Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#51

Post by sgt101 »

rightbyte wrote: post #49
dasil003 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I first read the Silmarillion 20 years ago and then re-read it last year. What struck me is how short it actually is, compared to the sense of scale that I remembered. Of course the Silmarillion is cherrypicked from decades of manuscripts, so I guess it shouldn't be surprising that it conveys a sense of mythological world-building depth beyond its page count.

Do you recommend reading it or is there a risk it "destroys the mysticism"? Usually I find the worst thing to do in fantasy is to read up on the lore.

It's a long time since I read it, but as I remember it there is 0 chance of the mysticism being destroyed! It's basically the ur mythos of his world.

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#52

Post by swayvil »

User23 wrote: post #37
swayvil wrote: post #17

Tolkien would have been a good friend. Maybe he was Tom Bombadil. I mean, because that happens so often, the author is mirrored in a character. Tom is kind and generous, but with a serious hidden side. Deep and a bit scary. Maybe Tolkien had a hidden side. I'd like to have known him. His craft, 1000x polished, we see that. But the man. To talk with him. That must be honey and cream. Tolkien, Lewis and Lovecraft all w…

Dunsany is wonderful too. The King of Elfland’s Daughter is charming and a masterpiece. Oh to go beyond the fields we know.

In case anybody is compiling a reading list, George McDonald too. Back when they spelled fantasy with a ph.

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#53

Post by jonnycomputer »

big_curses wrote: post #47
jonnycomputer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fan of Jackson's LOTR, but his Hobbit was almost a complete failure (in my opinion). Radical departures from feel, and yes, plot, of the book.

I agree, but I'd also like to defend Jackson on this one. He was brought in after Del Toro dropped out and the movies had been in production for years already. He had no prep time and seemed to exist on little sleep for years. You can see some of this in the behind the scenes recordings/interviews they did. I have a feeling they were only as good as they were because of him. Regardless, they were disappointing.

Did not know this.

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#54

Post by bombcar »

wolverine876 wrote: post #41
bombcar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online you can find a PDF detailing the differences between the pre-LotR Hobbit and the second edition (Tolkien rewrote comparatively small parts of the Hobbit to make it fit and actually didn't expect the publisher to release a second edition with the changes, hence the preface to the Lord of the Rings and Bilbo himself apologizing for "a different version of the story"). You can even see the "Hobbit-esque" writing…

Trivia: The word mithril didn't exist in the original edition of the Hobbit, and was added after LOTR was published. > hence ... Bilbo himself apologizing for "a different version of the story" I thought that showed the Ring's effect on Bilbo, something Gandalf talked about too, and which is important to LOTR.

That was Tolkien's clever trick for his rewrite - the "original" story was what Bilbo wrote down at the time (the "present") - the new edition was what was later edited in by Bilbo or Frodo as what really went down (after everything had been revealed in LotR.

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#55

Post by falcrist »

bombcar wrote: post #13
falcrist wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the Peter Jackson movies, The Hobbit was actually written as a childrens' story rather than a grand epic. I'd wager a lot that the cartoonish nature of his pictures was an accurate reflection of how he saw that story. If you haven't seen the 1977 animated Hobbit film (often called Rankin-Bass after it's creators), you're doing yourself a disservice.

Online you can find a PDF detailing the differences between the pre-LotR Hobbit and the second edition (Tolkien rewrote comparatively small parts of the Hobbit to make it fit and actually didn't expect the publisher to release a second edition with the changes, hence the preface to the Lord of the Rings and Bilbo himself apologizing for "a different version of the story"). You can even see the "Hobbit-esque" writing…

You can actually purchase facsimile editions of the original (pre-LOTR) published version of The Hobbit.

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#57

Post by selimthegrim »

sjamaan wrote: post #44
selimthegrim wrote: post #8

These were in the 50th anniversary hardcover edition of The Hobbit .

I wonder why most(?) editions of The Hobbit don't have them though. They're wonderful and arguably a part of the work. Omitting them seems like such a shame to me.

They are in other hardback editions (see the 1966 printings for sale on Etsy among other places)

Some of the sigils on the Tolkien estate website were on the slipcases of the 1973 Ballantine paperback release of LoTR (their covers might look familiar too)

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#58

Post by falcrist »

petepete wrote: post #16
jonnycomputer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fan of Jackson's LOTR, but his Hobbit was almost a complete failure (in my opinion). Radical departures from feel, and yes, plot, of the book.

You can read the book in half the running time of the movies. There's a lot of padding and pointless meandering in them. It should never have been a trilogy.

If you look at the word count and movie runtime of LOTR, then compare it to the word count of The Hobbit, you'll find that a similar treatment of The Hobbit would result in probably around 90 minutes of film.

There are complications with that assessment, but 90 minutes would fit quite well with the fact that it's supposed to be a children's story. The Rankin Bass animated version left out a few key plot points (particularly the arkenstone subplot) that could be recovered with a 90 minute runtime. I could also see the possibility of having a 2 hour extended edition

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#59

Post by wolverine876 »

bombcar wrote: post #54
wolverine876 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trivia: The word mithril didn't exist in the original edition of the Hobbit, and was added after LOTR was published. > hence ... Bilbo himself apologizing for "a different version of the story" I thought that showed the Ring's effect on Bilbo, something Gandalf talked about too, and which is important to LOTR.

That was Tolkien's clever trick for his rewrite - the "original" story was what Bilbo wrote down at the time (the "present") - the new edition was what was later edited in by Bilbo or Frodo as what really went down (after everything had been revealed in LotR.

I understand your claim. How do we know which explanation, or whether another explanation, is true?

Again, another strong explanation for the change in Bilbo's story: It was a demonstration of the corruption caused by the Ring and its effects on hobbits, an effect corroborated by Gollum's story about how Gollum acquired the Ring - all as explained by Gandalf.

Re: Rarely Seen Paintings by J.R.R. Tolkien

#60

Post by jonnycomputer »

x3iv130f wrote: post #46
jonnycomputer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fan of Jackson's LOTR, but his Hobbit was almost a complete failure (in my opinion). Radical departures from feel, and yes, plot, of the book.

If you haven't seen any of the fan edits you are doing yourself a huge diservice. Last one I saw was the M4 edit which went as far as redoing the CGI. There are brilliant performances hidden amongst the studio meddling.

where can you find these?
Post reply on HN