|
Lord of the Rings:
The Hobbit
Hosted by Michael Dirda
Washington Post Book World Senior Editor
Friday,
Nov. 2, 2001; 2 p.m. EST
On December 19th the first of three highly anticipated screen adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's book "The Fellowship of the Rings" will be released nationwide. In anticipation of the films and the rekindled interest in Tolkien's work, Washington Post Book World Senior Editor and Pulitzer Prize winning literary critic Michael Dirda will be hosting a series of online discussions focusing on "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
This week, Dirda took questions on "The Hobbit," the first of Tolkien's books set in Middle-Earth and the precursor to "The Lord of the Rings."
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Michael Dirda: Welcome to a special washingtonpost.com series devoted to the major work of J.R.R. Tolkien. During the next month we'll spend four sessions together, discussing The Hobbit today and then the three parts of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien has been called "the author of the century"--according to a survey conduced by Waterstone's bookstores in Britain--and medievalist Tom Shippey has recently published a critical study of the writer using that title. Certainly, Tolkien is a writer who excites passionate devotion or, occasoinally, revulsion in readers. As for my own credentials to lead our discussion, let me say that I'm an admirer of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, have reviewed various minor works during my 23 years as a wrier and editor for Book World, years ago in grad school used his edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and read, with attention, his great essay on Beowulf: The Monster and the Critics. But I don't know everything about Middle Earth, so I will no doubt be calling on some of you to help me out with the more complex questions. So, without further ado, let's get this fellowship on the road.
SciFiGirl:
I read the Hobbit when I was pretty young, 6th grade (so I was 11?), and then lost the book, never to read it again. However, I have discovered that I never really absorbed it into my mindset (thus the reason the screen name isn't FantasyGirl). I was never really able to get into the other three books, and I've always wondered what exactly I was missing. Is it worth trying again before the movies come out? Has Tolkein's style held up?
Michael Dirda: Sure, it's worth trying again. The Hobbit is, in most ways, a terrific children's fantasy; but the Lord of the Ring is a more complex vision of the universe and the never-ending battle between good and evil. Tolkien's style is serviceable, occasionally poetic, but what he's good at is using the imagery, tropes, languages and archetypes of Norther legend and epic to create a convincing world that is both itself and a commentary on our own world.
Mesa, Ariz.:
Do you agree that in Tolkien's world something can only be truly evil if it was originally good? For example, Orcs were the result of Morgoths twisted breeding experiments with elves. Gollum was Smeagol and even Morgoth himself was once Melkor. How important do you feel this theme is to the over-arching message of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings?
Michael Dirda: I'd never quite realized this, but I'd say that evil is always a corruption of the good. Tolkien was a good Catholic and he tends to see good as the natural state of man or elves or hobbits, unless perverted by--what?--pride, ambition, hate. This is a partial answer, and let me remind readers that they should feel free to chime in with amplification, rebuttal or comment at any time.
Chicago, Ill.:
Mr. Dirda:
I have a comment rather than a question.
I enjoyed rereading the Hobbit, again, for itself rather than as a simplistic introduction to the bulk of Tolkien's more elaborate and sophisticated work.
It is a pleasant story that permits us to venture out of the commonplace into a wider and more dangerous world. The point of view may be quaint, but someone feels right as if a grandfather is retelling an old story.
Best wishes.
Michael Dirda: thanks
Bethesda, Md.:
I wonder if you feel these books have aged well? Here's my take...
I've read these books several times over the course of my 37 years, and have responded to them differently each time. Having just finished re-reading all four books, I find that now, I like "The Hobbit" far and away the best. The writing seems crisp and fresh, the dialogue believable, the pace moves quickly, there's good character development (particularly for Bilbo), and the story line is easy to follow and interesting. The only part I didn't like was the big battle at the end, which seemed out of tone with the rest of the book.
Of the remaining three, I found the third book to be the best. Two aspects bothered me the most with all three -- first, the inordinate attention lavished to the "history" of Middle Earth, and the songs and the language and all that. Second, the dialogue -- which came to sound like bad Shakespeare.
Overall, I guess, I still like the books, but have less patience with them and feel they take themselves too seriously (except for the Hobbit).
Michael Dirda: I'm in sympathy with your comments, but of course The Hobbit is a more classical, controlled work, without all the baggage associated with the history of Middle Earth, of which the LoR is just a major part. As fans know, Christopher Tolkien has published a half dozen volumes devoted to the unfinished tales, rough drafts, back story, languages and othre aspects of Middle Earth history that occupied Tolkien throughout his life. I think what holds people's imagination in LoR is its epic weightiness combined with the human failings of the individual heroes. When I first read the cycle I most loved the idea of a ring whose power would corrupt its user; and I loved certain scenes, like the one where Strider goes to the cave and summons the dead warriors to fulfill their promise. Tolkien ends that chapter with ARagorn leaving the cave "and the dead followed." I still get a thrill when I read that phrase.
St. Paul, Minn.:
I just recently read "The Hobbit" to my 6
year old son. My favorite moment from
reading the hobbit was when we finally
got to the Lonely Mountain and Bilbo the
hobbit has to go down into the dragon's
lair to "burgle" something (steal
something). When Smaug the Dragon
lifts his head and says "Well thief, I smell
your air..." my son sat straight up and said
with wide-eyed amazement, "The
dragon... can... TALK!" It was such a
great moment for me. What strikes you
about the Hobbit that explains its
enduring popularity? -Kristian
Michael Dirda: I think it's particularly appealing because Bilbo makes us realize that each of us may be more than he thinks. For kids, it's the same message as the first Harry Potter book: I am not what I seem, I am magic.
Mirkwood:
You know that part where the dwarves all get captured by spiders? And Bilbo saves them? You know that part?...
That was awesome.
Michael Dirda: Yes, it was awesome.
Washington, D.C.:
When Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit," did he have the whole Lord of the Rings series in mind, or was it supposed to stand-alone (which it certainly can).
Michael Dirda: Originally, he wrote The Hobbit to stand alone. Later, he saw that he could use Gollumn's ring as a focus for the larger story of the great battle against Sauron. As a result, he had to alter the character of the ring a bit, so that it became more than must a means to invisibility.
Waynesboro, Pa.:
I would like to comment on the idea of good and evil in Tolkien.
I would like to say that I agree totaly with your answer and for one illustration I would like to point out something Tolkien himslef said.
To Tolkien Sauron was far more evil than Melkor because Sauron does not seem to have any reason to fall from grace so to speak. Melkor became corrupted by power but Sauron seems to have freely chosen evil and because of that he is far worse.
Michael Dirda: thanks
San Mateo, Calif.:
How does "The Hobbit" fit into Tolkien's
larger world-building project? From what
little I know, he began creating the
languages that became Elvish as a
private recreation, and out of that spun the
whole concept of Middle-Earth. Was "The
Hobbit" deliberately conceived as a "light"
introduction to a much heavier trilogy to
come? Or did it have a separate genesis
(I think I read somewhere about bedtime
stories for Tolkien's children) and later he
decided his little furry-footed country
squires, musical dwarves, and Cockney
trolls could fit into the much more serious
design he'd been building all along?
I just now dug out my copies of Hobbit
and LOTR (the '60s Authorized Edition
with the zany psychedelic covers), and
see that Tolkien says "in the writing of
The Hobbit, there were already some
references to the older matter: Elrond,
Gondolin -etc.] as well as glimpses that
had risen unbidden of things higher or
deeper or darker than its surface". I also
see that the preface of the 1968 edition of
the Hobbit says that "for the first time" in
Chapter 5 Bilbo gives the true account of
how he tricked Gollum and got the Ring.
Does that mean an earlier edition actually
read differently, or is Tolkien just trying to
provide verisimilitude?
Michael Dirda: SEe my previous answer. The Hobbit first stood alone; and then was back-tracked into the Ring cycle. Only the most ardent Tolkien fans probably appreciate the huge mass of writing that exists about Middle Earth and its history, people and languages. I've often wondered if anyone reads The Silmarillion any more, let alone all these subsequent volumes about Millde Earth legend. Has anyone read all of those books? Are there treasures buried in those pages? Or is it just filler, lexicographical obsessiveness?
Boonies, Va.:
Greetings!
In what order were the stories written? Did the Hobbit come before Lord of the Rings? If so, then is the movie just skipping over The Hobbit? I read the Hobbit for school many moons ago, so I have forgotten pretty much all of it. I would like to revisit it for the upcoming movie and want to read things in chronological order. Thanks!
Michael Dirda: Hobbit came first, in 1937; the LotR much later. You don't need the Hobbit to appreciate the Ring cycle, though it does explain how Bilbo came to own Gollumn's Precious before passing it onto Frodo.
Chapel Hill, N.C.:
What do you think is the weakest part of Tolkien's writing?
Michael Dirda: Most of the poems and much of the pseudo-shcolarship doesn't attract me much. I like the imaginative characters, the sense of doom-laden history, the description of battle, the tingling moments of sorcery and mystery. I also get a little tired of the coziness of a Hobbit hole.
New York:
Tom Shippey's book devotes a chapter to the question of good and evil, and in particular 2 seemingly contradictory viewpoints in LOTR -- evil as a distinct entity and evil as the absense of good, and how his Catholicism plays into that.
Michael Dirda: thanks.
Boston, Mass.:
Does it seem to you that there are far more enigmatic scenes and characters in The Hobbit than in The Lord of the Rings? That its design is not just simpler, but less elegant?
Michael Dirda: You would seem to be saying that it is less elegant, but to me it seems straightforward: we go there, have adventures and come back again to where we started. Can you clarify yhour misgivings?
Wilmington, Del.:
Do you consider "The Hobbit" a childern's book? Do you think of it as less or more original than "The Lord of the Rings?"
Michael Dirda: Yes, it is a children's book. It has far less scope than the Lord of the Rings, but it moves swiftly and carries you along without longueurs.
Harrison, Maine:
Ever since the first time I read Tolkien's "The Hobbit" I have been enchanted by it. The events were so exciting and enthralling but began, ended and were interspersed with so much of the "everyday," normal little things that go on in life. I believe that is what makes these books so REAL. I have never found another author so adept at this. Who would you suggest I try? I am willing to look in science fantasy or general fiction. I've read "Dragons of Pern," "Sword of Shanara," "Dune," etc... all
disappointing. I've pretty much given up on
fiction and for the last 20 years have stuck
with non-fiction works except for the yearly re-reading of "The Hobbit" and couple of re-readings of the "Lord of the Rings" to my children. Oh, yes, we've consumed the Harry Potter series too, due to my youngest's adoration more than my directing.
Michael Dirda: Well, you might try what I think are the other great fantasies of our time: Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast series, which is only for adults, as its language is baroque and its vision almost gothic; Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials is the great childrne's fantasy of our time, especially the first volume, The Golden Compass; the latter two volumes are almost as good, though marred for some readers by their anti-Christian spirit; T.H. White's funny and moving Arthurian saga, The Once and Future King, with The Sword in the Stone being especially good.
Chapel Hill, N.C.:
What philosophical differences do you see between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings?
Michael Dirda: Gee, I don't see much philosophy in THe Hobbit, beyond the idea that we all have more to us than we realize. The Lord of the Rings is replete with symbolism, etc. Anyone carry to comment on this?
Omaha, Neb.:
Does Tolkein's academic interest in Anglo-Saxon literature influence his Rings trilogy? Are elements of the books attributable to more ancient texts like Beowulf or the Niebelungenled?
Michael Dirda: If you want to capture the spirit of the Tolkien books, try the Icelandic sagas (e.g. Njal Saga, Laxdaela saga), the Nibelungenlied, with its cursed gold; and the legends of the Norse gods. When I first read Tolkien I was slightly disappointed in him because I'd been reading so much medieval literature at the time and could see where he'd borrowed or adopted various elements.
Houston, Tex.:
"Most of the poems and much of the pseudo-shcolarship doesn't attract me much."
I agree on the poems. I usually skip them. What are you referring to with "pseudo-scholarship?"
Michael Dirda: Those notes at the end of the Lord; all the stuff in various subsequent volumes about Elvish etc. What I respond to is Story rather than SCholarship. At least in this instance.
Seattle, Wash.:
Who do you think is the "hero" of "The Lord of the Rings?" Does Frodo's failure make less of a hero or just a more realistic hero? In light of Tolkien's Christian origins, I wonder if his ideal hero is completely uncorruptible (like Sam) or more fallible (like Frodo) who grows as a result of the suffering he endures.
Michael Dirda: Certainly Frodo is the central figure of the novels, but what makes Tolkien so interesting is his viewing of history as part of a pattern, or a larger Gestalt. That is, Frodo cannot complete his task without both the pure Sam and the utterly corrupted Gollumn--both are, in a sense, aspects of himself, and the three of them are needed to destroy the ring. What most touches me is the way that the book doesn't give us a happy ending: Frodo becomes this grey and broken figure, shattered by his experience.
Hartwell, Ga.:
Dear Mr. Dirda,
Which "Lord Of The Rings" (counting all three books) character is your favorite?
Michael Dirda: Gandalf.
Houghton Mifflin:
Michael,
People most certainly do still read The Silmarillion and The History of Middle-earth series (I'm the Tolkien Projects Director at Houghton Mifflin), and in vast numbers -- but for very different reasons. The Silmarillion is a kind of "old testament" to the other middle-earth tales, filled with creation stories and 'ancient' legends in a prose style that is intentionally more archaic than that utilized in the other fictions. The HoM-e series is, for the most part, a scholarly account of the origins and evolution of those fictions. The audience is smaller, of course, but the treasures and pleasures are many for those wishing to know more about the fictions. To give Christopher Tolkien his due, there is almost nothing comparable like it for any other author's work -- twelve volumes of scholarship that give a priveledged insight into a beloved work.
(Sorry to sound like catalog copy -- its not for everyone, but its a massive and useful example of literary detective work)
Michael Dirda: I certainly admire both Christopher Tolkien's devoted scholarship and Houghton Mifflin's loyalty to Tolkien's vision. For the right sort of mind, Middle Earth is a playground for the imagination, and this mass of writing the means to recreate a secondary world of immense vitality. But except for the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings themselves, I don't think of these legends and histories as Literature.
Washington, D.C.:
The Silmarilian is definitely worth reading if you enjoyed the trilogy, and from anecodotal evidence, I believe it is still being read. (A friend who is a recent Tolkien-convert was reading it on the Metro, and he said he was occasionally accosted by others who were reading it and wanted to discuss.) I don't think you have to be a Middle Earth scholar to enjoy it, although you should be somewhat fascinated by the elf-lore and have a penchant for mythology. The characters are big, boldly drawn gods of Elvin history, not sweet noble Legolas, et al.
Michael Dirda: thanks
Charlottesville, Va.:
I think that the percieved symbolism and allegory in Lord of the Rings is given too much importance. Rather than being some kind of commentary on society or religion or whatever (I've heard those, among others), I believe (and Tolkien himself said) that the aim was simply to create an exciting and entertaining story. What do you think?
Michael Dirda: WEll, it is certainly an exciting and entertaining story. But any such adventure where the fate of a civilization hangs in the balance, and where forces of evil and good face each other, must of necessity carry some larger symbolism, whether it be a retelling of Satan's rebellion, the Fall from Paradise, or Original Sin, or something else.
Fremont, Calif:
Have you personally read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" and any other of J.R.R. Tolkiens books? Perhaps "The Silmarillion"? And if so, how many times?
Thank you
Michael Dirda: I've read The Hobbit three times and The Lord of the Rings twice. I've looked into The Silmarillion. I've also read The Father Christmas Letter, reviewed Roverrandom (sp), read The INklings, dipped into the letters, and enjoyed FArmer GIles of Ham and Tolkien's actual Old ENglish scholarship. But I"ve never read The Silmarillion.
Washington, D.C.:
I have found that people who have never read the Tolkien books often complain that they are just another sword and sorcery fantasy.
I see the Tolkien books as first, in modern times, and best, of the fantasy genre.
Comments or thoughts?
Michael Dirda: Certainly the most influential fantasy, but not to my mind the best. I've mentioned Mervyn Peake, T.H. White and Philip PUllman as being just as powerful in their ways. One might also point to books such as Rider Haggard's She; Jack Vance's Dying Earth Series; John Crowley's beautifully written Little, Big; and several others. But, as I say, Tolkien is certainly the best known.
Fairfax, Va.:
Do you agree that Tolkien was the "Author of the Century?"
Michael Dirda: No. But it all depends on how you mean--Fantasy is a dominant form of fiction, and Tolkien is arguably our best fantasy writer (but see previous answer). But my prose author of the century is probably either Proust or Joyce. Not, I suppose, original choices, but for style, vision and scope, they're the two to beat.
Alexandria, Va.:
You don't sound like a very big Tolkien fan. How could you not have read the Silmarillion. It creates the framework within which the whole story takes place. I didn't feel like I really understood the world of Arda until I had read it.
Michael Dirda: I admire the books immensely, but I don't possess much of a fannish instinct. That is, I read widely in many genres and many kinds of books, but would never call myself a rabid "FRodo Lives" kind of guy. Nor do I possess the deep knowledge of a Wayne Hammond or Christopher Tolkien or Douglas Anderson. But this doesn't mean we can't talk about the books together.
Baltimore, Md.:
While reading "Beowulf" back in my high-school English class, I was struck by the similarity between the dragon's reaction to the theft of the cup and Smaug's reaction when Bilbo steals the Arkenstone. I know that Tolkien drew on several medieval sources when writing "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings;" any suggestions on where to go to find others?
Michael Dirda: Yes, you might look for a wonderful old book by W.P. Ker called The Dark Ages--in it, for example, he defines the archetypal epic moment as "the defense of a narrow place against odds."
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada:
Mr. Dirda,
In reference to "The Lord of the Rings," do you agree with the filmmakers that some changes need to be made to accomodate the change in medium, or could a good movie be made with no changes to the original text?
Michael Dirda: Well, as one art from focuses on words and the other on images, supported by words, there will have to be some changes. Films possess their own artistry as well as a sheer viscerality, but books can be more nuanced, subtle, poetic. They have the time to be complex.
Lockport, N.Y.:
I'm in agreement with Edmund Wilson in "Oo, Those Awful Orcs!" when he said LOTR was "a children's book that got out of control."
Michael Dirda: Maybe. But EDmund Wilson was usually wrong whenever he wrote about popular literature. See his views on dectective fiction and ghost stories.
Washington, D.C.:
How necessary is reading the Hobbit to understanding the trilogy? And how necessary will it be to understanding the movies? Not sure if you have any inside info on that.
Michael Dirda: I'm sure you won't need to know The Hobbit to apprecaite the film.
Victoria, British Columbia Canada:
What did Tolkien enjoy more -- writing a compelling story or creating a mythology?
Michael Dirda: It would seem the latter, since he wrote so much about Middle Earth but only published two novels and a few stories.
Wheaton, Md.:
For some odd reason "the Hobbit" reads as
much darker to me than "The Lord of the Rings,"
or "Silmarillion." The dwarves quest seems more
hopeless to me than Frodo's, which leads me
to my questions: What is Gandalf's motivation
to aid Thorin and company in their quest? He
didn't know the ring's wearabouts yet, so my
assumption was simply to destroy Smaug, and
if so was it a preemptive strike
against Sauron's forces, assuming Gandalf had
the foresight of the War?
Michael Dirda: Of course, Sauron didn't even exist in the original Hobbit; only a shadowy Enemy. So, no, I suspect Gandalf wanted to help the dwarves and simply knew, through his wizardly intuition, that Bilbo would be necessary for the destruction of Smaug.
Washington, D.C.:
As to which of the published rough-draft books are worth reading -- ALL, if you're a fan! But the one that everyone would enjoy is the first that was published , "Unfinished Tales," which has lots of background about characters mentioned in LotR, and also fills in spaces in the published works -- like a complete account of what the Black Riders were doing 'offstage' as the hobbits were making their way across the Shire to Buckland, or what was actually said when Gandalf met Thorin before they ended up at Bilbo's.
Michael Dirda: Good to know. THanks.
Falls Church, Va.:
Been a fan of Tolkien since high school in early 80's. (but not really other fantasy/scifi fan, more "literary" material) Hobbit was a pleasure, but most definitely a kids book (my 7-yr-old loved it). I've always thought that Tolkien was truly unique in the generally consistent otherworld he created -- geography, language, species, sociopolitical groupings. The richness of his landscape (physical and psychological) is unrivalled in my reading experience. As with any artist, his real-life weaknesses are deeply disappointing, but do not diminish (in my eye) his transcendence. And your thought?
Michael Dirda: Certainly, few writers--other than, say, Proust or the diarist Arthur Inman--seem so committed to their grand vision. Just because a writer is a wonderful artist, it doesn't mean he's going to be a sensitive and perfect human being.
Well, fans, that's about all the time for this week. Check back on Monday, NOv. 12 at 2 PM when we'll continue talking about Tolkien and move into volume of The Lord of the Rings. Till then, keep your swords bright!
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Tracing
Your Roots at 3 p.m. EDT
State
Department Spokesman at 3:30 p.m. EDT
Live Online Special Coverage: America
At War
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
