Tove Jansson's criticized illustrations of The Hobbit (2023) • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by shevy-java » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 4:55 AM UTC

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…

"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.

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

#62

Post by stackghost » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 5:15 AM UTC

jojobas wrote: post #11

Sharlin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Hobbit is also a whimsical children's book, and doesn't have anything to do with saving the world (a world that Tolkien had not developed anywhere near the state in we see in LoTR when he wrote The Hobbit almost 20 years earlier).

It was a children's book and probably isn't anymore.

I read it to my daughter when she was six, and she loved it. We did one chapter a night. I did almost no editing as I read.

By the time we read LOTR she was eight, and we never did finish ROTK because the Frodo and Sam parts really do drag on (I get that he wrote them this way so that the reader would get a sense of just how arduous the journey was, but...)

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

#63

Post by Paracompact » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 5:28 AM UTC

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…

> (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 know where he came from, nor who or what he was."

Mind explaining the source of your mistake?

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

#64

Post by riffraff » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 5:49 AM UTC

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.

But that's only known if you read other material, it's not in The Hobbit.

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

#65

Post by pkteison » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 5:50 AM UTC

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…

"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 online)

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

#66

Post by belZaah » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 6:31 AM UTC

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…

Hats off for going to the Primary Source!

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

#67

Post by fifilura » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 6:36 AM UTC

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…

Why rude?

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

#68

Post by orthoxerox » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 7:15 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

Should Aragorn wear pants in the illustrations?

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

#69

Post by Paracompact » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 7:19 AM UTC

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?

Not rude, just direct.

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

#70

Post by taneq » Mon, Mar 02, 2026, 7:27 AM UTC

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?

Agree that the post comes across as rude in tone, but it’s never explicitly disparaging. Might just be an overly direct tone (non-native English speaker, or maybe on the spectrum?)