Totally agree, Martha. I always ask my students: what is this book? And the answer must be that it is itself, a singular achievement, which partakes of multiple modes and genres. And I know that “ever onward” feeling. I have a bumper sticker on my car that says “Finifugal.”
Finifugal! I had to look that up: "the quality or state of actively hating or prolonging something’s end (typically of a story)" — from the Collins dictionary ("shunning the end of the something" is another variation). I better slow down my reading :-)
I love Tolkien's prose styles. He ranges from high to low and back again with such ease that it can be hard to notice just how difficult it is until you see someone else trying it and failing. And you're right, too, in the fact that so many fantasy authors have tried to mimic LotR, but miss on some fundamental level because they haven't picked up on the changes in tone. I feel like that's changing now, as a lot of the fantasy genre has angled away from the European-based epics, but for the ones that are still reaching for that sense of Tolkien, they're largely missing it. Sometimes that's okay, but sometimes it makes for a deadly dull book that has the same (usually very serious) tone all the way through.
When I was younger, I'd race through the first few chapters because I didn't find The Shire very interesting. Not that I'm a little older, I appreciate how these chapters help ground us in this sub-creation, and give us a sort of 'home' to want to return safely to. Without them, I think it would be harder to care so much about the rest of the lands. Hobbiton is a familiar place where you really care about birthday party plans and what derpy thing the mayor is up to. It feels like home, whereas Gondor and Lothlorien are beautiful and amazing, but it's hard to feel like I'd want to live there for the rest of my life.
John, I'm already reading "The Fellowship of the Ring" too fast (I'm into Book Two), but because this isn't my first time around, I'm noting new things — especially some of what you're highlighting. You write that "it seems more like a travel guide to a nonexistent place, or a sort of pre-social-science anthropological description of an imaginary society, complete with footnotes, citations, and references to “authorities” — yes! And I love it for all this, just as I love Nabokov's *Pale Fire*, another kind of faux history with unreliable narrators and footnotes.
Tolkien is a master prose stylist, no question. In fact, reading this for the third time, knowing the outcome as I do, I feel as if I want to go "ever onward" down the narrative road — and that surprises me in itself. It strikes me more than ever that Tolkien combines various narrative and expository modes not unlike narrative journalists or nonfiction social historians: the deep layers of history, the vaguely recalled past in its many versions, the acknowledgment that details get lost over time, the various (and competing) versions of what happened. In this case, the history and cultures are fictional, but they're brought to life in a way I find convincing and particular, rather than simply allegorical (as Tolkein carps in his Foreward). World building, yes — but it's much more than that. The quality of the words, as in the songs that conjure the world into being, bring the story to life.
I do find those chapters calming to a certain degree, but there’s also a simmering thread of tension that underlies all of it, from the scary Riders to the unbearable fear of being watched by a powerful and secret force, and the sorrow of leaving home. I also find the goofy pastoral environment to also have an added abrasiveness that only a small rural community produces. So it’s like, yeah but also. And it’s also such a page-turner withal!
This is great! I particularly enjoyed how you picked apart the method Tolkien uses to inject a much more mythic layer into the quaintness of Hobbiton. I’d never really thought about the different genres he employs. Reminiscent a bit of Moby Dick, which is natural and social history grafted onto a whaling tale, plus allegory.
These early chapters are indispensable, and some of my favorites. By Volume III, I’m always longing for them, just as Sam and Frodo long for Hobbiton.
Moby Dick is a great analogy. It's not just a novel; it's many things at once. According to Bakhtin, that inclusiveness of various modes of discourse is what makes the novel singular among literary modes.
"probably not one reader in a hundred will catch it"
I certainly didn't, but I didn't even know about the original version of Gollum. My first exposure to THE HOBBIT was the Rankin-Bass cartoon from the 70s.
I actually saw that in the theater in the 70s as a child. I have little memory of it, and I had no idea what I was watching. I haven’t revisited, but perhaps I will for a “cheese tasting.”
I enjoyed this analysis, John. The differences in prose style lead to widely different opinions, as you stated. My husband is one of those who can't stand the beginning and will skip from the first two chapters to Bree. He's never finished the whole Old Forest adventure...
I have always been a reader, but never read any fantasy because I thought I would not enjoy that genre. Too infantile, or so I thought. I decided to pick up The Fellowship of the Ring from the library (it did not even warrant a purchase from me) just to see what all the fuss was about. After reading the first few chapters, I thought, WOW, this is something else! Then the more I read, the more intrigued I became. It turned serious and dark and hopeful and heroic. Needless to say, before I had finished the first book, I returned to the library and obtained the next two books. My love of Tolkien was born, and, of course, I started buying my Tolkien library. Now that am reading the series again (I think for the 3rd or 4th time), I still love these beginning chapters to set the stage for what I know is coming. Also, I read the series first when I was in my 30’s, I am in my 70’s now, so my experience with the book stays the same in some aspects, but in other aspects because I am more mature the story and writing is more mature as well.
I completely agree. A beginning that catapulted us into the narrative simply not work. I’ve always been a bit annoyed that the film so drastically speeds things up at the beginning, though I understand why that was necessary.
Totally agree, Martha. I always ask my students: what is this book? And the answer must be that it is itself, a singular achievement, which partakes of multiple modes and genres. And I know that “ever onward” feeling. I have a bumper sticker on my car that says “Finifugal.”
Finifugal! I had to look that up: "the quality or state of actively hating or prolonging something’s end (typically of a story)" — from the Collins dictionary ("shunning the end of the something" is another variation). I better slow down my reading :-)
I love Tolkien's prose styles. He ranges from high to low and back again with such ease that it can be hard to notice just how difficult it is until you see someone else trying it and failing. And you're right, too, in the fact that so many fantasy authors have tried to mimic LotR, but miss on some fundamental level because they haven't picked up on the changes in tone. I feel like that's changing now, as a lot of the fantasy genre has angled away from the European-based epics, but for the ones that are still reaching for that sense of Tolkien, they're largely missing it. Sometimes that's okay, but sometimes it makes for a deadly dull book that has the same (usually very serious) tone all the way through.
When I was younger, I'd race through the first few chapters because I didn't find The Shire very interesting. Not that I'm a little older, I appreciate how these chapters help ground us in this sub-creation, and give us a sort of 'home' to want to return safely to. Without them, I think it would be harder to care so much about the rest of the lands. Hobbiton is a familiar place where you really care about birthday party plans and what derpy thing the mayor is up to. It feels like home, whereas Gondor and Lothlorien are beautiful and amazing, but it's hard to feel like I'd want to live there for the rest of my life.
Yes, it’s all about comfort. From the first pages of The Hobbit, we are told that a hobbit hole “means comfort.”
John, I'm already reading "The Fellowship of the Ring" too fast (I'm into Book Two), but because this isn't my first time around, I'm noting new things — especially some of what you're highlighting. You write that "it seems more like a travel guide to a nonexistent place, or a sort of pre-social-science anthropological description of an imaginary society, complete with footnotes, citations, and references to “authorities” — yes! And I love it for all this, just as I love Nabokov's *Pale Fire*, another kind of faux history with unreliable narrators and footnotes.
Tolkien is a master prose stylist, no question. In fact, reading this for the third time, knowing the outcome as I do, I feel as if I want to go "ever onward" down the narrative road — and that surprises me in itself. It strikes me more than ever that Tolkien combines various narrative and expository modes not unlike narrative journalists or nonfiction social historians: the deep layers of history, the vaguely recalled past in its many versions, the acknowledgment that details get lost over time, the various (and competing) versions of what happened. In this case, the history and cultures are fictional, but they're brought to life in a way I find convincing and particular, rather than simply allegorical (as Tolkein carps in his Foreward). World building, yes — but it's much more than that. The quality of the words, as in the songs that conjure the world into being, bring the story to life.
Never heard the word 'idiolect' before. It seems even a fine prose stylist has personal tells.
https://www.pbs.org/video/how-language-nerds-solve-crimes-n34x31/
I do find those chapters calming to a certain degree, but there’s also a simmering thread of tension that underlies all of it, from the scary Riders to the unbearable fear of being watched by a powerful and secret force, and the sorrow of leaving home. I also find the goofy pastoral environment to also have an added abrasiveness that only a small rural community produces. So it’s like, yeah but also. And it’s also such a page-turner withal!
All true, and yes, that small-community snark is something that a lot of readers miss. Hobbits can be petty!
I agree …. undeniable tension brewing
This is great! I particularly enjoyed how you picked apart the method Tolkien uses to inject a much more mythic layer into the quaintness of Hobbiton. I’d never really thought about the different genres he employs. Reminiscent a bit of Moby Dick, which is natural and social history grafted onto a whaling tale, plus allegory.
These early chapters are indispensable, and some of my favorites. By Volume III, I’m always longing for them, just as Sam and Frodo long for Hobbiton.
Moby Dick is a great analogy. It's not just a novel; it's many things at once. According to Bakhtin, that inclusiveness of various modes of discourse is what makes the novel singular among literary modes.
Are the Sackville-Bagginses carpetbaggers?
More like rapacious distant cousins?
"probably not one reader in a hundred will catch it"
I certainly didn't, but I didn't even know about the original version of Gollum. My first exposure to THE HOBBIT was the Rankin-Bass cartoon from the 70s.
And the so-bad-it’s-good half rotoscoped LoTR of the ‘70s? That thing is pure gold cheese.
Ah, Ralph Bakshi. Never saw any of his stuff until college.
I actually saw that in the theater in the 70s as a child. I have little memory of it, and I had no idea what I was watching. I haven’t revisited, but perhaps I will for a “cheese tasting.”
One of the things I appreciated about it was that Aragorn looked like a broken-nosed thug.
https://www.facebook.com/RalphBakshi/photos/aragorn-at-the-council-httpbitlylotr_cels_bakshi/1628773457257628/
Hilarious!
Bakshi! That’s the name!
Each to their own! He takes a shortcut, avoiding the mushrooms.
I enjoyed this analysis, John. The differences in prose style lead to widely different opinions, as you stated. My husband is one of those who can't stand the beginning and will skip from the first two chapters to Bree. He's never finished the whole Old Forest adventure...
I have always been a reader, but never read any fantasy because I thought I would not enjoy that genre. Too infantile, or so I thought. I decided to pick up The Fellowship of the Ring from the library (it did not even warrant a purchase from me) just to see what all the fuss was about. After reading the first few chapters, I thought, WOW, this is something else! Then the more I read, the more intrigued I became. It turned serious and dark and hopeful and heroic. Needless to say, before I had finished the first book, I returned to the library and obtained the next two books. My love of Tolkien was born, and, of course, I started buying my Tolkien library. Now that am reading the series again (I think for the 3rd or 4th time), I still love these beginning chapters to set the stage for what I know is coming. Also, I read the series first when I was in my 30’s, I am in my 70’s now, so my experience with the book stays the same in some aspects, but in other aspects because I am more mature the story and writing is more mature as well.
I completely agree. A beginning that catapulted us into the narrative simply not work. I’ve always been a bit annoyed that the film so drastically speeds things up at the beginning, though I understand why that was necessary.