Scan barcode
lisa_setepenre's review
4.0
In The Hobbits, Lynnette Porter explores how J. R. R. Tolkien's hobbits have been interpreted and represented through a myriad of adaptations. Whether represented through art, film or song, the "many lives" of Frodo and company are critically analysed, often held up to the "original version" (i.e. the character as they appear in Tolkien's work).
This kind of analysis is one I'm kind-of in love with, so I found The Hobbits a fascinating read, and being a Tolkien fan, I often found myself nodding along to Porter's analysis. I was unsurprised when the BBC radio adaptation of LOTR emerged the best adaptation and the best interpretation of Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, and pleased when the unevenness of Peter Jackson's hobbit dynamics are highlighted.
I did find that the book relied a little too much on the Peter Jackson film adaptations. The font used for chapter titles are all based off the 'Ringbearer' script found in the film logos, while the cover appears to depict the four hobbits, plus (inexplicably) Gandalf and Gimli as they were shown on the Fellowship silhouettes. Furthermore, the discussion of the movies appears in almost every section. Porter does discuss about how the films might be more universal than the books, so it's fair that they are brought in occasionally but I did wonder whether they needed to be talked about as much.
Porter covers a wide-range of "adaptations", from the more straightforward adaptations (film, television, radio, stage, art) to music "inspired by" Tolkien, fanfiction and political analogies. The analyses are uneven there, but for more obvious reasons, since there is a complete (or semi-complete) story to explored versus a snapshot from a scene, or vice versa.
There are a few flaws. I missed an exploration of the hobbits as they appear in Tolkien's works (often the "original version" only appears when being compared to another version), and there are a few mistakes to set my teeth on edge (e.g. at one point, confusing Elendil with Eärendil when discussing the phial of light Galadriel gifts to Frodo), though these are thankfully few.
I found myself wishing there was more material covered. I'd love to see Peter Jackson's Hobbit films analysed, and I'd love to see the other creatures of Middle-Earth – Elves, Men, Dwarves and Wizards – analysed in a similar fashion.
On the whole, The Hobbits is a fascinating book, one I'm very glad to have stumbled over. I've discovered new appreciations of adaptations I am familiar with, and have discovered a couple of adaptations I want to now experience for myself.
This kind of analysis is one I'm kind-of in love with, so I found The Hobbits a fascinating read, and being a Tolkien fan, I often found myself nodding along to Porter's analysis. I was unsurprised when the BBC radio adaptation of LOTR emerged the best adaptation and the best interpretation of Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, and pleased when the unevenness of Peter Jackson's hobbit dynamics are highlighted.
I did find that the book relied a little too much on the Peter Jackson film adaptations. The font used for chapter titles are all based off the 'Ringbearer' script found in the film logos, while the cover appears to depict the four hobbits, plus (inexplicably) Gandalf and Gimli as they were shown on the Fellowship silhouettes. Furthermore, the discussion of the movies appears in almost every section. Porter does discuss about how the films might be more universal than the books, so it's fair that they are brought in occasionally but I did wonder whether they needed to be talked about as much.
Porter covers a wide-range of "adaptations", from the more straightforward adaptations (film, television, radio, stage, art) to music "inspired by" Tolkien, fanfiction and political analogies. The analyses are uneven there, but for more obvious reasons, since there is a complete (or semi-complete) story to explored versus a snapshot from a scene, or vice versa.
There are a few flaws. I missed an exploration of the hobbits as they appear in Tolkien's works (often the "original version" only appears when being compared to another version), and there are a few mistakes to set my teeth on edge (e.g. at one point, confusing Elendil with Eärendil when discussing the phial of light Galadriel gifts to Frodo), though these are thankfully few.
I found myself wishing there was more material covered. I'd love to see Peter Jackson's Hobbit films analysed, and I'd love to see the other creatures of Middle-Earth – Elves, Men, Dwarves and Wizards – analysed in a similar fashion.
On the whole, The Hobbits is a fascinating book, one I'm very glad to have stumbled over. I've discovered new appreciations of adaptations I am familiar with, and have discovered a couple of adaptations I want to now experience for myself.
More...