Del Toro and The Hobbit Movie

[pixletwin]

I think the Cap may have met his match in Tolkien lore.

 

[Maitreya]

I think the Cap may have met his match in Tolkien lore.

Hell yeah!

 

[galactiboy]

I think the Cap may have met his match in Tolkien lore.

Then I'm staying away from the nerd-offs that are sure to happen... bad enough with Capn' just talking to himself, now if someones answering thats too much

 

[GrueSam]

Then I'm staying away from the nerd-offs that are sure to happen... bad enough with Capn' just talking to himself, now if someones answering thats too much

 

[Wetanut]

With the risk of going on a rant that is totally off topic - I have to disagree!

Yes The Hobbit is dressed up as a children's tale but the dark side of the novel cannot be ignored.

Gandalf tricks Bilbo into undertaking a perilous journey - Bilbo & the company are attacked by various creatures e.g. trolls, wargs, goblins, giant spiders (same as LOTR), after becoming lost deep underground he meets Gollum and ends up with the ring (thus risking a similar dark influence as Frodo), the Silvan elves of Mirkwood then threaten the lives of the dwarves, blah, blah, blah... and of course we can't forget the star of the show - Smaug who doesn't really sound like the cute, fluffy bunny type.

Zohar Shavit wrote an interesting criticism of The Hobbit titled 'The Ambivalent Status of Texts: The Case of Children's Literature' in which he insightfully explained the following:

"The ambivalent text is deliberatley aimed toward two different groups of readers: children and adults... As the norm of complexity and sophistication is prevalent for some literary periods in the canonized system for adults, those adults who belong to the elite's consumers of the latter system are more likely to realize the sophisticated text in full, while children, who are used to the reduced and simplified models, are only aware of the well recognized established models. Thus, the less sophisticated child readers totally ignore several layers of the text."

(The readiness of an inferior system to accept the well established models only, is characteristic not only of other systems in the literary polysystem, but also of other semiotic systems, especially of social systems).

Although I should stop ranting otherwise I'll start quoting from my uni dissertation on The Hobbit! I just think it's important to recognize the conscious artistry of Tolkien and how he directed different parts of The Hobbit towards the different age groups of his readers.

Too excessive?

I think Mr/Ms Shavit just stated something that's not necessarily a unique insight; what he/she states is already fairly well-known and accepted. Academic literary criticism aside, I'm of the opinion that when Tolkien said that "Hobbit" was written for a younger readership, I'm going to take him at face value. As he was adamant in warning us about applying WWI and nature-vs.-industrialization analogies to LOTR and insisting there was none, I think we tend to overthink a simple story just to satisfy the need to validate our intellect by "getting" it beyond the actual intent. Not that "Hobbit" can't be delved into and peeled away layer after layer for "hidden" darker social meanings aimed at varying levels of education, age, gender, and social class...and we can do the same for the great majority of published novels..., but I simply don't see the necessity -- especially in a screen adaptation.

 

[Maitreya]

I agree that Shavit's view is not unique and I do not claim it to be, but it is insightful.

You admit yourself as you could not possibly deny that the book has various sub-layers but if I may be honest ignoring this in favour of an oversimplified view of the text does discredit to Tolkien's ingenuity - the layers are there for a reason. Early on in my degree I wrote a 3000 word essay on just two pages of The Hobbit and could have easily written more as there is such a depth to his writing and the the text reaches us on so many levels - one of the reasons perhaps for it's timeless popularity?

But enough nerdy ranting! I think we like everyone else are so passionate about Tolkien that we will never agree with each other! And while debate inspires knowledge I think we have both "validated our intellect" enough!

The nerd off must end before we get chased off the board by galactiboy et al!

 

[Wetanut]

Oh dear! I certainly didn't mean to raise any smoke to eventually burst into a flame war. And not necessarily disagreeing...just putting out an opposite view to add just a bit of spice. I recognized a kindred spirit. As for your 3000-word essay on 2 pages, I'll confess that I've been known to do similar in my time.

Yes, the Tolkien passion is deep within us and I'm sure we'll all be winding up nerding out more than once as we wait for the film to be released.

 

[crazytrain]

Was in NZ in March with the Red Carpet Tour and just had an update on the situation from Raewyn. Apparently the Hobbiton people have not been approached yet about re-planting etc but they're expecting a call anytime soon!!

 

[Maitreya]

Oh dear! I certainly didn't mean to raise any smoke to eventually burst into a flame war. And not necessarily disagreeing...just putting out an opposite view to add just a bit of spice. I recognized a kindred spirit. As for your 3000-word essay on 2 pages, I'll confess that I've been known to do similar in my time.

Yes, the Tolkien passion is deep within us and I'm sure we'll all be winding up nerding out more than once as we wait for the film to be released.

Spice is nice - can you imagine how lame it would be if everone agreed with each other! Now that's just not any fun!

I look forward to nerding out with you again

 

[Captain Faramir]

With the risk of going on a rant that is totally off topic - I have to disagree!

Yes The Hobbit is dressed up as a children's tale but the dark side of the novel cannot be ignored.

Gandalf tricks Bilbo into undertaking a perilous journey - Bilbo & the company are attacked by various creatures e.g. trolls, wargs, goblins, giant spiders (same as LOTR), after becoming lost deep underground he meets Gollum and ends up with the ring (thus risking a similar dark influence as Frodo), the Silvan elves of Mirkwood then threaten the lives of the dwarves, blah, blah, blah... and of course we can't forget the star of the show - Smaug who doesn't really sound like the cute, fluffy bunny type.

Zohar Shavit wrote an interesting criticism of The Hobbit titled 'The Ambivalent Status of Texts: The Case of Children's Literature' in which he insightfully explained the following:

"The ambivalent text is deliberatley aimed toward two different groups of readers: children and adults... As the norm of complexity and sophistication is prevalent for some literary periods in the canonized system for adults, those adults who belong to the elite's consumers of the latter system are more likely to realize the sophisticated text in full, while children, who are used to the reduced and simplified models, are only aware of the well recognized established models. Thus, the less sophisticated child readers totally ignore several layers of the text."

(The readiness of an inferior system to accept the well established models only, is characteristic not only of other systems in the literary polysystem, but also of other semiotic systems, especially of social systems).

Although I should stop ranting otherwise I'll start quoting from my uni dissertation on The Hobbit! I just think it's important to recognize the conscious artistry of Tolkien and how he directed different parts of The Hobbit towards the different age groups of his readers.

Too excessive?

Not at all! I appreciate the commentary, and on many points agree. However, I still feel that The Hobbit is not darker than LOTR, and that analysis derives from the thematic material, which is much more significant at times than the actual events. Parallel events in the stories exemplify this.

For example, when Bilbo confronts the spiders in the forest, the child-like tone of the story would, as you so aptly noted, fool one into thinking it was simply a cute little story, when in reality the events are dark, frightening, and violent. This would be an excellent point to hold up against LOTR and say "look, it's equally dark!" Not so. For the themes are actually very different. Bilbo's story is an adventure, and Bilbo's courage is real, solid, and heartening--it's about finding your courage and gaining understanding from it. Frodo's experience, however, is worlds apart from Bilbo's. Shelob is not a mere obstacle to the story, as Bilbo's spiders were. She is a literary symbol, a devouring darkness which manifests itself in Frodo's reaction of pure terror, fear, and despair. Even with Sting and the Phial in his hand, his courage is not found, but rather unloosed, and his mad escape reveals not understanding, but blind horror mixed with desperation. Shelob is not just something Sam has to defeat, she's an idea he has to destroy--that darkness cannot fight the lights of love, compassion, and hope, not matter how foul or terrible it might be. It's similar to The Hobbit, but in order to be more complex the story must reach further into the dark. The Hobbit is not as dark as LOTR.

Another example is the comparison between the mountain orcs and the Moria orcs. Bilbo's groping in the dark in the Misty Mountains is a rather cold, empty darkness, and the orcs rather cold, mindless goblins. Certainly they are violent and dangerous and threatening, but they toy with their guests, amuse themselves, and show other signs of dreadful un-civilization. Yet Moria is no dark mountain. It is an utter abyss, a chasm of despair in which the darkness is a burden and all light is flame and war. The orcs don't stop to treat their future meal, as they do so lightly in the Misty Mountain. They fight, burn, and destroy, as they did with the dwarves. They are the mindless minions of a greater will, and the monstrosity of the Balrog is infinitely darker an enemy than the Goblin King. There is no token hoard to discover as there is in the Hobbit; rather the weight of an entire ruined civilization, the eons of history of Khazad-dum, casts its shadow upon the Fellowship. The darkness in LOTR is much deeper and much older, and outside there is no respite from the dark, but only further sorrow at Gandalf's loss--not away on "business" this time, but lost to hope and help.

Furthermore LOTR is indeed darker in the unifying purpose of the story. The Fellowship is not traveling to gold and glory and land, as Thorin's company is. They seek the heart of the darkness itself, the very fires of hell from which sprang all their sorrows. The travel from hope to despair, to the point that Frodo wastes away under the ever growing torment of the ring, and Gollum, in The Hobbit merely a nasty enemy, becomes a demon of fate whose violence and avarice are finally unleashed. The end is not a matter of who gets what, but rather who will have, and who will have not. Who will be, and who will be destroyed? The Battle of the Five Armies is a massive battle, to be sure, but it is not as significant as the War of the Ring. It is a battle for conquest, revenge, and liberty. The War of the Ring is a battle against conquest, enslavement, and ruin, the ending of all hope and light on Middle Earth. Gandalf recognizes this in the appendices, but note that his place during the War of the Ring was not in the North, but in Gondor.

As a result, the ends of both works are very different. The Hobbit ends with happy rebuildings, some light adventures, and Bilbo becoming fabulously rich. LOTR restores worlds that were wounded, preserves worlds that were lost, and creates worlds that will be. And Frodo does not return to fame and fortune, but to sorrows and obscurity, only to leave without ever enjoying what he had saved. The Lord of the Rings is a much darker, lighter, and more profound work than The Hobbit can be. And yet, that's the point.

The Hobbit is not meant to be as important a work as The Lord of the Rings. It is, in fact, the true prelude, more so than The Silmarillion, which is in fact a true prequel. A prelude should never overshadow the work which it introduces, but rather should point the spectator in the direction of understanding, playing the simple themes and ideas which will mature and take truest form in the actual work. It is not silly, not childish, not happy-go-lucky, but it should be hopeful, it should be child-like, and it should be full of happiness and luck. Just as the appendix concludes the stories, The Hobbit begins them. It is cleverly and carefully masked in the guise of a child's work, but it is not a child's story. It's themes are serious, important, and relevant. Yet they do not approach the profound impact and import which the latter work, the greater Lord of the Rings works, carry.

 

[Captain Faramir]

By the way, understand right now that I almost never get upset by what people say here. This isn't Star Wars! Differing opinions are MOST welcome here, and I love to discuss them! I love the Hobbit and have analyzed its many layers a few dozen times at least, so please feel free to express your feelings! Opine as you will; we don't look down on opinions here!

And my apologies, Galactiboy. Just do what I suspect most people do by now, and skip over any green writing as you browse the forums.

 

[Maitreya]

Not at all! I appreciate the commentary, and on many points agree. However, I still feel that The Hobbit is not darker than LOTR, and that analysis derives from the thematic material, which is much more significant at times than the actual events. Parallel events in the stories exemplify this.

For example, when Bilbo confronts the spiders in the forest, the child-like tone of the story would, as you so aptly noted, fool one into thinking it was simply a cute little story, when in reality the events are dark, frightening, and violent. This would be an excellent point to hold up against LOTR and say "look, it's equally dark!" Not so. For the themes are actually very different. Bilbo's story is an adventure, and Bilbo's courage is real, solid, and heartening--it's about finding your courage and gaining understanding from it. Frodo's experience, however, is worlds apart from Bilbo's. Shelob is not a mere obstacle to the story, as Bilbo's spiders were. She is a literary symbol, a devouring darkness which manifests itself in Frodo's reaction of pure terror, fear, and despair. Even with Sting and the Phial in his hand, his courage is not found, but rather unloosed, and his mad escape reveals not understanding, but blind horror mixed with desperation. Shelob is not just something Sam has to defeat, she's an idea he has to destroy--that darkness cannot fight the lights of love, compassion, and hope, not matter how foul or terrible it might be. It's similar to The Hobbit, but in order to be more complex the story much reach further into the dark. The Hobbit is not and dark as LOTR.

Another example is the comparison between the mountain orcs and the Moria orcs. Bilbo's groping in the dark in the Misty Mountains is a rather cold, empty darkness, and the orcs rather cold, mindless goblins. Certainly they are violent and dangerous and threatening, but they toy with their guests, amuse themselves, and show other signs of dreadful un-civilization. Yet Moria is no dark mountain. It is an utter abyss, a chasm of despair in which the darkness is a burden and all light is flame and war. The orcs don't stop to treat their future meal, as they do so lightly in the Misty Mountain. They fight, burn, and destroy, as they did with the dwarves. There is no token hoard to discover as there is in the Hobbit; rather the weight of an entire ruined civilization, the eons of history the of Khazad-dum, casts its shadow upon the Fellowship. The darkness in LOTR is much deeper and much older, and outside there is no respite from the dark, but only further sorry at Gandalf's loss--not away on "business" this time, but lost to hope and help.

Furthermore LOTR is indeed darker in the unifying purpose of the story. The Fellowship is not traveling to gold and glory and land, as Thorin's company is. They seek the heart of the darkness itself, the very fires of hell from which sprang all their sorrows. The travel from hope to despair, to the point that Frodo wastes away under the ever growing torment of the ring, and Gollum, in The Hobbit merely a nasty enemy, becomes a demon of fate whose violence and avarice are finally unleashed. The end is not a matter of who gets what, but rather who will have, and who will not. Who will be, and who will be destroyed? The Battle of the Five Armies is a massive battle, to be sure, but it is not as significant as the War of the Ring. It is a battle for conquest, revenge, and liberty. The War of the Ring is a battle against conquest, enslavement, and ruin, the ending of all hope and light on Middle Earth. Gandalf recognizes this in the appendices, but note that his place during the War of the Ring was not in the North, but in Gondor.

As a result, the ends of both works are very different. The Hobbit ends with happy rebuildings, some light adventures, and Bilbo becoming fabulously rich. LOTR restores worlds that were wounded, preserves worlds that were lost, and creates worlds that will be. And Frodo does not return to fame and fortune, but to sorrows and obscurity, only to leave without ever knowing what he had saved. The Lord of the Rings is a much darker, lighter, and more profound work than The Hobbit can be. And yet, that's the point.

The Hobbit is not meant to be as important a work as The Lord of the Rings. It is, in fact, the true prelude, more so than The Silmarillion, which is in fact a true prequel. A prelude should never overshadow the work which it introduces, but rather should point the spectator in the direction of understanding, playing the simple themes and ideas which will mature and take truest form in the actual work. It is not silly, not childish, not happy-go-lucky, but it should be hopeful, it should be child-like, and it should be full of happiness and luck. Just as the appendix concludes the stories, The Hobbit begins them. It is cleverly and carefully masked in the guise of a child's work, but it is not a child's story. It's themes are serious, important, and relevant. Yet they do not approach the profound impact and import which the latter work, the greater Lord of the Rings works, carry.

Oh for goodness sake! Don't make me reply to this I'm in the middle of revision for my 3rd year exams - this is taking up seriously valuable brain space!

 

[Maitreya]

Tell ya what PM me after the 15th and we can nerd out together until our brains fry!

Sound like fun?

 

[pixletwin]

Oh for goodness sake! Don't make me reply to this I'm in the middle of revision for my 3rd year exams - this is taking up seriously valuable brain space!

Yeah Cap'n. Quite "cloying" the lady with your posts.

 

[Captain Faramir]

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a retaliation--I'm just so excited to discuss these things! I'm not here to argue a point, but to discuss literature! Is there anything as satisfying and enjoyable as this? I think not!

I understand your need to give time to the matter, so I'll let it be for now. Besides, that post needed a bit of editing. But please, know that I reply because I eagerly look forward to some real discussion, not because I want to make a point. I have studied Tolkien's works for years and have read every criticism I could find, so to find somebody else as impassioned as I is a real delight.

Mae govannen, mellon! Elen sila lúmenn' omentielvo

 

[Maitreya]

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a retaliation--I'm just so excited to discuss these things! I'm not here to argue a point, but to discuss literature! Is there anything as satisfying and enjoyable as this? I think not!

I understand your need to give time to the matter, so I'll let it be for now. Besides, that post needed a bit of editing. But please, know that I reply because I eagerly look forward to some real discussion, not because I want to make a point. I have studied Tolkien's works for years and have read every criticism I could find, so to find somebody else as impassioned as I is a real delight.

Mae govannen, mellon! Elen sila lúmenn' omentielvo

Don't talk to me about time! Between now and the 9th I've got to read LOTR + The Hobbit + The Silm. and all the relavent criticisms!

As I said to wetanut debate is nice particularly when you're clearly as passionate a nut as me! Obviously you know some of the things that you said in your post are going to drive me mad and I can honestly say I look forward to trying to whip your ass! :zzwhip

manka lle ier de a' ta?

 

[Maitreya]

P.S Thanks for the moral support Pix!

 

[Captain Faramir]

Be careful my friend; I've read The Lord of the Rings over forty-five times (and an extra chapter a day when I have time), The Silmarillion 37 times give or take a reading or two (not including my constant perusing of it), and The Hobbit oh who knows how many times. And I collect criticisms which I read along with my annotated copies of the books, which are separate from my illustrated versions, collectors versions, reading versions . . .

But, I'm not an argumentative type. I just like to see what people have to say and add my opinions gracefully. As Tolkien was so adamant about preserving the reader's right to interpret his works, I intend to maintain that right by making allowance for other opinions, regardless of whether or not I am at variance with them. After all, if we were all to fight for our own way all the time, the shadow of Melkor would be made manifest even now, irony though that may be.

 

[Captain Faramir]

manka lle ier de a' ta?

I didn't see your question! Amin hiraetha!

California, if you would like to know.

 

[Maitreya]

Be careful my friend;

Lle tela?!

Antolle ulua sulrim mellon!

You know my Dad always says "Uuma ma' ten' rashwe, ta tuluva a' lle"

Guess what? You've found me!