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

111–120 of 129 posts

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

#111

Post by sarchertech »

rsynnott wrote: post #109
shevy-java wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.)

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

This version says it’s the 1937 edition. It has the pre change story about Gollum offering the ring which Tolkien said is what he changed. But it also says he was a small slimy creature.

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

#112

Post by bombcar »

rsynnott wrote: post #110
bombcar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

He knew about the umbrella and kept it in. It’s more likely Tolkien was concerned with the date and whether fresh tomatoes would be available than medievalism.

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

#113

Post by rawling »

sarchertech wrote: post #111
rsynnott wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho... This version says it’s the 1937 edition. It has the pre change story about Gollum offering the ring which Tolkien said is what he changed. But it also says he was a small slimy creature.

Neither the "before" nor "after" here have "small slimy"

https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html

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

#114

Post by gwbas1c »

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?

> I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?

Yes: But the Hobbit is much shorter and is a much easier read. It also was edited after LOTR was published to fix some minor plot holes.

WRT the movies: Peter Jackson added a lot to the "Hobbit" trilogy that wasn't in the book, such as the whole story arc about Gandalf when he wasn't with the dwarves, or the other wizards. The book isn't the epic that the movie makes it out to be.

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

#115

Post by internet_points »

olelele wrote: post #76
jojobas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moomins don't depict anything like saving the world, it's a whimsical universe dealing with whimsical non-issues. I can see why Tolkien lovers are upset at these even though I'm not really one of them.

There is an enormous difference in tone if you actually read any of Tove Janssons books. The animated moomin series is childish and cute. The world of the books is dark and scary and contains monsters and threats that are almost lovecraftian. The moomin trolls are victims to their surroundings and the forces of nature...

Some of the animated adaptations were freakier than others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVQlJDtzUbo

(And even the books, floods and comets, children's books about impending natural disasters, not of the magical kind that you know aren't real anyway, but of the kind that have actually destroyed life on earth before and might happen again, that's real nightmare fuel for active children's imaginations.)

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

#116

Post by boringg »

reincarnate0x14 wrote: post #42
boringg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clarifying question -- what do you mean Gollum was not yet a Hobbit? I don't think he ever was - but a river folk before the ring deprived him wasn't he? I never read first edition so I suspect there are some differences as you allude. (ring not being the ring). Actually - in the creative process did he kick off the Hobbit then expand into the world building as an after thought and turn the one ring into this wild ex…

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…

Thanks - sounds like it was some reworking after building out the original story line to make the rest of it work. I enjoy the storyline that doesn't have to be tied into the main arc (ie trolls or fairy-tale adventure component).

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

#117

Post by sarchertech »

rawling wrote: post #113
sarchertech wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theonering.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-Ho... This version says it’s the 1937 edition. It has the pre change story about Gollum offering the ring which Tolkien said is what he changed. But it also says he was a small slimy creature.

Neither the "before" nor "after" here have "small slimy" https://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html

Yeah it's entirely possible the version that I have that is supposed to be from 1937 was tainted with later versions despite it not containing any of the more well known 1951 changes. That is maybe someone reconstructed it by taking a 1966 copy and undoing the changes, but forgot about the small slimy creature change.

But apparently there were dozens of different versions that actually ended up in print that had different amounts of the changes caused by some printers mixing old plates and new. So it's entirely possible that small slimy appeared in some versions around 1951 but not others and that's what that page is working off of.

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

#119

Post by jfengel »

rsynnott wrote: post #110
bombcar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

And yet he went on to include potatoes in LotR.

There's something so fundamentally European about potatoes, despite being (comparatively) new there. And British in particular. They're stodgy, bland, filling, comforting, and really tasty in a dull way. They displaced things like turnips, which had too much flavor and a dispiriting watery texture.

He could so easily have written that passage for turnips, but it would have been less comforting. (It is often read as if the word "potato" was used to translate some extinct native-European root vegetable, but I find that doubtful.)

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

#120

Post by quietbritishjim »

sarchertech wrote: post #103
quietbritishjim wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough! (BTW I didn't post any version but your point stands.)
Post reply on HN