Scan barcode
A review by rebeccacider
The Hobbit: Graphic Novel by Chuck Dixon
4.0
Reread the Hobbit in preparation for my Great Winter Reread of The Lord of the Rings (since it's been a whole three years or something, and I've been coming down with a cold and needed some comfort reading.)
I should probably read The History of the Hobbit at some point, because I am very interested in the textual history of this book - it is such a weird concept when taken on its own. I mean, hobbits? In some vaguely defined but obviously incredibly rich secondary fantasy world? In a book that's written for children, mostly, but isn't horrible and saccharine?
Most of the book gets by on the merit of being fun and wacky and having a good protagonist, but the end is actually quite dark and moving - Bilbo weaves his riddles before the dragon, a quarter of a town is decimated, Thorin walls himself in with his treasure and dies defending it.
Thorin is a really, really interesting character, actually, although it only struck me on this rereading. Normally Tolkien takes kings and the descendants of kings pretty seriously. Not all kings are good, but nevertheless they are of High Blood and are by default entitled to be a bit imperious, at least in his other writings.
Not so in The Hobbit! Tolkien is constantly poking fun at Thorin's grandiosity and long speeches, pointing to the artificiality of his royal pomp. The Elvenking is also a figure of fond ridicule. And even Bard, who as a warrior and the descendant of kings is of course just the person to kill Smaug, save Esgaroth, and rule Dale (God forbid some upstart commoner accomplish all three), is a slightly comic character. Much of this is due to the difference in tone of The Hobbit from his more "serious" works, but I think it's still interesting to see Tolkien writing questionable rulers more along the lines of Denethor than Feanor, who nevertheless have a right to their power.
I should probably read The History of the Hobbit at some point, because I am very interested in the textual history of this book - it is such a weird concept when taken on its own. I mean, hobbits? In some vaguely defined but obviously incredibly rich secondary fantasy world? In a book that's written for children, mostly, but isn't horrible and saccharine?
Most of the book gets by on the merit of being fun and wacky and having a good protagonist, but the end is actually quite dark and moving - Bilbo weaves his riddles before the dragon, a quarter of a town is decimated, Thorin walls himself in with his treasure and dies defending it.
Thorin is a really, really interesting character, actually, although it only struck me on this rereading. Normally Tolkien takes kings and the descendants of kings pretty seriously. Not all kings are good, but nevertheless they are of High Blood and are by default entitled to be a bit imperious, at least in his other writings.
Not so in The Hobbit! Tolkien is constantly poking fun at Thorin's grandiosity and long speeches, pointing to the artificiality of his royal pomp. The Elvenking is also a figure of fond ridicule. And even Bard, who as a warrior and the descendant of kings is of course just the person to kill Smaug, save Esgaroth, and rule Dale (God forbid some upstart commoner accomplish all three), is a slightly comic character. Much of this is due to the difference in tone of The Hobbit from his more "serious" works, but I think it's still interesting to see Tolkien writing questionable rulers more along the lines of Denethor than Feanor, who nevertheless have a right to their power.