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

41–50 of 129 posts

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

#41

Post by KnuthIsGod »

"In her illustrations in Bilbo – en hobbits äventyr, Jansson concentrated on the landscapes, she was not as interested in the characters of the story.

She even made some of the characters especially tiny to elevate the landscapes.

The illustrations consisted more of her impression of the story than literal repetitions, which many Tolkien fans found unsatisfying.

According to them, Jansson overlooked many of the central characteristics of the characters.

...she edited the pictures many times to avoid them being too much like the Moomin illustrations.

However, the readers saw the illustrations as more Jansson like than truly Tolkien like."

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

#42

Post by reincarnate0x14 »

boringg wrote: post #39
jfengel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolkien made significant changes to the Gollum chapter. In the first edition Gollum gives up the ring willingly. The ring was not yet the Ring, and Gollum was not yet a Hobbit. The man took retcons as an intellectual challenge. Sometimes the retcon itself spun off a whole new story. But it makes The Hobbit really incompatible with its own sequel, even after his changes. (You have to read it as having a very unreliabl…

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 needed a way to sneak around Smaug, so he found a magic ring.

It's doubtless still possible to find that version, I read it in an old country library that had it on the shelf since the 1950s.

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

#45

Post by sarchertech »

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…

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 creature.”)

If there’s a character in a book who is known for wearing a red shirt, you might think it’s interesting to subvert expectations and give him a green shirt. But when the picture with the green shirt appears next to text describing a red shirt, it fails as an illustration. Especially in a book meant for children.

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

#47

Post by singpolyma3 »

jfengel wrote: post #15
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As presented, Gollum is badly off, I reckon - missing the books textual description. The flowers are out of line. This is addressed in the article. "Paul Gravett writes in his new book about Tove Jansson: ‘Her Gollum towered monstrously large, to the surprise of Tolkien himself, who realized that he had never clarified Gollum’s size and so amended the second edition to describe him as ‘a small, slimy creature’." We…

Tolkien made significant changes to the Gollum chapter. In the first edition Gollum gives up the ring willingly. The ring was not yet the Ring, and Gollum was not yet a Hobbit. The man took retcons as an intellectual challenge. Sometimes the retcon itself spun off a whole new story. But it makes The Hobbit really incompatible with its own sequel, even after his changes. (You have to read it as having a very unreliabl…

As I understand it he planned to do more retcons but the publisher just sort of ran with the example he sent them.

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

#49

Post by ggm »

sarchertech wrote: post #45
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…

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…

Tolkien and Jansson shared one thing: people did translations of their work which they totally hated

So it's sort-of funny that she wound up pissing him off with artwork which didn't fit his mental model, when they both experienced people trying to do the translation and failing to hit the mark.

(I think I read this of both of them, in respective biographies)

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

#50

Post by socalgal2 »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #25
socalgal2 wrote: post #22

I'm always of two minds about this kind of stuff. First of, the illustrations are great. I love them. Separate though, if they don't represent the original material then why not just make some new IP instead if effectively taking a piss on someone else's?

They do represent the original material, as interpreted by the illustrator. And Tove was hardly pissing on anything - she was commissioned to illustrate a version of the book by the publisher.

That she got permission's got nothing to do with it. Abrams got permission to turn Star Wars into a Lord of the Rings fetch quests for the secret talisman. That doesn't mean he didn't piss all over "Star Wars".
Post reply on HN