs in the Misty Mountains and finishing with their tribulations with the giant spiders of the vast and ominous Mirkwood forest. It's worth noting right off that the screenwriters very shrewdly rehabilitated the puerile songs of the dwarves [found throughout the book], transforming them into a range of vivid action scenes. This strategy achieved a pair of worthy ends: 1. I've heard audio versions of this story and to include the dwarf renderings of these archaic and lengthy songs would have been in profound conflict with an effective film conveyance. 2. These newly-fashioned scenes provide additional fodder for the artful expansion of the general lack of book material, thereby reinforcing audience interest. Honestly, a movie version of Tolkien's *The Hobbit* could feasibly have been corralled within a single feature-length film [just think of all the ground that was covered in Avatar (Original Theatrical Edition) ] -- but the financial anticipations of the producers [greed], which tended to tenon seamlessly with Peter Jackson's lust for detail, had dictated long ago that viewers would have to hang on for a "final" conclusion. Part I features an ending of a sort but perhaps it would be more forthright to regard it as a dramatic finale. One looming uncertainty which has kept Tolkien fans off-balance was whether the screenwriters would go dark with *The Hobbit* in an effort to effectively link it up with The Lord of the Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy (Platinum Series Special Extended Edition) series, particularly since Tolkien originally penned the earlier work as a sort of kids' fairy tale. In retrospect the answer to the question was probably evident to Peter Jackson from his earliest conception of a film version, noting additionally that his time-honored philosophy is that first-class films cannot simply mirror the books from which they are taken. A good screenplay massages a book for all it's worth but the visual and audio aspects must be fully accommodated too. Particular figures such as Gandalf, Elrond [Hugo Weaving], Galadriel [Cate Blanchett] and, Gollum [Andy Serkis] have already been firmly established in terms of image and it would be less than prudent at this juncture to radically manipulate the personalities of these prominent returning characters. And speaking of Galadriel, she was never a personage to be found in *The Hobbit* but Peter Jackson mined her from Tolkien's trilogy, casting her very strategically in his film version (along with Legolas, played by Orlando Bloom who also did not appear in *The Hobbit*) to further expand the script. Blanchett's presence additionally helped to overcome the gender gap of the book version. Still, these two actors are not in any way just add-ons -- their respective roles and performances have imparted considerable gravity to the story. It is impossible to separate this film's noir-ish ambiance from Howard Shore's magnificent soundtrack. He's done it again! Upbeat and even a bit frivolous at the outset, the filmscore soon slips furtively into darker realms as the story advances, a few heroic themes being reserved for the appropriate dramatic moments. One is acutely taken with the leitmotif which Shore appended to Beorn, a Prokofiev-ish ponderousness integrated with a more serious Beethoven-like dignity... the perfect musical emulsion for the venerated skin-changer. Once initial New Zealand and Australian actors' guild stumbling blocks were surmounted, the Kiwi locations again became a reality, a twin-island geography wholly adequate for the production when supplemented by studio settings, all of which have lead to the presentation of an astonishingly exceptional end-product. It would certainly have proven problematic to reproduce The Shire's Hobbiton in Eastern Europe, a location which was suggested during the early union-troubled days. Martin Freeman's dazzling performance has eclipsed even that of Elijah Wood's stellar lead role in *The Lord of the Rings* films. The former's ebullient energy ironically seems to have retrospectively amplified Ian Holm's earlier portrayal of Bilbo in the New Line Cinema trilogy of films. The remaining cast members have also set the viewers at complete ease as they creatively played out their respective roles. Peter Jackson undoubtedly learned early in his career that, given spot-on casting, at least half the battle is won. And it's hardly surprising that a particular limelight shines on Fili [Robert Kazinski] and Kili [Aidan Turner] since this caveat, for those of us who already know the story, will markedly impact most of us when we get to view the second film. The director is clearly looking ahead. In the larger view *The Hobbit* story lacks the bulwark of heroic figures which we encountered throughout *The Lord of the Rings* series, Aragorn, Boromir, Theoden, Faromir, and so on. Still, imposing characters such as Elrond, Beorn, and Bard the Bowman provide us with a subliminally more-than-adequate melodramatic security blanket. The bottom line is that this superb movie is not simply the detritus of *The Lord of the Rings* films. It's gratifying that Peter Jackson was shrewd enough to not endeavor upon such a futile follow-up attempt -- he created this film from scratch. Embracing that same notion, the screenwriters saw to it that the storyline endured sufficient jumbling so that the tale is not precisely as linear as the one we encounter in the book. This film stands on its own. With better than a baker's dozen of little folks in starring roles the temptation to over-incorporate moments of comic relief [vignettes of Gimli] must have rivaled the gnawing urge which only The One Ring could normally generate. While some tasteful levity fell well within the bounds of a palatable script, I did actually breathe a sigh of relief once I realized that few such incidents were forthcoming. The computer generated images aspect of the movie, while perfectly executed and integral to the overall work, are nicely supplemented by scale doubles, forced perspective images, miniatures, and other Jackson-ish tricks of the trade. No fear -- these facets of the film are all first-class and delightfully palatable. Gollum is better than ever. Additionally, due accolades can hardly be suitably imparted to all the folks who helped to polish this film to excellence by means of effective make-up, articulate stunt work, unequaled cinematography, precise production design, and all the other crew activities which only ever seem to rate a fleeting line of scrolled credit. One is pleased to observe that the new role of Warner Brothers and MGM [Hollywood-based companies which recently acquired New Line Cinema] did not perceptibly obstruct Peter Jackson's proclivity for artistic detail. The casual but essential impedimenta present at every place where the Dwarfish Crusaders land aids us all to subconsciously believe in the reality of Middle Earth along with its numerous and varied inhabitants. Probably much credit for the focused attention upon the near-infinite number of magical nuances should go largely to Alan Lee, a man with an unbounded imagination coupled with a vast artistic talent. I present only a singular critique of this film and it has nothing to do with the body of the movie itself: I feel compelled to comment that the decision to incorporate the endless scroll of Tolkien Fan Club members' names within the end credits is ill-advised and indirectly demeaning to the actual cast and crew. What do these people actually contribute to the film's production? Loyalty and moral support? The folks who have indeed delivered something more tangible are appropriately noted elsewhere within the credits. But most of the listed individuals have played no real part whatever, regardless of the syrupy patronization conducted by the film-makers toward this particular faction of Tolkien enthusiasts. Including these names in the film credits, which also takes in the so-called self-appointed "guardians" of Tolkien's work [a trivial minority of Tolkien Fan Club members], amounts to little more than a shallow ego-bribe. It's presumptuous as the devil to assert that Tolkien's books *need* guarding by anyone -- the affiliation here is more akin to pretentious posthumous tail-gating on the venerable Old Master. The credits perquisite imparted by the film producers, appears in my view to ostensibly head off any whining outrage raised on the internet by those Tolkien radicals who are wholly unyielding in regard to the slightest manipulation of Tolkien's texts. This posture is pure nonsense. In the end, if one's name is included in the film credits then how can s/he ever issue an untainted appraisal of the film? In truth, such an individual could never ethically issue a fruitful critical review, (nor would they likely be *inclined* to criticize, which leads me to question the motives and ethics of the producers on this front.) But here I ramble witlessly upon a topic which only faintly deserves to be dignified by my attentions to it. In truth, my mini-rant is not even a legitimate film criticism - it's really just a pet peeve. In summary, *The Hobbit* contains enough MacGuffins and other surprise moments to make it seem like a new story while still paying a more than adequate tribute to Tolkien's original manuscript. Martin Freeman was surely a brilliant choice to play Bilbo. I can hardly wait to see Part II!

Through The Eyes Of A Child No one is really going to read a review from some random dude about a story beloved for so long by so many. If I said I loved it, I’m just one voice in a chorus of others. If I said I hated it, I would be chided for a lack in taste or understanding. If I said there were parts I liked and others I didn’t – I’d be lost in the middle ground of it all and attacked by both fans and detractors of the story. However, one thing I can offer is the review of at the time of this writing a newly-crested 7-year-old girl in the year of our Lord 2023 as we read the story together and offer up her perspective as someone coming brand new to a work that really kicked off the fantasy genre. While the review may lack detail and wordiness, I can tell you there was no push by her father to like or not like any part of it and the review is an accurate take prompted only by the questions asked by a loving father. (Although this father might interject observation from time to time in parentheses) This was actually a “take two” reading as dad had only read the story and forgot that voices and inflections are what drives children to get invested in the story. We did not make it very far even for a kid who is pretty patient with a learning-as-he-goes-parent and enjoys a world of fairytales and princesses. So this second attempt was assisted by a narrator with a British accent who could sing the songs and change inflections for the characters. Characters – Indeed! The Hobbit definitely has a lack of female characters but this didn’t phase our reader too much – although adding one girl would have been okay with our reader. She enjoyed both Bilbo and Gandalf the most. She loved that Bilbo went on his journey even though he didn’t really want to and in the midst of all his trials in the story – he wanted to do the right thing. (A note here – it’s interesting that “doing the right thing” here is seen instead of “continuing the adventure” or “getting out of the situation”. It seems that the reader got Tolkien’s desire and Bilbo’s role immediately.). With Gandalf, one might think the fact that he was a wizard and did wizardly things at times would be the draw for our reader. In fact, she enjoyed that Gandalf was with the troop of heroes for half of the story and returns just when it seemed like the group needed his help at the end. She enjoyed that Gandalf followed Bilbo back from the great mountain back to the Shire and completed Bilbo’s journey with him. The Journey Action isn’t devoid in the enjoyment of the reader. The battle of Smaug and the ending of the menace was her favorite part. She liked that the bad guy was defeated and peace would reign. Although, the end of the story doesn’t happen here as she thought it was interesting that the selfishness of King Thorin ruined the peace and what could have been a good time. (Just like a good child asking “are we there yet?” this was mirrored with “when are they going to get to Smaug?” but it seems the building in anticipation was worth it in the end). Tolkien is known for building his world and if a tree needs a history, by Joe, that tree will get a full backstory. Our reader agreed that there was too much detail at times and the desire to get on with the adventure was forefront. However, she also agreed that it allowed her to imagine the world of our characters to a better extent. (It’s interesting to think about how many fantasy stories she’s exposed to and how figuring out the world and the rules of the types of magic encounters occurs. This probably gets lost of us big kids who know these stories or story types and forget we need to sometimes start fresh with our assumptions to get more out of the story). The details in the action parts were fun and added to lengthening of that enjoyment. Even with the times of travel and rest, our reader liked the characters talking with each other and interacting. So even the “boring parts” were good for our reader. Themes & Takeaways Our house is not unexposed to British humor although sometimes the subtlety of a joke is lost due to our reader’s age or life experience. Yet, the humor and Brish turns-of-phrases in Tolkien’s story were not lost on her. While many readers, I believe, tend to overlook the songs; our reader found these to be the funniest parts. One reason is that we don’t make up songs for the stuff we do in our day-to-day travels like it seemed our characters did. (This is probably a sad telling of our current state of culture and one that Tolkien probably bristles at). When questioned on what was not enjoyed about the story, our reader thought for several minutes before coming away that there was nothing that she didn’t like. When asked about Golem being a mystery, she was okay with not knowing more about him. She liked that we would see him again in the next books after it was revealed he would show up again. Before that time, she was imagining more of what he looked like and what he was. Even if there was no next book, she was ok with not knowing more about Golem. When asked if she thought the Ring was important, she says that she believes it’s important but can’t even think of why. Our reader’s enjoyment of adventure stories stems from an enjoyment of mysteries and their unfolding and being solved and guessed at. In this adventure story, there was the big adventure but there were also a number of mini-adventures in their travels. Each one was an interesting mystery to see how our heroes would get out of the situation or overcome it. She’s of the belief that Bilbo would continue to go on adventures and do so with other people. (It’s clear that she sees the change in Bilbo from the beginning of the book to the end. And a child’s mind would see the fun had in this adventure and want to continue it. Only the adult mind, roots us at home). Only The Start Of The Journey Clearly, the story was enjoyed by our reader. When asked if she would read it again she stated that she would re-read it a million times even when she knew what would happen. Her father was informed that we would have to continue onto the next book. But as for this book, our reader gave a Final Grade – A+ Final Grade A+

Some may wonder if J.R.R. Tolkien's story, The Hobbit will still be worth reading now that the movie adaptation by Peter Jackson is complete. Others may want to know if its worth sticking this book within their reading list when compared to all the other great fantasy writers out there like R.A. Salvatore, William King, J.K. Rowling, or George R.R. Martin. I believe the answer is a humongous YES, but I will break this tale down and give out what I view are the pros and cons to delving into this novel; as well as occasionally comparing and contrasting the novel to the movie. Characters: While Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf are well rounded characters, I personally feel that the dwarves are mostly lacking in individuality and personality. Balin, Dwalin, Oin, Gloin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Fili, Kili, and Thorin Oakenshield feel like nothing more than foggy sketches to me. While the film has given the dwarves the necessary traits to make them stand out amongst each other, such as Bofur's stiff hat and Oin's ear trumpet, the book leaves out pretty much anything that would make the dwarves stand out from one another. An example: "`Kili at your service!' said the one. `And Fili!' added the other; and they both swept off their blue hoods and bowed" (10). And that is pretty much it. We now know that Kili and Fili have blue hoods, and now the reader is left to add their own ideas to try and distinguish the dwarves from each other. While later on the dwarves do do things to separate themselves from each other, the issue never really goes away because by the time the dwarves do start to try and stand out from each other, they are pretty much all one dwarf already. I even tried to get around this issue (I knew before I reread this book that I had an issue with this in prior readings) I tried to use my Kindle to keep notes on who each of them were, but that eventually involved too many back and fourths which was beginning to ruin the story. Not only are the dwarves lacking, but they are fired at the reader so rapidly that their introductions into the tale feel like a tidal wave of characters, drowning the reader in quickly arriving dwarves. Maybe Tolkien did this overload on purpose to cause the reader to feel closer to Bilbo, for he receives the guests pretty much the same way as the reader does--character overload. Other characters in the story are given much more description and stand out much better than the dwarves do, such as Gollum: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature. I don't know where he came from, nor who or what he was. He was Gollum--as dark as darkness, except for two big round eyes in this thin face" (63). See, to me that sounds terrifying, and gives the mental eye much more to look at than just blue hoods. A huge flaw when connected to the dwarves, the characters that should be standing out, but luckily, the rest of the characters in the book feel and act alive. One would think though that a book about thirteen dwarves and a hobbit would have the dwarves actually feel solid, and not, background fluff. Setting: Here we see one of the strong points for Tolkien, and that is Setting. Middle Earth feels alive within these pages, and maybe sometimes too alive. Not only does Tolkien write strong locations, but he really beats the reader over the head with it. I have read so many descriptions of trees that I may actually now be sick of them. In the epic Lord of the Rings this over description of setting is a bad thing, but while I originally hated it in The Hobbit as well, I have found that it is not as bad as I remembered it being here. "...leading into a gloomy tunnel made by two great trees that leant together, too old and strangled with ive and hung with lichen to bear more than a few blackened leaves" Tolkien writes about the entrance to Mirkwood (121). Descriptions like that really bring the reader into the story. If Tolkien had applied that same in depth writing to the dwarves, this would have been a five star tale instead of the four stars I am going to give it. Plot: In the interest of trying to keep my review spoiler free, I'm going to be a bit vague. Regardless, the story is excellent. The reader will meet disgusting creatures, horrific monsters, and travel to far away lands. The beginning is a little slow because the narrator has to establish his voice and explain what Hobbits are, but once the story gets going it is a real page burner. The climatic ending is a little lackluster though, for the event that the whole plot builds to is rushed through in a few paragraphs, and an epic scene that probably could have taken up a few chapters is condensed into one, once again, here and gone in a blink of a few pages. For those of you who have read the book and are going off to see the film, you will find many scenes and characters that do not appear in the book, or if they are mentioned in the book its like a sentence. For example, my favorite character in the movies, Azog, takes up one whole sentence in the book. I personally hated all the extra stuff that appeared in the movies at first, and honestly I refused to watch the films until recently just because I did not agree on The Hobbit being split into three, three hour films because to me it is just milking the series. After watching them a few times though, I have fallen in love with the movies as well, for other reasons. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses, but I honestly I have to go with the movies being slightly better than the book now, which is shocking because I rarely choose movies over books. Anyway, I give this novel four beheaded goblins out of five. It is a great read, but it is held back by the fact that the dwarves appear to be an after thought in the book, and the epic ending felt like a "blink and it is over" scenario.

Giving The Hobbit less than 5 stars is absurd. When one talks about Tolkien "dilly-dallying and such" one is referring to his complex style of writing. Quite frankly, Tokien is not "less," he is "more." He demands that one pay more attention, he gives one more information. If one wishes to say that more isn't always better, then fine. The rest of us don't expect them to understand. Let me put it this way: It is like Champagne. People don't dislike Champagne, they merely don't understand it. These idiot reviewers "Larry", "Curly" and "Moe" don't prefer the taste of Champagne to 7UP, they simply can't taste it. Is it their limited capacity for intelligence? Is it upbringing? It doesn't really matter what it is, all that matters is that they can't "taste" The Hobbit. But those of us who can, can- and we love the taste. After all, we have no choice. These are people who would rather eat Aunt Jemima pancakes with fake syrup than have hot crepes rolled with fine preserves. Really, do the opinions of these people actually count? It is understood by many that an opinion is only an opinion- how untrue this is! In the legal world an opinion is something that is ruled and weighed to be best, to be most true. There _is_ such a thing as a good opinion, even the best opinion. And opinion can be right and an opinion can be wrong. I daresay that giving The Hobbit 3 stars is wrong. And why do I dare? Because if someone told us that cow manure tasted better than ice cream they would be wrong. The bottom line is this: Mozart is better than The Beetles; Ferraris are better than raced out Subarus and Ice Cream does, in fact, taste better than manure. If, like this idiot, you are a simpleton who can can neither hear, taste nor see then don't bother to post your opinions to the rest of us. Instead, take my advice and cozy yourself up with something you can understand like Harry Potter and let yourself float away to the world of un-imagination. You will be much happier and won't have to deal with the headaches of trying to figure out what Tolkien is trying to say, nor will you have to deal with the frustrations of not being able to see in full color and dimensions the Dwarves and Elves and Wizards they way that the rest of us can. I almost pity you, but then, you wasted 60 seconds of my life with degenerate reviews so on second thought, get out of my gene pool and stop breathing my air. It's people like you that make the rest of our lives so two-dimensional by preventing more work like The Hobbit from ever being created with your lack of understanding and abundance of stupidity. P.S. The Hobbit is a great book, arguably the greatest, certainly the greatest in its own league. It was written by an adult and is absolutely suitable for adults. The fact that it may also be enjoyed and understood by children is only a further credit to Tolkien's genius. Don't let the altogether too commonly found ramblings that this is a book for children discourage you from reading it if you haven't already. While not everyone is capable of enjoying it, it is criminal not to at least expose everyone to this book for anyone who is capable of enjoying it who is denied the oppurtunity has been cheated of one of the finest intellectual pleasures of this past century. My advice to you is to read it slowly and thoroughly. It is an experience like nothing else that will never be quite as magical the second time around. P.P.S. If you don't know what The Hobbit is about, in short, it is about Adventure. A great Adventure full of Swords and Magic; of Dwarves and of Elves and of Wizards and Hobbits; Good, Evil; Trolls and Goblins; Suspense, Excitement, Comedy and Tragedy; Music, Riddles and Poetry. All of this presented in one of the most unique styles of writing ever encountered; a style of writing that paints every detail of Tolkien's fantastic world in your mind as if you were there. Not a single word is wasted and every element of the story is to be enjoyed. If any of these things sound even remotely fascinating then read this book- you won't be disappointed. P.P.P.S. Comments about the illustrated versions for those trying to decide between the two illustrated versions of The Hobbit done by Alan Lee and Michael Hague: I recommend the Michael Hague edition hands down. The illustrations seem to fit the book much more than Lee's. Lee's anything but poor, but Mague's are more merry, bright and rich. The characters appear heartier and the colors set a better mood. More simply put, when I look at Lee's illustrations I feel like I'm standing in the dining room of somebody's grandmother- wallpaper, china dolls, lace and all- they just seem old and dry. Hague's characters, the dragon especially, seem more believable- when I turn the page I don't get a feeling like what I'm looking at is out of place. Another difference with Hague is that I am confident that anybody would enjoy his illustrations, but with Lee I merely see why some people 'might prefer it.' Hague really does have that illustration feeling I expect to see in a book; Lee's look like they belong on a museum wall. Also, I feel that Hague took a more direct interpretation of the book while Lee seemed to illustrate as he liked to fit his own style without much less regard to the book. Still, before buying I suggest you sample the art on the internet just to be sure of your tastes. However, if you're uncertain then I am confident that you and especially your children will enjoy Hague.

The Hobbit is a marvellous fantasy and cautionary tale for readers of all ages. Entertaining yet instructional on how to live life to the full, honourably, meaningfully and enjoyably. Even for one like me who has past the half century mark. I simply don't have enough praises for Tolkien's exciting adventure tale that has all the classic ingredients for a good fantasy story. Strange and wonderful beings of goblins, elves, dwarves, stone giants, magic rings, giant spiders, shape shifting beings, castles filled with gold and yes, an angry fire breathing dragon that talks oh so intelligently. We are also inspired by actions of bravery, loyalty, selflessness in endearing characters like our Bilbo Baggins the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard. I was so impressed with the mighty Smaug, the fire breathing and talking dragon, I could not stop myself from comparing Smaug with the pathetic lizards in the Games of Thrones that pale in comparison. Director Peter Jackson did a wonderful job in bringing the middle earth tale to life with 3 films using the majestic snowy mountains of NZ as backdrop, wonderful CGIs and plenty of embellishments to the story. It was a joy to read the book in tandem with watching the films. Overall Jackson was faithful to Tolkiens message. Despite a fantasy premise, the central theme to the story was serious and confined not just in the fantasy world, but also in the real mortal world of ours. Yes, old vices like greed and corruption. Like the dwarves, the best of us can be blinded by obsession with wealth and luxury or the inexorable insatiable lust to attain it. Sadly like the ambitious Thorin, the king of dwarfs, some of us would sacrifice honour, integrity and friendship for gold. Yet the irony was even though Thorin finally achieved his lifelong ambition to retake his lonely mountain of gold and treasure, and the throne as king under the mountain, he did not live long enough to taste the fruits of his victory. Bilbo Baggins, however, was the antithesis of the king of dwarves Thorin. Humble, hospitable, unambitious, an unlikely hero, easily contented with the simple pleasures of life like breakfast and tea, Bilbo was not blinded by the ocean of gold in the castle nor was he beset with lust to keep the Archenstone. Friendship, loyalty, and honor came first. In the end, Bilbo did have an obsession with his magic ring. With his heart of gold and the good fortune shining on him and the good wizard Gandalf watching after him, Bilbo would no doubt have lived a great long life. Thanks to Bilbo's obsession, we were in for a treat for more adventures from Tolkien.

Wow, this was amazing! I liked The Hobbit more than Lord of the Rings, because The Hobbit had a much more reasonable amount of setting description, imo. The setting descriptions were still fantastic and impressive in The Hobbit. I especially enjoyed the word paintings of the Misty Mountains goblin tunnels and the scary Mirkwood. The character development of Bilbo was pretty good. He really grows as a person, and from reading his internal monologues, I find it easier to connect with and understand him, which I couldn’t do as well in the movies, since we don’t get a direct look into Bilbo’s mind on the silver screen. Thorin Oakenshield seems different in the book; he was overall politer and more considerate than the Thorin in the movies. Yes, I already know that Tauriel and Legolas are not in the book, and that Tauriel is purely a movie character. But the addition of Tauriel is one of the rare instances where I appreciate the director/ scriptwriter’s artistic liberty. There was also not a single named female character in the book! It was a delight to see Gollum. He was so creepy yet portrayed so vividly. Tolkien is very good at conveying characters in an evocative way, with dialogue and descriptions of their behaviors. Furthermore, I enjoyed the humor throughout the book. It was so cute and humorous! The lightheartedness of these funny moments, stood in stark contrast with the darker parts of the story. I’ve heard some people complain that the Lord of the Rings/ The Hobbit characters tend to be too flat and black-and-white, either all good or all bad. Well, that is in itself a black-and-white statement. I already mentioned the character development of Bilbo. Not only does he change and grow, he also shows both noble and less glamorous sides. Thorin is more complex than he may seem too, but I won’t spoil the plot here. In fact, I would argue that even Gandalf and the Elven king are not single-faceted characters; they have more than one side to them. I actually got Beorn and Bard mixed up, due to the similarity in their names. Bard was more developed as a character in the movie than in the book, though. Radagast was only mentioned once in passing in the book, so I was glad that he made some significant appearances in the movie! It was in addition nice to see the less noble sides of the elven race. Even elves can be petty, impulsive, rude, etc. I doubt that we would ever meet a benevolent troll, goblin, or orc, though. One notable quote in this book, was where Tolkien said that there was one flaw in Bilbo’s plan, and you might have seen it and laughed at him for it. But if you were in his desperate situation, you might not have done half as well yourself. Wow, I loved Tolkien’s quote here, because it underscores what many folks who like to pick at “plot holes” miss. If you’re cool, collected, have no personal involvement in the situation, and have all the time in the world to think, of course you can think of some ingenious strategies that may render the entire journey, quest, or story unnecessary. But do you believe that a person deep inside that situation can think so clearly and come up with such a smart plan in such a short time (often just a few seconds)? People who poke fun at “plot holes” can sometimes be unrealistic too. I’ve heard of many people say that Frodo and co should have ridden on the great eagles to go to Mount Doom. But in The Hobbit, you see that the eagles were not even willing to fly to Lake Town, lest the men shoot at them. If these great eagles can’t even bear to fly that distance, do you think they would be inclined to go all the way to Mount Doom? And would the eagles be willing to risk being attacked by Saruman or Sauron? Plus, great eagles though they are, Rivendell to Mount Doom is a pretty long distance. Would the eagles want to expend so much time and energy for them? It’s one thing to be in favor of a noble cause (like saving the world). But it’s quite another to offer to spend tons of time, energy, and resources to help people, especially if there’s a chance they can be killed by a dark wizard. Furthermore, I think the point of having a fellowship of the ring, was not merely to dunk the ring into the fire at Mount Doom. It was also about building character for the adventurers, and having them learn to get along with people of other species. (Most notably, Legolas the elf and Gimli the dwarf become good friends.) All in all, this was a wonderful, enjoyable book. I hope to read some of Tolkien’s other works, and especially want to learn more about Radagast.

The Hobbit and it's sequel The Lord of the Rings are widely excepted as not only being some of the best novels written in the 20th century, but the best Fantasy novels ever written. Many people have exhaustively reviewed and analyzed these stories, as well as the differences that resulted from the printing of each edition of these books over the years. I am going to do neither. Not only am I not knowledgeable enough, I'm not interesting in becoming knowledgeable enough to do so. This review is for people like me - people who enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films and are looking forward to the new Hobbit films and are perhaps interested in reading the books, as they have never done so previously. So is the book as great as people say it is? Well, yes. However, personally I didn't think it was perfect. Make no doubts about it, this book was written for a young audience. By no means does that mean adults won't enjoy it, but it's something to note. I tried reading The Hobbit as a child and gave up on it quickly. Tolkien narrates the book as if he is sitting at a campfire telling you a story. The narrator converses with the reader outside of the story - a style I've never really been fond of. Additionally, certain elements of the story can be odd at times. In a book with characters named Bilbo and Gandalf, the Trolls who try to eat the main characters at the beginning of the book are named Bert, Tom, and Bill. Also, there are a lot of talking birds here - which I find a bit ridiculous even for a fantasy book. Tolkien trys to justify why the main character Bilbo, a non adventureous type, would go on a adventure and it never seems believable. That aside, the story is amazingly entertaining. There is a ton of content here. From encounters with Trolls and Goblins, magic rings and Elves, Dragons and stolen treasure, to a battle of Five Armies (which is actually Six Armies if you count the talking birds). I can see why the filmmakers have decided to split this book into two Hobbit movies. Anyone who is considering reading The Hobbit - you should. It's a classic and everyone should see for theirselves what they think of it. Personally, I am always disappointed when a Kindle version of a book is more expensive than a physical copy. This Kindle copy was $10.99 at the time of purchase. You can order paperback copies of the book for a few dollars less. However, there are many different editions of this book, each with slight differences and this Kindle version is the 50th anniversary - supposedly the most up to date. I can't say for sure, but for a novel as amazing as this, I feel as if I definitely got my money's worth.

"In a hole in the ground there lay the YA fantasy genre. A nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of swords and a perfumed smell." One of my favourite genres seems to have gone to the wargs in the last few years. The rot probably started when J.K. Rowling introduced a new generation of young people to the joys of fantasy fiction. Standards dropped and social media helped create huge fandoms, and cult like followers, loyal to the brand. Fan fiction has also allowed anyone, no matter the talent, to write a "book" based on any intellectual property they fancy. Then Twilight happened and that was the beginning of the end. Publishers saw the kind of drivel that could make them rich and the Young Adult Fantasy genre was ripe for the picking. It began to move towards a new type of story, appealing to a new audience and asking a new question. "What if Fantasy but with a girl one?" Alongside the Strong-Female-Character™ protagonist, this new normal often contains a sprinkling of the following; "diversity*", some unsubtle social commentary, a patriarchal villain and most importantly, a poorly written, chemistry free romance with a handsome boy/angel/girl/minority/vampire/furry/other** that takes up half the book, often causing the plot to grind to a halt so the perfect lovers can stare passionately at each other for 50 pages. Bonus points for inserting a third wheel to create some false tension and so fans can pick a team. After all, these books are written primarily for teenage girls, by former teenage girls***. Then there are the hordes of twenty-something women that receive advanced review copies and post their reviews on Goodreads****. These Goodreads girls, as I shall call them, might not be able to make a book successful, but they surely hold sway with publishers and more importantly, the content they publish. For it is said that "those who control the review copies, control the genre". Thank Tolkien then, for the classics, and for the sexless, romance free world of The Hobbit. Although not entirely romance free as this book contains a beautiful relationship between a Gollum and his precious. Then there's the love between a Hobbit and his home, his breakfast/second breakfast/lunch/afternoon tea/supper/dinner/elevenses and his weed. Then finally there's the relationship between a dragon and/or a dwarf, and his treasure. I'd take that superficial love over all the beautiful-perfect-people-fall-in-love-because-they're-both-beautiful-and-perfect-and-sometimes-there's-a-faux-love-triangle dross, that's infected the YA Fantasy genre since Twilight first ruined the word twilight. I never thought I'd be pining for the days of Hunger Games knock-offs, but here we are. But what of The Hobbit, you ask? Well, it's one of the finest young adult books ever written. At it's heart, The Hobbit is an adventure story. THE adventure story really. In fact, it's so jam packed with adventure, there's very little time for character development. Bilbo gets the lion's share and it's his adventure so I can't really grumble too much about the rather bland companions. Besides, there's so many wonderful things crammed into this short novel, it's never anything less than an entertaining page turner. I truly envy any child who has yet to experience The Hobbit in book form as they read -or are read to- about Bilbo Baggins, dwarven guests, pipe smoking wizards, singing elves, hungry trolls, goblin caves, tricksy riddles, magic rings, eagle saviours, shape-shifting men, murky forests, giant spiders, prison breaks, barrel riding, secret doorways, greedy dragons, brave bowmen, brave hobbits, great battles and most of all, burglary. Saviour this book. Read it to your kids and hope it inspires them to read more, and maybe even to write. The beginnings of the next Fantasy classic might be this one story away... Someone has to drag the genre back from the brink. If, like me, you have the stunted, feeble arms of a mammalian T-Rex, then you can listen to The Hobbit on audiobook, and it is a fine way to experience this most excellent of adventures. This review is based on the rather wonderful recording by Andy "CGI" Serkis. Riddles in the dark is even more memorable with the voice of Gollum™ and the whole thing is a joy to listen to. I can't say anymore really, just read it if you haven't. There are still quality YA fantasy books to be found, even if you have to go 'there and back again' to find them. * Black, trans and/or lesbian minorities -in order of perceived oppression by the American online- are the click generating hashtags of the moment. Make said minority the main character for more critical acclaim but less commercial gain. The readers might claim to be allies who want to read more books from a none cis-hetero perspective, but what they really, really want is a book in which the straight, white, female protagonist (them), gets a beautiful, shiny boy. ** But mostly boys, because that's hot insert-self fan fiction in the making. *** Who may have started out writing terrible fan fiction. I blame Twilight, fifty shades of grey and low standards of literacy for this. **** They're also liable to have Instagram accounts full of pictures of books next to foodstuffs, candles (dangerous), flora (not the marge), bedding and Apple products. The book lovers lifestyle is obviously lots of reading in bed by candlelight, surrounded by houseplants, munching on snacks and incessantly checking ones social media

Les cartes sont magnifiques! Le livre est de très bonne qualité, le petit livret est intéressant, les cartes magnifiques, bref il n'y a rien a redire sur cette édition deluxe. Plus qu'à le lire!

Depends on one’s taste.

It's so beautiful, definitely worth the money!

Se siete amanti del fantasy e di Tolkien, questa edizione de "Lo Hobbit" è un vero e proprio tesoro da non lasciarvi sfuggire. Le illustrazioni di Alan Lee sono un capolavoro assoluto, che danno vita alla Terra di Mezzo in modo così vivido e dettagliato che vi sembrerà di poter toccare con mano le montagne, le foreste e le creature fantastiche create dallo scrittore. La qualità della carta e della rilegatura è eccezionale, rendendo questo volume un oggetto da collezione. Il formato è perfetto per essere sfogliato comodamente sul divano o portato con sé ovunque vogliate. Perché dovreste acquistare questa edizione? Le illustrazioni di Alan Lee: Sono un vero e proprio valore aggiunto. Ogni immagine è un'opera d'arte che vi trasporterà direttamente nella Terra di Mezzo. La qualità dell'edizione: È un libro curato nei minimi dettagli, perfetto per essere regalato o per arricchire la vostra libreria. Un'esperienza di lettura indimenticabile: La combinazione tra la prosa magica di Tolkien e le illustrazioni di Alan Lee crea un'esperienza di lettura unica. Non perdete l'opportunità di possedere questa edizione speciale de "Lo Hobbit". È un'edizione che vi farà immergere completamente nel mondo creato da Tolkien e che vi accompagnerà per tutta la vita.