Maybe this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure it holds up as a great book for young kids. It's not by any means bad, but it can be very dry. There are a lot of asides in the writing...
Maybe this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure it holds up as a great book for young kids. It's not by any means bad, but it can be very dry. There are a lot of asides in the writing that don't add much, and that haven't aged particularly well. It's arguably longer and slower than it has to be for that reason. The story beats I think are fun, but sometimes there's a lot of cruft between them. I did successfully get through it with my older child, although if I recall I did have to occasionally jump past some exposition and it didn't get a reread request afterwards. My younger one lost interest in it entirely. Which is unfortunate because it's still a pretty unique book and there's a lot to like in there.
I won't cite my own experience, because I don't think it is representative, but I will cite my sister's. She, unlike me and unlike @boxer_dogs_dance, was not an exceptionally precocious kid and...
I won't cite my own experience, because I don't think it is representative, but I will cite my sister's. She, unlike me and unlike @boxer_dogs_dance, was not an exceptionally precocious kid and not naturally inclined to read complex books. Nevertheless, she was rather taken with the hobbit when her mom read it to her (at around age 9, I think). I don't mean by this to generalise, only to question how general your own experience is.
What I do want to generalise, though, is: I think we do children a very great disservice when we presume they cannot contend with complex or difficult things. This is a microcosm of one of the great problems with our education systems, which is a lack of respect for children. If you tell somebody 'I don't think you are fit for such-and-so', then they will naturally think 'I am not fit for such-and-so'. Again, I do not mean to imply some parental failing on your part—of course different things are suitable for different people at different points in their lives (I recently saw a rather gruesome image sent to a friend, and I wish neither of us had seen it—both the image and the sentiment behind it—that was not suitable for anybody)—but I still see a world in which children are by and large expected to, and by and large do engage with similarly difficult and impactful things. I would hope for that world to become a reality.
(I also don't know what to make of your specific criticisms. Dry? The book is dripping with colour and imagination! But that is a separate issue, and de gustibus ...)
I agree with you about respecting the intellect of youths, but I don't think that the original commenter was saying that it was too difficult to comprehend insomuch as it is in a style that is...
I agree with you about respecting the intellect of youths, but I don't think that the original commenter was saying that it was too difficult to comprehend insomuch as it is in a style that is off-putting to the newer generations.
It probably would be if they have access to a smartphone or a streaming service. Just try watching some Kubrick, then old Star Trek movies and then watch some recent stuff. The tempo really picked up.
It probably would be if they have access to a smartphone or a streaming service. Just try watching some Kubrick, then old Star Trek movies and then watch some recent stuff. The tempo really picked up.
I read it as a precocious kid who loved to read. But a lot of the books I read had long sentences and paragraphs. Heidi. Black Beauty, little Women, The once and future King, Treasure Island,...
I read it as a precocious kid who loved to read. But a lot of the books I read had long sentences and paragraphs. Heidi. Black Beauty, little Women, The once and future King, Treasure Island, 20000 leagues Under the Sea. I read them all. But this was pre internet. We had televison on a few channels but boredom was a strong motivator that kids today have easier solutions for.
I really wouldn't blame it on the internet and television. As a pre-internet kid, my relatives introduced me to books like Black Beauty and Little women. I didn't take to any of it. They then...
I really wouldn't blame it on the internet and television. As a pre-internet kid, my relatives introduced me to books like Black Beauty and Little women. I didn't take to any of it. They then looked down on me for not enjoying reading.
But then I found books about aliens, magic and many other things they considered low brow at the library on my own, I enjoyed those. I then read a lot. I really loved reading. I was just not introduced to things I liked. But my relatives still didn't think very highly of that because I wasn't reading the right books.
When I got much older, I then read Black Beauty and enjoyed it. I didn't appreciate it as a kid at all.
I'm not saying you're anything like my relatives or anything. I just mentioned them because they really did try push those books on all of us kids, and some of us took to it and some didn't. It's just preference and doesn't really have anything to do with the internet or boredom.
It's clearly a complex topic. I was definitely reading above grade level, but I also read fast paced fantasy books as a child to the extent that they were available. The Oz series for example....
It's clearly a complex topic. I was definitely reading above grade level, but I also read fast paced fantasy books as a child to the extent that they were available. The Oz series for example. Also, unlike your relatives, my family and extended family primarily gave me access to the books they had around and made sure I visited the library. My mother did give me Little Women because she herself loved it, but by and large I chose my own books from what was available. (Edit, also we didn't have tons of money. Reading primarily from the library meant that many of the books available were at least half a generation older than when I was reading them. Some were very old)
Authors like Johan Hari with Stolen Focus are investigating shortened attention span in adults these days, never mind kids. Tiktok in particular just moves at a much faster pace than anything we had available. Like sugary cereal, some content is just rewarding, stimulating and can interfere with interest in slower paced media.
Sorry if what I wrote seemed confusing. But I had access to the library pretty early too. The adults made sure I visited the library. My family too wasn't well off so we didn't buy many books,...
Also, unlike your relatives, my family and extended family primarily gave me access to the books they had around and made sure I visited the library.
Sorry if what I wrote seemed confusing. But I had access to the library pretty early too. The adults made sure I visited the library. My family too wasn't well off so we didn't buy many books, many of it was borrowed. But what happened was that they would push for books like Black Beauty and Little Women even though I didn't like them. Basically I was a kid in a library with Adults sort of dictating what was acceptable and what wasn't. I just really liked the low brow stuff as a child and they didn't like that. Things took off when I could go to the library on my own and got my own books.
Not enjoying the books had little to do with not being exposed to them. I was exposed to a lot of it. My siblings liked them too, which made it worse because I'd get directly compared. I was just a dumb kid who wanted dumb things.
While I don't doubt that many modern things are affecting the attention span of people, I don't think that it can be the one thing to blame on for kids not taking to some of the more classic books.
Sometimes it's just the personality of the kid. Kids just want dumb things and that's okay.
Thanks I get it. And in responding to OP's first comment about the Hobbit, I didn't mean to imply that every kid wants or is ready for classics. I'm sorry they did that to you. I'm glad you...
Thanks I get it. And in responding to OP's first comment about the Hobbit, I didn't mean to imply that every kid wants or is ready for classics.
I'm sorry they did that to you. I'm glad you managed to discover books you liked and grow at your own pace on your own reading journey. I will never forget being forced to read Crime and Punishment in twelfth grade and hating and resenting every minute of it. I also didn't vibe with a Separate Peace or the Great Gatsby or Lord of the Flies.
I was obsessed with books as a child and I read everything from Tarzan and Dr Dolittle to Marguerite Henry's horse books, to the classics I mentioned.
My grandfather's bookshelves were the source of a lot of the classics, but also the Horatio Hornblower naval fiction and the Silver Chief police dog series and the Godfather lol. I loved it all.
I plan to start with the Narnia series for this reason and if my kids (who are 4) show an interest in fantasy I'll segue into The Hobbit when they're older (9-10+). Narnia's just a lot lighter,...
I plan to start with the Narnia series for this reason and if my kids (who are 4) show an interest in fantasy I'll segue into The Hobbit when they're older (9-10+). Narnia's just a lot lighter, actually features children, and is clearly meant for children
Another cool one that features children is the Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles. It is also a portal fantasy, on the lighter side adventure with many endearing diverse creatures.
Another cool one that features children is the Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles. It is also a portal fantasy, on the lighter side adventure with many endearing diverse creatures.
Did I miss half of the article or did the author never even touch upon the title? There didn't really seem to be any discussion on how it is underappreciated or why it shouldn't be. In fact the...
Did I miss half of the article or did the author never even touch upon the title? There didn't really seem to be any discussion on how it is underappreciated or why it shouldn't be. In fact the only mention of its popularity was to recognize it's one of the best selling books of all time.
Jonny Walfisz 21 September 1937: JRR Tolkien releases ‘The Hobbit’. “Do you remember the 21st night of September?” Earth, Wind & Fire singer-songwriter Maurice White asked on their 1978 single...
Jonny Walfisz
21 September 1937: JRR Tolkien releases ‘The Hobbit’.
“Do you remember the 21st night of September?” Earth, Wind & Fire singer-songwriter Maurice White asked on their 1978 single ‘September’. While White may have been talking about the due date of his wife Marilyn’s due date, it’s a sentiment that could easily be shared by John Ronald Reuel “JRR” Tolkien.
The British author and philologist is best known for his ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, released 1954-1955. But before ‘The Lord of the Rings’ came a short children’s novel that paved the way for his fantasy epic.
(tap/click to know more...)
Bilbo baggins
Released on this day in 1937, ‘The Hobbit’ follows Bilbo Baggins, the titular “Hobbit” – a humanoid creature defined by its short stature, big feet and small-town mentality – as he embarks on an unexpected journey through Middle-earth. With the guidance of a wizard called Gandalf and thirteen dwarves, Bilbo’s adventure takes him to the dragon Smaug in an effort to steal back dwarf treasure.
Immediate popularity
The popularity of ‘The Hobbit’ was so immediate that Tolkien’s publisher Stanley Unwin demanded a sequel. The sequel would become Tolkien’s magnum opus. In the years since its publication, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ has made “Hobbits”, “Gandalf” and “Bilbo Baggins” household names. This was taken to another level of ubiquity with Peter Jackson’s Academy Award-winning trilogy of films released 2001-2003.
Eclipsing the original
While Jackson followed his The Lord of the Rings films with a trilogy of The Hobbit films to incredible financial returns, the critical reception of his second trilogy was far more muted. It’s a general trend that has occurred throughout time that Tolkien’s trilogy eclipses its originator. Tolkien himself even went back to amend details of ‘The Hobbit’ to conform to the new plot of his books for its second print edition.
A landmark piece of children’s literature
So today, let’s focus on what makes ‘The Hobbit’ special. Instead of dismissing the wildly popular book (it’s sold an estimated 100 million copies) as just a childish prequel to the latter epic; ‘The Hobbit’ should instead be seen as a landmark piece of children’s literature that laid the groundwork for one of the densest fantasy worlds ever imagined.
It’s precisely because of its dynamic use of children’s literature that Tolkien could so comfortably explore such a wildly whimsical setting as Middle-earth, only to darken the hue of the plot in future books.
Changing dynamics
When it was released, children’s literature was in an uncomfortable place. The Golden Age of Children’s Literature which saw the release of books like ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’, ‘The Jungle Book’ and ‘Peter Pan’ had ended abruptly with the First World War. A generation of men were traumatised. The damage of the War led to a slower production rate of literature with a new philosophical bent. The post-War ‘Winnie-the-Pooh’ and ‘Mary Poppins’ both dealt with worlds absent of traditional parenting dynamics.
‘The Hobbit’, released in the same interwar era, was entirely different. It had songs, humour, and most importantly… action. While Bilbo may start the story as a classic Hobbit, preferring to stick to the parochial life of the Shire, he is thrust into an action-packed adventure with swords, trolls and dragons.
It’s a moral story
Tolkien adamantly stated that ‘The Lord of the Rings’ “is neither allegorical or topical”. With its depiction of warfare and a magical world in decline matching Tolkien’s fighting experience of the First World War and witnessing of the Second, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. ‘The Hobbit’ is far more free of that label. It’s a moral story that espouses the values of kindness over greed without ever feeling trite.
The Hobbit has endured
Every moment is earned, every joke lands, and every step along the journey is more exciting than the last. It’s no surprise that ‘The Hobbit’ has endured. It’s the sine qua non of children’s fantasy literature.
NB: oddly the title of the article says "84 year later" when its been 86 years. Probably a typo. So I changed it in the title here.
The Hobbit Is Turning 80.Here's What Reviewers Said About It in 1937
By Lily Rothman
(time.com, published 2017)
Sept. 21, 1937 — C.S. Lewis famously called the book a “marvellous” classic-in-the-making, and the New York Times called it “freshly original and delightfully imaginative.”
TIME Magazine, meanwhile, called it…nothing. The book did not receive a review in the magazine’s pages in 1937, nor when the first U.S. edition arrived the following year.
That omission, while an obvious oversight in retrospect, is also a telling detail in the history of J.R.R. Tolkien’s first Middle-earth masterpiece. In fact, it took decades for The Hobbit to make the transition from being a well-reviewed children’s book to a work seen as one part of a classic, culture-shaping narrative.
Maybe this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure it holds up as a great book for young kids. It's not by any means bad, but it can be very dry. There are a lot of asides in the writing that don't add much, and that haven't aged particularly well. It's arguably longer and slower than it has to be for that reason. The story beats I think are fun, but sometimes there's a lot of cruft between them. I did successfully get through it with my older child, although if I recall I did have to occasionally jump past some exposition and it didn't get a reread request afterwards. My younger one lost interest in it entirely. Which is unfortunate because it's still a pretty unique book and there's a lot to like in there.
I won't cite my own experience, because I don't think it is representative, but I will cite my sister's. She, unlike me and unlike @boxer_dogs_dance, was not an exceptionally precocious kid and not naturally inclined to read complex books. Nevertheless, she was rather taken with the hobbit when her mom read it to her (at around age 9, I think). I don't mean by this to generalise, only to question how general your own experience is.
What I do want to generalise, though, is: I think we do children a very great disservice when we presume they cannot contend with complex or difficult things. This is a microcosm of one of the great problems with our education systems, which is a lack of respect for children. If you tell somebody 'I don't think you are fit for such-and-so', then they will naturally think 'I am not fit for such-and-so'. Again, I do not mean to imply some parental failing on your part—of course different things are suitable for different people at different points in their lives (I recently saw a rather gruesome image sent to a friend, and I wish neither of us had seen it—both the image and the sentiment behind it—that was not suitable for anybody)—but I still see a world in which children are by and large expected to, and by and large do engage with similarly difficult and impactful things. I would hope for that world to become a reality.
(I also don't know what to make of your specific criticisms. Dry? The book is dripping with colour and imagination! But that is a separate issue, and de gustibus ...)
I agree with you about respecting the intellect of youths, but I don't think that the original commenter was saying that it was too difficult to comprehend insomuch as it is in a style that is off-putting to the newer generations.
It probably would be if they have access to a smartphone or a streaming service. Just try watching some Kubrick, then old Star Trek movies and then watch some recent stuff. The tempo really picked up.
I read it as a precocious kid who loved to read. But a lot of the books I read had long sentences and paragraphs. Heidi. Black Beauty, little Women, The once and future King, Treasure Island, 20000 leagues Under the Sea. I read them all. But this was pre internet. We had televison on a few channels but boredom was a strong motivator that kids today have easier solutions for.
I really wouldn't blame it on the internet and television. As a pre-internet kid, my relatives introduced me to books like Black Beauty and Little women. I didn't take to any of it. They then looked down on me for not enjoying reading.
But then I found books about aliens, magic and many other things they considered low brow at the library on my own, I enjoyed those. I then read a lot. I really loved reading. I was just not introduced to things I liked. But my relatives still didn't think very highly of that because I wasn't reading the right books.
When I got much older, I then read Black Beauty and enjoyed it. I didn't appreciate it as a kid at all.
I'm not saying you're anything like my relatives or anything. I just mentioned them because they really did try push those books on all of us kids, and some of us took to it and some didn't. It's just preference and doesn't really have anything to do with the internet or boredom.
It's clearly a complex topic. I was definitely reading above grade level, but I also read fast paced fantasy books as a child to the extent that they were available. The Oz series for example. Also, unlike your relatives, my family and extended family primarily gave me access to the books they had around and made sure I visited the library. My mother did give me Little Women because she herself loved it, but by and large I chose my own books from what was available. (Edit, also we didn't have tons of money. Reading primarily from the library meant that many of the books available were at least half a generation older than when I was reading them. Some were very old)
Authors like Johan Hari with Stolen Focus are investigating shortened attention span in adults these days, never mind kids. Tiktok in particular just moves at a much faster pace than anything we had available. Like sugary cereal, some content is just rewarding, stimulating and can interfere with interest in slower paced media.
Sorry if what I wrote seemed confusing. But I had access to the library pretty early too. The adults made sure I visited the library. My family too wasn't well off so we didn't buy many books, many of it was borrowed. But what happened was that they would push for books like Black Beauty and Little Women even though I didn't like them. Basically I was a kid in a library with Adults sort of dictating what was acceptable and what wasn't. I just really liked the low brow stuff as a child and they didn't like that. Things took off when I could go to the library on my own and got my own books.
Not enjoying the books had little to do with not being exposed to them. I was exposed to a lot of it. My siblings liked them too, which made it worse because I'd get directly compared. I was just a dumb kid who wanted dumb things.
While I don't doubt that many modern things are affecting the attention span of people, I don't think that it can be the one thing to blame on for kids not taking to some of the more classic books.
Sometimes it's just the personality of the kid. Kids just want dumb things and that's okay.
Thanks I get it. And in responding to OP's first comment about the Hobbit, I didn't mean to imply that every kid wants or is ready for classics.
I'm sorry they did that to you. I'm glad you managed to discover books you liked and grow at your own pace on your own reading journey. I will never forget being forced to read Crime and Punishment in twelfth grade and hating and resenting every minute of it. I also didn't vibe with a Separate Peace or the Great Gatsby or Lord of the Flies.
I was obsessed with books as a child and I read everything from Tarzan and Dr Dolittle to Marguerite Henry's horse books, to the classics I mentioned.
My grandfather's bookshelves were the source of a lot of the classics, but also the Horatio Hornblower naval fiction and the Silver Chief police dog series and the Godfather lol. I loved it all.
I plan to start with the Narnia series for this reason and if my kids (who are 4) show an interest in fantasy I'll segue into The Hobbit when they're older (9-10+). Narnia's just a lot lighter, actually features children, and is clearly meant for children
Another cool one that features children is the Last of the Really Great Whangdoodles. It is also a portal fantasy, on the lighter side adventure with many endearing diverse creatures.
It's not really written for young kids though right ? (Even though it's a lot shorter than LoTR)
Did I miss half of the article or did the author never even touch upon the title? There didn't really seem to be any discussion on how it is underappreciated or why it shouldn't be. In fact the only mention of its popularity was to recognize it's one of the best selling books of all time.
What was the point of this article?
Jonny Walfisz
21 September 1937: JRR Tolkien releases ‘The Hobbit’.
“Do you remember the 21st night of September?” Earth, Wind & Fire singer-songwriter Maurice White asked on their 1978 single ‘September’. While White may have been talking about the due date of his wife Marilyn’s due date, it’s a sentiment that could easily be shared by John Ronald Reuel “JRR” Tolkien.
The British author and philologist is best known for his ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, released 1954-1955. But before ‘The Lord of the Rings’ came a short children’s novel that paved the way for his fantasy epic.
(tap/click to know more...)
Bilbo baggins
Immediate popularity
Eclipsing the original
A landmark piece of children’s literature
Changing dynamics
It’s a moral story
The Hobbit has endured
NB: oddly the title of the article says "84 year later" when its been 86 years. Probably a typo. So I changed it in the title here.
The Hobbit Is Turning 80. Here's What Reviewers Said About It in 1937
By Lily Rothman
(time.com, published 2017)
"Have you stopped taking bribes yet?" kind of loaded premise.
It's simply not underappreciated, and there was plenty of time to prove otherwise.