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

Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

tovejansson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#101

Post by quietbritishjim »

fifilura wrote: post #67
Paracompact wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”) This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken. http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf Page 83: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't k…

Why rude?

The comment it's replying to stated that 1937 quote as if they had checked it. That deception seems ruder to me the language in the comment you're talking about. But I do agree the last sentence could've been omitted while getting the core point across (but we're all only human).

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#102

Post by sarchertech »

pkteison wrote: post #65
sarchertech wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s as valid as any art. But as an illustrated book, it’s lacking. If I had read this version as a kid, I’d be extremely confused as to why Gollum was 20 feet tall and wearing a flower crown. And then I’d be mad and consider it a bad illustration. (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creat…

"a small slimy creature" was added after this picture was drawn, in the 1966 edition. Other languages adaptions had larger gollum's also - see some at e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/vy7vij/before_the_196... (It's difficult to find an excellent authoritative link clearly explaining that the change was in the 1966 edition - there is 'The History of The Hobbit' by John D. Rateliff, but I can't find it onlin…

That’s not correct as far as I can tell. I found a 1937 version complete with the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring” and small slimy creature was there.

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#103

Post by sarchertech »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #101
fifilura wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why rude?

The comment it's replying to stated that 1937 quote as if they had checked it. That deception seems ruder to me the language in the comment you're talking about. But I do agree the last sentence could've been omitted while getting the core point across (but we're all only human).

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...

I did.

The version you posted is a 2016 reprint, I’m unsure which is correct.

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#104

Post by sarchertech »

Paracompact wrote: post #63
sarchertech wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s as valid as any art. But as an illustrated book, it’s lacking. If I had read this version as a kid, I’d be extremely confused as to why Gollum was 20 feet tall and wearing a flower crown. And then I’d be mad and consider it a bad illustration. (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creat…

> (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”) This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken. http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf Page 83: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't k…

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...

The version you linked is a 2016 reprint, so I’m actually not sure which one is correct.

The version I linked to still has Gollum offering to give Bilbo the ring so it certainly predates the modern version I have. And that is the change Tolkien explicitly states he made.

The version I linked has this "If it asks us, and we doesn't answer, we gives it a present, gollum!" Which I'm positive is only in the 1937 version. From what I can tell there were also minor corrections made before the 1951 changes, so I suppose it's possible that adding small slimy creature was one of those.

There are also reported to be dozens of different versions after 1951 caused by printers mixing and matching old and revised plates. I'm unsure exactly how that 1937 facsimile was recreated, or how the version I linked was created. One or both could have been taken from this mismatched versions.

I think the only way to be sure would be to buy a reprint from before 1951 or to find a scan of one online.

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#105

Post by danparsonson »

taneq wrote: post #83
NoboruWataya wrote: post #5

These are lovely. I knew about the Moomins of course but I didn't know about the other stuff she did, some of which I really like. I wish the website had more of the illustrations but I guess there might be copyright issues. I'd be particularly interested in seeing more of her illustrations for Alice in Wonderland and The Hunting of the Snark (the latter is a great poem if you haven't read it: https://www.gutenberg.o…

Does anyone here not know that ‘twas brillig, when the slithey toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe?

Isn't that from Jabberwocky?

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#106

Post by sarchertech »

belZaah wrote: post #66
Paracompact wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”) This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken. http://searcherr.work/The%20Hobbit%201st%20ed%20(1937).pdf Page 83: "Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't k…

Hats off for going to the Primary Source!

It’s not a primary source is a scan of a 2016 reprint that I can’t find much information on. And I she a version that purports to be the 1937 edition which does have the small slimy creature line.

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho...

That version has the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring if he wins”.

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#107

Post by Steve16384 »

JrProgrammer wrote: post #93
iambateman wrote: post #35

It has a real “where the wild things are” feel…which is the art used to decorate my local library. A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother—-including Peter Jackson—-and have missed out on the absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing. The Hobbit does a wonderful job of introducing the ideas and characters of LotR in a way which is accessible for children and I think th…

> A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother Do you refer to the LOTR trilogy as The Hobbit's older brother here? I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?

Obviously true, but LOTR is also obviously more mature than The Hobbit, which I think was OP's point.

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#108

Post by tokai »

npinsker wrote: post #31
tokai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could that status ever chance? Being widely read by adults doesn't change if its an children's book or not.

Theoretically it could change via literacy rates and attention spans going down?

No it couldn't.

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#109

Post by rsynnott »

shevy-java wrote: post #61
sarchertech wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s as valid as any art. But as an illustrated book, it’s lacking. If I had read this version as a kid, I’d be extremely confused as to why Gollum was 20 feet tall and wearing a flower crown. And then I’d be mad and consider it a bad illustration. (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creat…

"I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size" Well, he was a hobbit once, right? So a 10 meters tall Gollum makes less sense than a Gollum that has about the same size as other hobbits, give or take.

That's a retcon. There was no indication that he was a hobbit in The Hobbit (and as others have mentioned, in the original there was no physical description at all.)

Re: Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023)

#110

Post by rsynnott »

bombcar wrote: post #55
reincarnate0x14 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the original version, there is minimal physical description of Gollum (it was dark after all) and the ring was simply a magic ring that granted invisibility. Gollum lost it and IIRC he just let Bilbo go. They whole idea of him being some hobbit-like creature corrupted by the One Ring was not present at all. It was one of a series of fairy-tale adventures no more important than the trolls turning to stone. Bilbo ne…

https://www.ttrpbc.com/discussion/532/the-hobbit-first-vs-se... has the changes.

This is fun.

> There are of course other very minor changes. For instance, Gandalf tells Bilbo to bring out the chicken and tomatoes in the unrevised edition vs. the chicken and pickles in the revised edition. But I'll skip over these inconsequential changes.

Bit of medievalism there (tomatoes being a Colombian Exchange thing).

Post reply on HN