![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The History of the Hobbit
Oct. 18th, 2011 09:19 amJohn D. Rateliff's The History of the Hobbit is a book for Tolkien completists – and only Tolkien completists. Casual readers or those who just saw the movies can safely skip it. But those who like me were obsessed enough to snatch up the previous compilations of Tolkien's drafts and unfinished works must have this book. (Actually, books; it's in two volumes.) Each draft chapter is carefully annotated with footnotes and essays and footnotes on the footnotes and essays, with chatter about Tolkien's sources and writing methods and the various ways The Hobbit could have gone, but didn't, not to mention a fascinating discussion about the continuing evolution of various characters – particularly Gollum. Annnnnddd references to pretty much everything even vaguely related to The Hobbit and discussions of word origins and some chapters that Tolkien completely rewrote to make The Hobbit more consistent with its sequel and lists of dwarf names. Plus, bonus Dungeons and Dragons commentary. I mean, awesome.
But for all that, the book does have one glaring omission, although I freely admit that I might have missed it had I not just spent a significant part of this year plowing through the works of George MacDonald and Edith Nesbit. And that is – Edith Nesbit.
Rateliff cites Nesbit exactly twice – as a creator of whimsical dragons (true) – and as a writer in the tradition of classic British children's literature (more as one of its establishers, but this is nitpicking.) And that's that.
No mention of the narrative asides, so similar in tone and purpose, that litter both Nesbit's novels and The Hobbit (and are not found in other books that Rateliff cites as influences.) And, above all, no mention of a certain ring of invisibility.
Rateliff spends eight pages (plus footnotes) chatting about other rings of invisibility, citing Plato, Aladdin, Chretien de Troyes, Hartmann von Aue, The Mabinogion, Ariosto (a comparison Tolkien disliked), Fr. Francois Fenelon, Andrew Lang, an obscure Estonian folktale collected by Frederich Kreutzwald which Rateliff admits barely resembles Bilbo's ring whatsoever, concluding that a) literature offered few rings of invisibility prior to Tolkien and b) Tolkien was probably most influenced by Plato and Chretien de Troyes. I'm not going to argue the Plato part – Tolkien certainly knew The Republic very well, or the de Troyes part, but all of this ignores a children's book that featured a ring that turned you invisible – and just how inconvenient this could be if you were hungry or hurt -- The Enchanted Castle.
True, I can't be certain that Tolkien knew any of Nesbit's novels. And also, I'd be the first to admit that Nesbit had no influence on The Lord of the Rings. But The Hobbit is a very different sort of work, and in a book of analysis that takes time to mention (and I think misinterpret, but, that's arguable) Anne McCaffery's dragon books; Vita Sackville-West (who might have helped inspire the name of the Sackville-Bagginses – she and Tolkien were both enthusiastic gardeners if they had little else in common, and Tolkien may have read her gardening articles), not to mention the Estonian folktales, this omission seems, how do I put this? Odd.
But this omission aside, if you are a Tolkien enthusiast, invest. It's your sort of book; deeply fascinating and insightful – with a fair warning that you may find yourself wanting to chase down Estonian folktales afterwards. But I can't exactly term that a bad thing.
But for all that, the book does have one glaring omission, although I freely admit that I might have missed it had I not just spent a significant part of this year plowing through the works of George MacDonald and Edith Nesbit. And that is – Edith Nesbit.
Rateliff cites Nesbit exactly twice – as a creator of whimsical dragons (true) – and as a writer in the tradition of classic British children's literature (more as one of its establishers, but this is nitpicking.) And that's that.
No mention of the narrative asides, so similar in tone and purpose, that litter both Nesbit's novels and The Hobbit (and are not found in other books that Rateliff cites as influences.) And, above all, no mention of a certain ring of invisibility.
Rateliff spends eight pages (plus footnotes) chatting about other rings of invisibility, citing Plato, Aladdin, Chretien de Troyes, Hartmann von Aue, The Mabinogion, Ariosto (a comparison Tolkien disliked), Fr. Francois Fenelon, Andrew Lang, an obscure Estonian folktale collected by Frederich Kreutzwald which Rateliff admits barely resembles Bilbo's ring whatsoever, concluding that a) literature offered few rings of invisibility prior to Tolkien and b) Tolkien was probably most influenced by Plato and Chretien de Troyes. I'm not going to argue the Plato part – Tolkien certainly knew The Republic very well, or the de Troyes part, but all of this ignores a children's book that featured a ring that turned you invisible – and just how inconvenient this could be if you were hungry or hurt -- The Enchanted Castle.
True, I can't be certain that Tolkien knew any of Nesbit's novels. And also, I'd be the first to admit that Nesbit had no influence on The Lord of the Rings. But The Hobbit is a very different sort of work, and in a book of analysis that takes time to mention (and I think misinterpret, but, that's arguable) Anne McCaffery's dragon books; Vita Sackville-West (who might have helped inspire the name of the Sackville-Bagginses – she and Tolkien were both enthusiastic gardeners if they had little else in common, and Tolkien may have read her gardening articles), not to mention the Estonian folktales, this omission seems, how do I put this? Odd.
But this omission aside, if you are a Tolkien enthusiast, invest. It's your sort of book; deeply fascinating and insightful – with a fair warning that you may find yourself wanting to chase down Estonian folktales afterwards. But I can't exactly term that a bad thing.
