sigridhr | Epic Tolkien Bookclub: Week Three

Epic Tolkien Bookclub: Week Three (The Hobbit)
Chapter V: Riddles in the Dark
Chapter VI: Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire

Rules

I very much doubt we'll require much in the way of formal rules, but just for the sake of formality and clarity:

Discussion is welcome and encouraged, as is disagreement. Name-calling and personal attacks will be punished by purchasing $10,000 worth of shares in Mordor Inc. in your name.
There is no spoiler policy in place. Although we're reading the Hobbit, please feel free to bring in things from other Tolkien works, any of the films, the History of Middle Earth, the Letters of JRR Tolkien, and, if you should like, other literary sources.
There is no such thing as too much geekery. Or taking the text too seriously.
If you have any concerns at any point, I'm the closest thing this gong show has to a mod, so feel free to get in touch. I can be reached either by PM through this site, or directly by email at sigridhr.lokidottir@gmail.com.

Discussion on this post will officially run from Friday 18th January 2013 to Friday 25th January 2013. However, the post will remain open after that point, so you're more than welcome to continue discussions on.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Literary history geekery: You are aware, of course, that the version of The Hobbit we read now is the second version, that in the first Gollum politely conceded that he'd lost the riddle game and showed Bilbo out of the caves in an orderly fashion, and that in 1951 Tolkien revised Gollum extensively to make him (and the Ring) fit into the canon of Lord of the Rings, which by then he was deep in the middle of. (One can only imagine how interesting it might have been to buy a new edition in 1951 and, upon reaching that chapter, do a double-take and start digging around for your dad's old edition in the attic, because that cannot be right.) The Annotated Hobbit has a list of the specific changes. Gollum does seem to have been a hobbit-like creature from the very first, though.

I like your observations about Gollum wearing clothes putting him closer to civilization than he otherwise seems. It makes me feel for him. (I'm in the middle of rereading Book IV of LotR right now, and I'm surprised at how much I do care about Gollum, even as he continues to be damn creepy. As beautiful as Andy Serkis's performances are, it's easy to forget that it is an exaggeration of the books in a lot of ways, and Gollum is really quite a subtle character in LotR.)

I was not aware and OMG.

Ok, well, that makes sense. Because I'd thought that he'd need a lot more worked out than I thought he'd had for this to work. I really, really need to get my hands on a copy of the annotated Hobbit. Really.

Yeah, I've found a lot more sympathy for Gollum in the past couple years. I definitely wonder where the line falls between Smeagol and Gollum in the books – Sam definitely delineates between Slinker and Stinker, but I do wonder if Bilbo didn't wake Smeagol up, in a sense, with the Riddles here. The movies certainly seem to imply it, at any right. But you're right, he's much subtler in the books.

Oh! Well then. :D Yeah, Gollum fitting in so well with LotR is kind of artificial; he was specifically edited to fit. (Apparently Tolkien tried to go through and edit the whole book to make it work better, and eventually his friends sat him down and said, "It's just not The Hobbit any more," and he stopped.)

The movies lean heavily on Smeagol here, but the book definitely doesn't. (Corey points out that while Gollum argues with himself, it isn't an argument between good and bad halves, it's an argument between the half that thinks he'll be able to get the ring back and the half that thinks it's hopeless.) Overall it's much more ambiguous in the books than it ever is in the movies; Gollum and Smeagol are both complex people, and neither of them are unaffected by the Ring.

The thing that breaks my heart now, that I don't think I noticed the first time through, is that Gandalf sent three eagles to Mount Doom.

Hahaha, re-editing things to death seemed to be Tolkien's favourite pastime.

I don't really consider Smeagol a clear-cut good half either though - (but I will agree that it's not a Smeagol/Gollum argument). After all Deagol's murder was committed by Smeagol, I think. They're both affected by the Ring, and both self-serving and calculating in their own ways.

The thing that breaks my heart now, that I don't think I noticed the first time through, is that Gandalf sent three eagles to Mount Doom.
I'm not crying, I've just been cutting onions. I'm making a lasagna for one.

You are quite right that Smeagol isn't Gollum's "good half" - he's just the more, hmm. Civilized half. Smeagol understands things like relationships between people, and doing things even if you don't want to do them. Smeagol would have had an easier time with Bilbo's riddles, I think, because the things they describe are not so far from him as they are from Gollum. That doesn't make him good, just more understandable.

I'm not crying, I've just been cutting onions. I'm making a lasagna for one.
OMG sorry but LET ME LOVE YOU with your Flight of the Conchords references!

FotC references are always appropriate.

Wow, I was not aware that the story had been changed! Actually, as I was reading it just now I was thinking 'man, Tolkien had some of this backstory so well thought out, because it matches up so well with LotR' but now I know that it's artificial. That's incredibly interesting though!

I am delighted to be able to inform you of this trivia! It does make analyzing this chapter hard, since so much of its effect comes from Lord of the Rings instead of, y'know, the book you're actually reading. But it is nifty. :D

I actually was aware of this change, mostly because the professor I had as an undergrad was a pen-pal of some sort with Christopher Tolkien and this was right before The Two Towers was coming out and she was all in a froth (and, I might add, rightfully so) about how much they had changed...

I agree with you about Gollum being much more, well, cartoony in the films than I ever read him in the book. I think the filmmakers have to exaggerate everything to make the lows lower so that the payoff is higher, but things do suffer and nuances do get hammered into giant grandiose motions as a result. I finally saw the hobbit film two days ago and I seem to recall that Gollum had a little leather pouch alongside his loincloth, where he searched for the Ring, and that didn't seem to be to jarring.

A PEN-PAL OF CHRISTOPHER TOLKIEN WHAT. That is AWESOME.

The more I reread the more I realize just how *much* nuance got lost in the movies. Not all of it, but quite a lot, and I think Gollum gets the worst of it. They try so hard to make him sympathetic he just becomes pitiful. (The flashback to Smeagol and Deagol, on the other hand, I think they got just right.)

Epic Tolkien Bookclub: Week Three

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject