# Re-Writing of 'The Hobbit'



## Inderjit S (Sep 30, 2003)

In several of his letters Tolkien voices his concern with the chidlish nature of 'The Hobbit'. He views it in a disapproving way, and says he wanted to re-write it as a whole and get rid of the childish tone of the book and give it a more ‘adult’ feel, similar to that of LoTR. Would you welcome such a change, or are your firm in your stance for a childish Hobbit or love the book but would be interested in a more ‘adult’ tone?


----------



## Lúthien Séregon (Sep 30, 2003)

I first read the Hobbit when I had just turned 7, and so of course at that age it didn't even seem childish to me. The simple tone seemed somehow to set the correct pacing for the story, as the story in itself is much shorter and less complex that that of LotR, so perhaps it doesn't even need fleshing out as it is. It wouldn't have seemed as much like the Hobbit in a more LotR-like style.

However, that was because I read it at a younger age. Now that I have appreciated it as more of a children's book, I probably wouldn't mind a separate version as long as LotR. In a way, it would make me appreciate the story even more.


----------



## Celebthôl (Sep 30, 2003)

I would love it to be a more adult book, but there would be only one way i would accept such a change and that is if Mr Tolkien himself rewrote it.
But if it was rewritten in a more "adult" context, then less younger people would get into it.
I believe Mr Tolkien created the Hobbit specifically for children, so I guess an adult version would be better than a total rewrite.


----------



## YayGollum (Sep 30, 2003)

Well, I enjoyed reading that The Hobbit book. I haven't enjoyed reading a more adultish type of the same story, so I wouldn't know to vote for it. Whoops. I'll go with what I know.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 30, 2003)

I certainly would welcome such a thing, since the way the Hobbit is written is not exactly my favourite. But I'm afraid many of the characters would lose their appeal and humour in this re-writing.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 30, 2003)

No, I like the Hobbit the way it is. Perhaps this is because I fail to see any way for the Hobbit to be re-written, and so I knock out all desire to see it re-written. Perhaps if Tolkien was alive I'd think differently, but since he's not I don't bother thinking about it. 

This is one of the reasons I immediately stand against the idea of anyone creating a Hobbit movie patterned after the LOTR movies. The Hobbit is a child's tale, because that was how the Professor left it. Thus, any movie that is made should be, as I see it, a child's tale. If it is made in an adult fashion, I would cringe. Tolkien left it as a children's tale, and that is how I have learned to love it, and thus that is how it should remain.


----------



## Adrastea (Sep 30, 2003)

I would say no for I feel the Hobbit is like a stepping stone to The Lord of the Rings. Kids read the Hobbit and get interested in Middle Earth and when they are old enough they will venture on to Lord of the Rings because they found The Hobbit so good. The Hobbit for me made we aware of Lord of the Rings. 
As well as I could see if The Hobbit was rewritten for a more adult audience the atmosphere and magic would be gone.


----------



## Confusticated (Oct 1, 2003)

If Tolkien somehow could do so, I would welcome it.

I love The Hobbit as it is, but I suppose a rewrite would be chalked full of new historical tidbits and would be a good read in itself.

The new Hobbit would not undo the old Hobbit... just as The Silmarillion does not undo The Book of Lost Tales. Both can be loved for what they are, and just as The Hobbit has its own feel, so too does BoLT.

I have not read those Letters Inder, did he give any indication of what/who the source of this new Hobbit was to be vs. the source of what would be the old Hobbit? Surely he would have had explained the old Hobbit somehow?


----------



## BlackCaptain (Oct 1, 2003)

I think if it's Tolkien's works, and he wants to re-write it I'd be more than open to it. After all it's not like he'd be tampering with anything... they're his and he was always building them. If someone ELSE were to re-write them though, I'd get a little debateful.


----------



## Aglarthalion (Oct 5, 2003)

I love The Hobbit as it is, in it's more childish style than LotR.  However, I would enjoy seeing a version written (by Christopher Tolkien, perhaps?) with more expansion in detail and historical aspects of the tale (as Nóm said). That said, however, I would not like to see the core story of The Hobbit be changed much, rather only written with greater depth such as the way in which LotR was written (in a more "adult" style).


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 6, 2003)

NO!
No, no, no, no, no!
I love _The Hobbit_ as it is, and I think it would be wrong to re-write it.
Also, remember that it was the popularity of _The Hobbit_ that made JRR Tolkien write _The Lord of the Rings,_ even if he had to rewrite _The Hobbit_ afterwards to make all the pieces fall in its proper place. The original version of _The Hobbit_ was even 'nicer' that the revised one, or more specific: the encounter with Gollum was.
Again: keep it as it is. It is enough re-written already.


----------



## Kahmûl (Oct 6, 2003)

I do think that it is a bit childish but it's good that way.


----------



## jallan (Oct 6, 2003)

Tolkien in later life felt that the patronizing tone of the narrator was wrong, that it annoyed children and rightly annoyed children.

It never bothered me as a child but I know it does bother others.

So why didn't Tolkien make more changes in _The Hobbit_ than the few he made in the fifties originally for the Ballantine edition?

I recall reading once, and I don’t remember where, that when Tolkien began those revisions he found himself bothered by a lot that was in _The Hobbit_ and began a complete rewriting of the work.

Then sanity took hold!

It’s probaby for the best. 

When author’s attempt to revise a work written by their earlier self the results are not always good.

If it’s not broken don’t try to fix it. Let it be, warts and all.

As to another writer fixing up _The Hobbit_, when other writers try to improve the work of an earlier writer the results are usually not good.

August Derleth badly messed up H.P. Lovecraft’s horror tales in an attempt to make everything fit into single and consistant Cthullu mythos.

A number of writers worked on creating improved versions of Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories. There is a general concensus that the originals are better.

Shakespeare’s plays were greatly modified for presentation to the public to update them to the supposedly more refinied and civilized sensibilities of a modern audience. His plays were generally known to audiences only in such reworked forms until the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century.

No. Leave things alone.

Or do you want Peter Jackson to rewrite _The Hobbit_ to make it better?


----------



## Confusticated (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *I recall reading once, and I don’t remember where, that when Tolkien began those revisions he found himself bothered by a lot that was in The Hobbit and began a complete rewriting of the work.*



All the more reason that I would have been glad to see it rewritten. While even the Sketch and Quenta Noldorinwa in HoME IV are good, the rewrittings added more historical information and the events started to fill out in more detail. Of course the _Silmarillion_ is told in a different way, and it was not in so much danger of losing its 'feel' in the way _The Hobbit_ would lose its feel, But a rewriting would have been sure to introduce a lot more information... I am seeing this as a thing that would have been more information about Middle-earth, rather than a better story.

...maybe even name Gildor at Rivendell and let us know how exactly he is of the house of Finrod. 



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> As to another writer fixing up _The Hobbit_, when other writers try to improve the work of an earlier writer the results are usually not good.


Even if this could be done with _The Hobbit_ and widely considered a good story, I wouldn't care to see it, except out of curiosity. It would be of little worth to some (me included) not coming from Tolkien. 



> Or do you want Peter Jackson to rewrite _The Hobbit_ to make it better?


I can just see Bilbo attempting to murder Gollum, for the sake of _action_. _And_ rewriting the first dialog between Gandalf and Bilbo.


----------



## Tolkien Adictee (Oct 9, 2003)

BOOOOOO REWRITE!!!!


----------



## baragund (Oct 9, 2003)

Hmmmm.....

My first reaction was "What a great idea!" The story could be fleshed out and so much could be added to what are the briefest glimpses in the published work.

But then it is the tantalizing glimpses of the much greater world JRRT created, and the charming and conversational tone of the narrator as if it was a favorite uncle telling the tale to his nieces and nephews is what make The Hobbit so special.

A rewrite would only diminish the original. Besides, what would be added to the story that hasn't already been addressed in great detail in JRRT's other writings? It would seem to me that even if CT were to rewrite The Hobbit, the details he would add would only be reiterations of other stuff already published.


----------



## Grond (Oct 16, 2003)

Are you guys out of your friggin' minds????? Rewrite perfection??? The Hobbit is the beginning, taking us on an easy read... a child's journey, if you will, of Middle-earth. What better way to be introduced than through Thorin and Gandalf and Smaug? I first read The Hobbit at age 21 and never found it childish... and had it given me a great wealth of information on Finrod and Gondolin and the ancient lands of the west.... I'd have been bored to death.

We forget that we thirst for this information now but that is only after having read the Hobbit and then LotR and ultimately Silmarillion and HoMe. Had beaucoup facts been thrust at me in the Hobbit... it would likely have never been read by me.

My vote is you don't mess with perfection. Leave it alone.


----------



## Confusticated (Oct 17, 2003)

Since you asked, yes I am out of my mind.

However, we'd still have the original Hobbit around.

If he had rewrote it and the old Hobbit became hard to find (which I doubt very much as much as it is loved and is a children's story) then that could be trouble as it could prevent some from going deeper into Middle-earth.


----------



## Red Istar (Oct 17, 2003)

I first read the Hobbit when I was 9 or ten. It enchanted me, and perhaps I'm just being sentimental, but to change it overly would be to lose the special atmosphere it has-- the LOTR is a great epic, whilst, like another member said, the Hobbit is a fireside story told by a favorite uncle.


----------



## Turgon (Oct 17, 2003)

Hehe! A rewrite of the hobbit? Would this have taken place before or after the Good Professor finished his work on the Silmarillion? Had Tolkien lived to surpass the Old Took himself (or that Mad Baggins fellow come to think of it) I doubt he would have ever found the time to do so - and I for one am glad of it. 

Three jewels did Tolkien create and in them alone is the splendor of Arda preserved.*

_Essays and notes not included..._

*edit:* _Stupid vB Code..._


----------



## jallan (Oct 17, 2003)

We could adopt the practises of medieval Europe when there was no copyright on tales and let anyone who wanted rewrite _The Hobbit_ or _The Lord of the Rings_ or any book.

We could have a rationalized verions of _The Hobbit_, a scholarly version of _The Hobbit_ with lots more Elvish and explanations of Legolas’ genealogy, a version of the _The Hobbit_ without the talking down to children that Tolkien later disliked, a more Christian version of _The Hobbit_, a more pagan version of _The Hobbit_, a pornographic version of _The Hobbit_ and so forth including mixtures of all of the above.

One of the new versions might catch on, if written by a true genius. After all, you can like both an original film and a later remake.

But in general I think Tolkien’s version would be what people would stick with.

Mostly people don’try to rewrite Alexandre Dumas or Robert Lewis Stevenson or Charles Dickens or Charlotte Bronte or Lewis Carol or Jane Austen or any other writer whose works have fallen into public domain.

Not all their works are perfect for everyone or even for most people, but the works are good enough that people generally want to read the original if they want to read the work at all.

They may sometimes prefer an abridgement, but not a total rewriting.


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 23, 2003)

No, it's great the way it is. The little spark that enlightned the fires of ME in professor Tolkien. What do you wish, the sentence that became the basis of the most beautiful saga ever: 'In a hole in the ground, there live a Hobbit...' to turn into: 'It was the year .... of the Third Age ... Shire reckoning, Bilbo Baggins, son of ... Baggins and ... Took, was living his peacefull life Bag End.....' ?

I know I don't. It would take the magic away.


----------



## Red Istar (Oct 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DGoeij _
> *No, it's great the way it is. The little spark that enlightned the fires of ME in professor Tolkien. What do you wish, the sentence that became the basis of the most beautiful saga ever: 'In a hole in the ground, there live a Hobbit...' to turn into: 'It was the year .... of the Third Age ... Shire reckoning, Bilbo Baggins, son of ... Baggins and ... Took, was living his peacefull life Bag End.....' ?
> 
> I know I don't. It would take the magic away. *



My point exactly!


----------



## elf_queen (Nov 9, 2003)

AAAAAAAAAAH!! Rewrite???? NO, NO, NO, NO! I thought we all learned what happens when you tamper with masterpieces when the FOTR and TTT movies came out! 

*takes a deep breath* 

On a more rational note, I think that a rewriting would take away all the charm that The Hobbit has, and much more. It just wouldn't be the same book, with the same lovable hobbit!


----------



## Ice Man (Nov 12, 2003)

Only if Tolkien himself could do it, but, since he can't, I say no. It's great and I love it the way it is.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Jallan_: Mostly people don’try to rewrite Alexandre Dumas or Robert Lewis Stevenson or Charles Dickens or Charlotte Bronte or Lewis Carol or Jane Austen or any other writer whose works have fallen into public domain.


Disney does!

The book should remain as it is. Just a glance at some of Tolkien's comments on changes that crept into foreign translations of his work should tell us why. The nomenclature in Tolkien's stories is dynamic and part of the story; but translators ignorant of this were a constant irritation to the great man.

Having said that (Oh, 'ere we go!) if The Hobbit were ever made into a decent _feature film_, then I would like to see a more adult rendering, with Orcs replacing Goblins, and the somewhat linear story fleshing out with Gandalf's trip to Dol Guldur and scenes to show the gathering of the Orcs. I'm not sure how one would treat Beorn's household; which seems to me to be the most childish part of the book. Ideas anyone? Which bit would you change if it were a film, or a re-written book?


----------



## jallan (Nov 19, 2003)

Eledhwen posted:


> Disney does!


Yes, you are right.

Disney has put out books based on their films that were based on particular copyright stories, for example short children’s books retelling their film version of _Alice in Wonderland_ and _Peter Pan_.

That’s really not what I meant though. Books based on theatrical adaptations (or film adaptations) are somewhat different than rewriting a book as a book or even producing an abridged version of a book.

I recall some year’s ago reading a version of _Huckleberry Finn_ that fixed up the ending of Twain’s tale to be in line with the kind of thing most critics want it to be.

But I can’t recall the new ending at all, so I guess it didn’t make a great impression on me (or anyone?)

It’s tempting to think that one could just go in and fix up something that, for example, Dickens wrote to be at least a little better here or there. 

But why tamper with success?


> I'm not sure how one would treat Beorn's household; which seems to me to be the most childish part of the book.


Leave it alone. Don’t do a Jackson. Try to keep Tolkien’s style.

I see one of the strengths of _The Lord of the Rings_ that it grew out of a children’s story. There is far more freedom in what you can do in that genre even in Tolkien’s day than in supposedly adult writing. You just had to stay away from obvious sex and too much graphic gore but otherwise anything goes.

If Tolkien had stayed with his high Silmarillion mythological style there would never have been a Gollum or Treebeard or Tom Bombadil, characters rooted in the increased freedom that children’s stories provide.

So let Beorn be.

This solitary bear-man with his strangely intelligent animals stands up well. The difficulty would be to make the setting of the table by animals seem uncontrived.

But don’t sell out to the masses or even to your own artistic vision. That'’s the great temptation, to think something _needs_ improvement because it happens to be just not quite one’s own taste.


----------



## Helcaraxë (Nov 20, 2003)

I think the "childish" writing in the Hobbit only adds to its appeal. I would not change it at all.


----------



## Saermegil (Nov 21, 2003)

I read LoTR when I was 14. When I finished it I went out and bought The Hobbit. It did not seem childish to me. It did seem simpler than LoTR, but who said that was a bad thing? On the contrary, it is a pleasant, light-hearted, enjoyable and totally welcome variaton of Tolkien's writing. The style really ads to the magic in the story, also making the book (for others, i guess) a perfect pathway into ME. I would not have Tolkien himself re-write that book.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 22, 2003)

If Tolkien had heard such comments from his fans, I'm sure he would not, in retrospect, have regretted writing The Hobbit in a childish style; though he later considered children to be perfectly capable of handling faerie stories without the style being adapted for their age group.


----------



## jallan (Nov 22, 2003)

From letter 215:


> I think that The Hobbit can be seen to begin in what might be called a more ‘whimsy’ mode, and in places even more facetious, and move steadily to a more serious or significant, and more consistent and historical. .... But I regret much of it all the same.


From letter 234:


> I am not interested in the ‘child’ as such, modern or otherwise, and certainly have no intention of meeting him/her half way, or a quarter of the way. It is a mistaken thing to do anyway, either useless (when applied to the stupid) or pernicious (when inflicted on the gifted). I have only once made the mistake of trying to do it, to my lasting regret, and (I am glad to say) with the disapproval of intelligent children: in the earlier part of The Hobbit.


As Tolkien later saw it, the problem was that children felt rightly insulted by a style supposedly adapted to them. A story might have to be told simply for children, but one shouldn’t write it in a style that obviously condescended to them.

Tolkien was probably harder on himself then others were, though he does mention complaints by intelligent children. And Tolkien later found that the works of George MacDonald that he remembered liking so well he could not long stand, in part because of their condescension.

I don’t recall being bothered by anything in _The Hobbit_ other than that some of the verses were a bit weak, the Goblin’s song, especially. But authors were always tossing weakly whimsical verses at children. Anything that was cute and whimsical would do for kids.

Nor do I share Tolkien’s later distaste for George MacDonald. 

I also probably read other stories that had much more of the condescension and silliness that Tolkien later regretted. One expected it.

Tolkien was a _very_ critical reader.

I recall a few fragments of three partonising books about a Magic Forest with namby-pamby talking animals that I really did think was beneath tolerance.

And I recall that the very juvenile feel of Hugh Lofting’s _Doctor Dolittle_ became less in Lofting’s later books.


----------



## Inderjit S (Nov 23, 2003)

The one big "gripe" that I have with _The Hobbit_ us the scene with the Trolls. It wholly contradicts any information we get about Trolls in later books, and it doesn't really fit in with the characteristics of any evil creatures of the latter books (Even the Goblins of _The Hobbit_ are more cynical then the Trolls, despite the inherent stupidity of the Trolls).


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Inderjit S _
> *The one big "gripe" that I have with The Hobbit us the scene with the Trolls. It wholly contradicts any information we get about Trolls in later books, and it doesn't really fit in with the characteristics of any evil creatures of the latter books (Even the Goblins of The Hobbit are more cynical then the Trolls, despite the inherent stupidity of the Trolls). *


Their cockney accents are a bit insulting too. I notice PJ continues to use the Bill Sykes touch with his orcs' accents.


----------



## jallan (Nov 23, 2003)

> The one big "gripe" that I have with The Hobbit us the scene with the Trolls. It wholly contradicts any information we get about Trolls in later books, and it doesn't really fit in with the characteristics of any evil creatures of the latter books ...


I don’t see any contradiction. The trolls in Moria never speak and of course are safe from the sun. The trolls at the Battle of the Black Gate or presumably the new Sun-immune Olog-hai.

The stupidity of Tolkien’s trolls comes directly from the traditional stupidity of giants in such tales as Grimm’s The Brave Little Tailor and of the troll in The Three Billy-goats Gruff and even of the Cyclops in the _Odyssey_.

Ogres in traditional tales mostly are incredibly stupid. That is part of the fun.

But I am somewhat bothered by the conclusion. The story reads:


> For just at that moment the light came over the hill, and there was a mighty twitter in the branches.


Even at the equator Dawn may come up like thunder but not quite that quickly.


----------



## Gildor (Nov 24, 2003)

The Hobbit isn't really childish...it is a lot less complicated than LOTR, but I think that actually goes in its favor. It presents a captivating story that reveals some of the depth of Middle Earth without going into more detail than is needed. Sure, cockney trolls are silly, but trolls that keep silent or just grunt in monosyllables are boring, which is a far greater crime than being silly.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 24, 2003)

Hello Gildor, and welcome to the forum. 



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *But I am somewhat bothered by the conclusion. The story reads: quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For just at that moment the light came over the hill, and there was a mighty twitter in the branches.
> ...


I disagree. The sun may not move very quickly, but the moment before the first glimmer of sunshine and the moment afterwards are very different. Maybe it was the intervention of the Valar or some power of Gandalf's that prevented the pre-dawn twittering that would have warned the trolls that dawn was imminent, but once they were hit by that first ray of light they were done for, and all the birds sang at once.:


----------



## jimmyboy (Dec 1, 2003)

Ahhhh, I'm a klutz!! 
I accidentally voted "Yes" when I meant "No".
No, I don't think it's too childish. I like it as it is, and it's great just the way it is.


----------



## Legolas_lover12 (Dec 2, 2003)

i voted no because i like it the way it is. if it was rewritten it would just be like another LOTR. not like the hobbit anymore. plus its nice to read something easier after tLOTR and the silmarillion. LOL


----------



## Lady_of_Gondor (Dec 21, 2003)

The Hobbit is a wonderfully fun book to read. It is a childrens book because that is what Tolkien wanted it to be. Perhaps he regretted the fact that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit aren't more cohesive. But I strongly feel that the lead-ins are still there, and that is enough. As a young adult (18), I can still read the Hobbit and get the same type of excitement out of it as I did when reading it for the first time as a 13 year old. Even if Tolkien himself were to change the book, I don't think it could be better than the first. There is a magic to the characters, and a fast-paced fun that we miss out on when reading the more adult Lord of the Rings. It is nice to have a bit of both styles, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Red Istar (Dec 23, 2003)

I do.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I (Dec 23, 2003)

I just wished he hadn't left such gaping holes between the two: were-worms of the East... (huh?), Stone Giants (what was he smoking?), and the Faerie to the West (presumably Elbereth)?

Instead of trying to incorporate them, as in explaining that these were hobbitish names for something, he chose to ignore them, which was not a good idea. I can forgive the were-worms and the Faerie things, as I can see how they could be dragons and Elbereth, but the Stone Giants really boggle me. I just wish he would have provided an explanation... something...


----------



## Wolfshead (Dec 26, 2003)

I would read a revised edition, should Tolkien himself write it. That, however, is not going to happen, due to his being dead. Therefore, I will be quite content with the version I have.

Seriously now, why rewrite it? It's a great story, written for children. Remember, he wrote it for his children in the first place. I must have been, let's see now... 9 when I first read it, and I loved it. That's what first got me into Tolkien. No, that's a lie, it was _Farmer Giles Of Ham_ that got me into Tolkien, but that's irrelevant. I could go back and read The Hobbit now, and indeed I have reread it over the years, and I still enjoy it. The same way I enjoy Harry Potter. Despite them being for children, I can still immerse myself in them.

Anyway, to cut this off, there's no need to rewrite The Hobbit due to it being rather good already. Any revision or rewrite would just spoil it.


----------

