Author Topic: Hobbit, The by J.R.R. Tolkien Book & Film ~ November/December Book Club Online (Read 69097 times)

PatH · « **Reply #320 on:** December 13, 2012, 01:39:06 PM »

The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.

The Hobbit: Book & Film

The Hobbit turns 75 this fall, an occasion likely to cause many thousands of people to reflect with fondness on their childhood memories of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins.

Though a much loved and widely respected children’s book, this work is too often overlooked by adults who relegate it to the nursery bookshelf. "The Hobbit is a brilliantly constructed story unfolding themes that adult readers will still find compellingly relevant to the modern world: themes such as the nature of evil and the significance of human choice, or the corruptive power of greed and the ease with which good people can be drawn into destructive conflict." Corey Olsen is an Assistant Professor of English at Washington College in Maryland

Bilbo Baggins begins as a cautious and conservative hobbit, well respected and considered a pillar of the hobbit community. When he reluctantly sets out on a quest to recover the stolen treasure of a band of dwarves, he encounters dangers of all descriptions. His adventures, which figure prominently in a prophecy of the dwbarves, are like stepping stones on the inner journey Bilbo must take to find his courage. Bilbo faces trials which again and again force him to look deep inside himself for the strength and resourcefulness he needs to complete the task expected of him.

Discussion Schedule

Ch 19 and overall	Dec 10-13	Now Discussing
Book & Film	Dec 14-17

Questions for Consideration

To notice for the whole book:

Tolkien incorporated many elements of myth, legend, and fairy tale. What ones do you see? Are they effective?

The story takes place in Middle Earth. Is this our world? How is it the same or different?

The Hobbit is a prelude to The Lord of the Rings. If you are familiar with LOTR, notice which elements are present here, and what differences there are.

What different races of creatures do we meet? What is each like?

What was Bilbo's quest?

Who changed during the story?

There seems to be a lot of luck and coincidence in this story. Is it really luck? If not, what is it?

Let's also talk about adaptations of the book, including the 2012 film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, directed by Peter Jackson.

Chapter 19.

1. As he returns home, how do the other hobbits respond to Bilbo?

2. Does Bilbo see himself differently? What's important to him?

Discussion Leaders: PatH; Marcie, Babi , Barbara

JoanP · « **Reply #321 on:** December 13, 2012, 06:35:31 PM »

Quote

"This sort of summarizes my take on the nature of Bilbo’s quest. It’s not really about him, he’s sort of an instrument of fate."

"...the wheel of the world was turned by the small hand because the greater was looking elsewhere, and this is what Bilbo is doing in his small way."

Exactly! Well put, PatH! In the Appendix, Tolkien expresses much the same idea regarding Bilbo's role in the tale - I'll try to be brief in summing up. Those with the appendix, please feel free to fill in gaps.

The title of Tolkien's appendix A: "Gandalf's account of how he came to arrange the expedition to Erebor and send Bilbo with the Dwarves."

Thorin was in a growing rage, wanting vengeance on the Dragon. He met Gandalf on the road and invited him to his home, seeking counsel. Gandalf had bigger concerns on his mind, mainly that Sauron had risen again and was about to declare a great war. He tells Thorin "there is s Shadow growing fast in the world." He tells him Sauron and Smaug will work together. It would be advantageous to put down Smaug before the war begins. Gandalf hadn't thought of enlisting Smaug's enemies, the dwarves before this. He had difficulty convincing Thorin that he would need more than his band of dwarves against Smaug...he'd need something unexpected.

Gandalf's plan is one of STEALTH. Dwarves are not good at this. He says he is going to suggest an absurd solution to the problem. "Take a hobbit with you."
It wasn't Gandalf's intention to paint the hobbit as a thief, a burglar, but rather one capable of "professional stealth." Thorin continued to think of the hobbit as a burglar, though Bilbo had never stolen anything.

Why did Gandalf select Bilbo? It seems that years before, Gandalf spent time with the Shire-folk...knew and liked Bilbo before his comng of age. In selecting one hobbit out of all he knew, he preferred one with "a dash of Took" - knew that Bilbo was unattached...thought that was odd, though he guessed why it was. "He had been left very well off and was his own master." But Gandalf guessed the real reason - "he wanted to remain unattached for some reason deep down, which he himself did not understand. He wanted to be free to go when the chance came, or he had made up his courage.

More difficult to convince Thorin to bring the hobbit...Gandalf stresses a hobbit's courage, shrewdness. Convinces him that a hobbit really desires to have an adventure.

Thorin remain unconvinced. Gandalf leaves him with what I took as a threat...
"Curb your pride and your greed...I do not give my love or my trust lightly, Thorin, but I am fond of this hobbit, and I wish him well. Treat him well and you have my friendship to the end of your day."

marcie · « **Reply #322 on:** December 14, 2012, 12:01:32 AM »

Thank you, Pat and Joan. Those explanations help alot. I like the idea of Bilbo being "unexpected." He's never gone on an adventure before. You never know what he'll do. The enemy (whoever they are) won't predict his moves either. It's like some kind of "random" chance in the universe.

JoanP · « **Reply #323 on:** December 14, 2012, 07:48:37 AM »

I'm sensing an even deeper meaning here. Maybe there is more than random luck here. Gandalf isn't certain his plan to combat the growing force of evil in the world will succeed either - but is counting on this little hobbit -
Although Bilbo has tendencies to live a rather self- centered life, Gandalf is ready to come to his aid when it is needed - when luck seems to fail.
He didn't just enlist the hobbit with a promise of a small fortune...and then leave him to fate.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #324 on:** December 14, 2012, 08:11:02 AM »

marcie your commenting on random and was it Pat who brought up Luck - both are in keeping with the Asian, especially Chinese philosophy - certainly explains many things we keep trying to show as cause and effect and then today we could apply the Chaos theory which is still an attempt at cause and effect - found this great site listing the various patterns of organization with a brief explanation of each http://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/impo.htm

Babi · « **Reply #325 on:** December 14, 2012, 09:47:21 AM »

Thank you so much!, JOAN. Just substituting 'professional stealth' for 'burglar'
made the choice more understandable. Gandalf knew hobbits, and believed them to
be 'shrewd'. The hobbit 'courage' was somewhat questionable in general, but he
was thinking specifically of the 'dash of Took'.
A threat? Implied, I think, yes. To say "Treat him well and you have my friendship"
does rather suggest the alternative if Bilbo was not treated well. This has been so
helpful.

PatH · « **Reply #326 on:** December 15, 2012, 10:45:58 AM »

The movie critics have spoken, and they don't like it. Summarizing from the Washington Post and the New York Times, it's too long, too flashy, too ponderous, too overblown, not lighthearted enough. It does have some good scenes, especially Bilbo's encounter with Gollum. And the actor who plays Bilbo is very good.

How do they pad it out? Partly with a lot of backstory, but I don't know the details. This installment takes almost three hours, and gets them just a tad beyond being rescued from the forest by the eagles.

I mean to see it anyway--it will have enough good bits in it to make it worth my while--but maybe I'll wait a few days until I go to the west coast. My SIL wants to see it with me, and that way I won't see it twice.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #327 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:39:06 PM »

too ponderous, too overblown, not lighthearted enough that is what I thought of the Trilogy done by Jackson - it is difficult to read any longer with the llighthearted feel of elves and dwarfs and their merry red hats that was the stuff of story time many a young child for several decades. Also I read the Trilogy and missed reading the Hobbit but when I read it was still easy to see the story as an interior versus exterior values story. Now it is good and bad simplifying all morality.

Babi · « **Reply #328 on:** December 16, 2012, 08:36:19 AM »

Three hours just to get to the eagle rescue? Yes, I would say that is way too long.
Are the next two films in the trilogy to be that long? Why didn't they just make
it a 9-week TV series and be done with it?
The only way I could watch this is to get it on tape and break up the viewing sessions.
Which, of course, means I won't be seeing it any time soon.

JoanP · « **Reply #329 on:** December 16, 2012, 01:54:32 PM »

I read the same review in the Washington Post that you did, PatH. And another that commented on the length, not lighthearted enough...for a kid. But I read comments too - on the fact that the film stayed true to the book. Interesting...perked up when I read that.

Pat, did the woman in your book group go in costume? I'm curious if many did...Not seeing photos of the crowd, just photos of Bilbo Baggins...

PatH · « **Reply #330 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:04:08 PM »

She wasn't in costume at the meeting, but we finished around 9:30, so she had time to change. They were going to the Uptown, so it was only a short way farther down Connecticut Ave.

In LOTR, Jackson stayed quite true to the books, though he had to cut a lot. And he did a terrific job of showing some things that I would have thought were impossible to make visual. So I'm hoping there will be plenty of worthwhile stuff among the padding. The Post reviewer complained that Jackson moved characters in from other books, specifically mentioning the Wizard Radagast. Radagast does sort of appear in The Hobbit. When Gandalf and Bilbo meet Beorn, Gandalf explains who he is by mentioning his cousin "Radagast, who lives near the Southern borders of Mirkwood". Beorn knows Radagast, "not a bad fellow, as wizards go". You wouldn't even notice him except he appears later in LOTR. I guess we'll get this unnecessary bit of backstory.

marcie · « **Reply #331 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:24:52 PM »

It's interesting to read all of the critic's reviews and then read the comments from people who have seen the movie. It seems that most people who respond to the critics enjoyed it. For example see, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/ios-film-review-the-hobbit-8420225.html

Babi · « **Reply #332 on:** December 17, 2012, 08:07:51 AM »

I can sympathize with those remarks, MARCIE. I don't pay too much attention to
professional critics. It often seems to me they are more invested in demonstrating how
clever they are, and how superior to the common viewer. They seem to prefer the more
pretentious and vulgar offerings. There was one critic I would read, simply because
we knew that anything he panned we would like.

JoanP · « **Reply #333 on:** December 17, 2012, 08:28:27 AM »

More contrasting opinions, Babi - Critic and reader reviews...

From the Washington Post's Ann Horaday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey,1209344/critic-review.html

Reader reviews:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey,1209344/reader-reviews.html

marcie · « **Reply #334 on:** December 17, 2012, 11:22:36 AM »

Quote from: Babi on December 17, 2012, 08:07:51 AM

There was one critic I would read, simply because we knew that anything he panned we would like.

LOL, Babi!

Joan, Thanks for the links to that Washington Post review and the responses. It looks like there are as many reactions to the film as there are viewers.

JoanP · « **Reply #335 on:** December 17, 2012, 11:42:14 AM »

I know but I think that those of us who have just read the book will appreciate the details more than those who have never read it - or read it years ago.

marcie · « **Reply #336 on:** December 17, 2012, 08:59:13 PM »

I definitely agree, Joan.

PatH · « **Reply #337 on:** December 24, 2012, 03:10:21 AM »

I saw the movie, but now it's midnight. More tomorrow.

JoanP · « **Reply #338 on:** December 24, 2012, 04:46:21 AM »

Can't wait to hear about your impressions, Pat! I saw last night that it is the #1 box office attraction of the season.

marcie · « **Reply #339 on:** December 24, 2012, 02:31:56 PM »

Yes, I'm eager to hear what you think, Pat....whenever you have time.

PatH · « **Reply #340 on:** December 29, 2012, 02:10:05 PM »

I apologise for the delay, but here's my take on the movie, which I saw with my SIL.

The bottom line is that if you want it to be like the book, you will be disappointed, but there is a lot to like.

First, the technical stuff: SIL's professional opinion--the direction was superb, the movie should have been cut by 20 minutes or more to remove irrelevant bits, and the action was way over the top. We saw it in 3D, which I have been avoiding because my eyes don't always track together. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it worked perfectly well for me. However, I don't think it adds much to the viewing experience.

Martin Freeman, who plays Bilbo, doesn't look quite like we imagine him, too thin for one, but he's very good in the part. Sir Ian McKellen does his usual good job as Gandalf, and Andy Serkis' Gollum is great--similar to LOTR, but maybe a bit more vulnerable. Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) is pictured as fiercely vengeful against the goblins, especially the one he thought he'd killed. He isn't the way I'd pictured him, but he does a good job.

The biggest flaw in the movie is the way they've beefed up the action. Battle scenes are too long, too gigantic, and too improbable. They've added some, too. The movie opens with a prologue showing how the dwarves lost their home and treasure under the mountain, including a gigantic battle with goblins. There is a long stretch involving the wizard Radagast (who is barely mentioned in the book) discovering evidence of the Necromancer and warning Gandalf, ending with an extra battle with wargs and a very improbable chase. Maybe this is going to go somewhere in the next two movies, but it's pointless here. The stone giants aren't just throwing rocks in the distance, they are the mountains, and our heroes are left standing on a small plateau just big enough to hold them. And so on and on. I shudder to think what the battle of the five armies is going to be like.

That said, when the movie sticks to the story there are many scenes which are fun, where you do get the feel of the book. It's worth seeing for those, even if big fights aren't your cup of tea.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #341 on:** December 29, 2012, 02:36:07 PM »

My grands took their Dad and his biggest grrr was they never even got to the mountain - that is when the boys knew the Hobbit will be made as a 3 part trilogy.

PatH · « **Reply #342 on:** December 29, 2012, 02:39:25 PM »

One of my complaints about Jackson's treatment of LOTR was that he tended to blunt or trivialize the moral choices made by the characters, and he does that a bit here too. For instance, it isn't clear why Frodo doesn't kill Gollum, but instead jumps over him to escape. The riddle scene with Gollum is excellent, though.

PatH · « **Reply #343 on:** December 29, 2012, 02:49:11 PM »

The movie ends right after the eagles have rescued them from the wargs (very dramatic--they are plucked out of the air as they are falling out of the burning tree, which is hanging over a cliff). They are left standing on a hilltop, gazing at the mountain in the far distance.

marcie · « **Reply #344 on:** December 29, 2012, 03:11:09 PM »

Thanks very much, Pat, for your detailed information about the film. It sounds like it's definitely worth seeing.

PatH · « **Reply #345 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:16:40 PM »

Yes, worth seeing in spite of my complaints. The photography is gorgeous too.

PatH · « **Reply #346 on:** December 30, 2012, 03:14:06 PM »

Here's something for those who ended up having enough of hobbits and their ilk; I ran across it in the Dec. 9 New York Times:

The road goes ever on and on
And on and on, and on and on,
Hobbits and wizards and orcs and elves
Fill the books that strain the shelves.
One could be buried by tales as these
If not by the appendices.

Babi · « **Reply #347 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:49:21 AM »

Oh, I still love the little Hobbit. I just figure it's time to ignore all the argument about the film. My daughters saw it
yesterday and gave it a thumbs up. I'll order it when it's available on Netflix. Maybe even wait until all three parts are
available in a set! Save the long (?) wait in between.

PatH · « **Reply #348 on:** December 31, 2012, 09:33:56 AM »

The other two are in post-production, but won't be released until Dec. '13 and July '14. Grrr.

Yes, I still love the little hobbit too.

marcie · « **Reply #349 on:** December 31, 2012, 11:14:44 AM »

LOL, that's a good verse, Pat, from the NY Times.

Babi · « **Reply #350 on:** January 01, 2013, 08:59:45 AM »

Six months between the second and third film?! Shucks, I could die before then,
and never see #3. (Never mind pointing out the same applies to #2.)

News:

Author Topic: Hobbit, The by J.R.R. Tolkien Book & Film ~ November/December Book Club Online (Read 69097 times)