Book Review: The Hobbit (or There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale)

My first introduction to J.R.R. Tolkien was in 8th grade when I had to read 'The Hobbit.' I hated it. Fantasy was not my thing, and I couldn't picture what a hobbit looked like, let alone all the other creatures and places. I read it, though, all the while letting my teacher know how much I didn't like it. When I finished she told me she was proud of me for reading something that held no interest for me.

So when my sister called and asked me to please go with her to see 'Lord of the Rings' (because she didn't want to but it was my brother-in-law's turn to pick a movie), I grudgingly said yes simply because I am a good sister. I figured I wasn't going to like it because I so didn't like 'The Hobbit,' but I was (obviously) pleasantly surprised, and the rest is history. I am now a LOTR dork, or Ringer, if you will.

So last summer I decided that since I now had an idea of what Middle Earth might possibly look like, and I like LOTR, and it was 10 years later, and I wouldn't be reading it because I had to, I would try 'The Hobbit' again, and perhaps I would like it.

I didn't finish the first chapter.

But then Didder asked me if my niece might perchance like it, so I decided I would read it again no matter what. So I did.

I definitely liked it better than I did in 8th grade. But it is still not my favorite book. It is a completely different style from LOTR, so just because you like one doesn't mean you'll like the other. ('The Hobbit' is a child's fairy tale kind of thing, and LOTR is Tolkien's epic based on his history of Middle Earth.) (That's yet another part of his genious - 'The Silmarillion' is in a completely different style as well, being a mythology/history. He was successful in three different veins of writing - not to mention in his work as a philologist. But anyway, I definitely digress.)

While it is well-written and true to itself, it is about 86 pages too long (it coulda stopped at 200). It's a bit tedious, and there are far too many characters (though that is characteristic of Tolkien). There are 13 dwarves, whose names you're supposed to keep straight I think, but there are only about 6 that matter, so it could've been kept to that. (I just chose to ignore the other 7.) It feels like it takes a very long time to get to the dragon they're supposed to kill, and then boom, it's done, and they all go home. (Oh, sorry - delayed spoiler alert. ;) )

I did, however, like all the references to things that are in LOTR. It mentions Elrond, and Gloin (Gimli's father), and the Elvenking of Mirkwood (Legolas's father), and the mithril armor, and Sting, and, of course, most importantly, Gollum and the Ring.

That was the one chapter I remembered liking when I read it in 8th grade - Chapter Five: 'Riddles in the Dark.' Tolkien said when he was asked to write a sequel, that the one thing that afforded more exploration was the Ring. And he was right (duh). 'The Hobbit' didn't explain at all where the Ring came from or why it was magical; it was just used occassionally, just enough to draw your attention to it.

And so I have to be thankful for 'The Hobbit,' because it led to the writing of one of my favorite books. 'The Hobbit' is a good book, it's just not my style.

And that is my too long indepth analysis of this book.