The hobbit-hole in question belongs to one Bilbo Baggins, an upstanding member of a "little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded dwarves." He is, like most of his kind, well off, well fed, and best pleased when sitting by his own fire with a pipe, a glass of good beer, and a meal to look forward to. Certainly this particular hobbit is the last person one would expect to see set off on a hazardous journey; indeed, when Gandalf the Grey stops by one morning, "looking for someone to share in an adventure," Baggins fervently wishes the wizard elsewhere. No such luck, however; soon 13 fortune-seeking dwarves have arrived on the hobbit's doorstep in search of a burglar, and before he can even grab his hat or an umbrella, Bilbo Baggins is swept out his door and into a dangerous adventure.

The dwarves' goal is to return to their ancestral home in the Lonely Mountains and reclaim a stolen fortune from the dragon Smaug. Along the way, they and their reluctant companion meet giant spiders, hostile elves, ravening wolves--and, most perilous of all, a subterranean creature named Gollum from whom Bilbo wins a magical ring in a riddling contest. It is from this life-or-death game in the dark that J.R.R. Tolkien's masterwork, The Lord of the Rings, would eventually spring. Though The Hobbit is lighter in tone than the trilogy that follows, it has, like Bilbo Baggins himself, unexpected iron at its core. Don't be fooled by its fairy-tale demeanor; this is very much a story for adults, though older children will enjoy it, too. By the time Bilbo returns to his comfortable hobbit-hole, he is a different person altogether, well primed for the bigger adventures to come--and so is the reader. --Alix Wilber

Product Description
THE GREATEST FANTASY EPIC OF OUR TIME

Bilbo Baggins was a hobbit who wanted to be left alone in quiet comfort. But the wizard Gandalf came along with a band of homeless dwarves. Soon Bilbo was drawn into their quest, facing evil orcs, savage wolves, giant spiders, and worse unknown dangers. Finally, it was Bilbo–alone and unaided–who had to confront the great dragon Smaug, the terror of an entire countryside . . .

This stirring adventure fantasy begins the tale of the hobbits that was continued by J.R.R. Tolkien in his bestselling epic The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings ( a single epic, NOT a trilogy) was written to cash in on The Hobbit's success. Tolkien wanted to get on with the more serious work of his mythology, and ultimately that is what happened with The Lord of the Rings. It became attached to his mythology, and became as important to him as The Silmarillion.

So delineation is required if you want to read this. Do not go in with the thought that The Hobbit is a "precursor" or any such nonsense to The Lord of the Rings. Think of it like you would think of any other children's classics: children's classics. If you take it on The L. R.'s terms, this is a failure, primary because it is not written to be like that. But, on the flipside, The L. R. is as much a failure in children's fiction. It is not children's fiction, it is epic fantasy, and one should not equate it with children's fiction. That is EXACTLY what people try to do with The Hobbit. They try to put it in the same type of genre or playing field as The L. R. They are both masterpieces, and I love them both dearly. But one is for children, the other with adults.

Of course, Tolkien is part of the problem. How many books do you know that is a children's book and has an adult sequel? Not very many. The Hobbit, scarcely 300 pages, was written and published in the children's market. He then talked to his publishers, and they wanted a sequel. So he began "the new Hobbit", as C. S. (Jack) Lewis so aptly put it. He was preoccupied with his mythology, and the sequel was drawn into it. So we have two works, spanning two different genres, and as far as surface connections go its little more than prequel/sequel. Instead of looking at The Hobbit as a prequel, a precursor to his ADULT masterpiece, an inferiour version, think of as his CHILDREN'S masterpiece. The Hobbit is top of the class in children's fiction, one of the few contenders against such other great children's works as Narnia and Wrinkle in Time. The Lord of the Rings, likewise, is THE crowning masterpiece of the fantasy genre, of which its influence is incalculable to that fantasy market. Both are as important as the other, just in different fields.

I haven't talked about The Silmarillion much. I have already reviewed it, so I won't go real in-depth here. But the same thing happened with it. People, expecting another Lord of the Rings, were inevitably disappointed with the Biblical style of the published version. If Tolkien wrote that book out in narrative form as he did Lord of the Rings, it would be ten times longer than Lord of the Rings. The biggest problem with Tolkien is people have to many preconceptions that are incorrect.

So, basically, in conclusion, think of it like this:

1. The Hobbit - Children's masterpiece. He scores big with this one.

2. The Lord of the Rings - a single fantasy, not a trilogy. (Tolkien was always quick to point that out). The Crowning achievement of modern fantasy.

3. The Silmarillion - the Bible of Middle-earth. Much more for students of his work than the causal reader.


Hear me out...   December 17, 2001
 291 out of 552 found this review helpful

Okay, I know I'm setting myself up for a lot of flack by giving "The Hobbit" only three stars, but I don't think these reviews are worth much unless you're willing to be perfectly honest about your opinions...even if those opinions happen to be different than those of everyone else on the planet, or in the solar system. So here goes.

I'm twenty-eight, and I've been a huge fan of horror and sci-fi books and movies since I was about 12. I haven't read much in the way of fantasy fiction, however, even though it's such a closely related sibling to the two genres I love so dearly. As a kid, I loved the Narnia books, and I recently enjoyed the Harry Potter series quite a bit. So with the new movies based on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy coming out, I decided it was time to dig into these pillars of the fantasy genre.

I decided to start with "The Hobbit," since I'm the kind of person who always reads forewords and afterwards. I had heard so many people talk about it over the years, that I felt like I had already inhaled most of the characters and plot points like second hand smoke.

Okay, let me start with some of what I liked: I think "The Hobbit" is an original, often charming and fun-to-read story with some great thematic floorboards holding it all up. I like that Bilbo Baggins has some roguish family blood in his veins causing him to crave adventure in a most unhobbit-like manner. It is inspiring that Bilbo is unafraid to follow his own path. His actions and his unbending courage to be himself make him a role model for anyone. In addition to Bilbo, most of the other hobbits, dwarves, and elves that inhabit this book are also quite likable.

It's generally a fun quest story that appeals to the imaginations of all ages. There's a dragon guarding some stolen treasure, and a series of fortunes and misfortunes along the way that keep the reader vested in the group's concerns.

But there were also a couple of major shortcomings to "The Hobbit" that, in my view, kept it from being a great book. Now here's the part where my opinion will probably veer off from most anyone else's. But like Bilbo, I feel compelled to be my own self.

I felt that the style of the narration was overly intrusive; it made me feel less than involved in the story most of the time. I've read the complaints that "The Hobbit" reads too much like a kids' book. I didn't feel that exactly, but rather, that the point of view was just too off-putting. There's an omniscient narrator who sweeps in on invisible wings from time to time, taking you away from characters and events you've invested large chunks of pages following.

Also, despite a pretty decent set up and first half, I felt that the book's ending just wasn't very well constructed. The writing isn't actually bad, but the dramatic momentum is often lacking. With less than a hundred pages left to go, a huge inter-race war breaks out, taking you away from the story you've spent most of the book following. When you finally get back to the end of the original quest, the role of hero and dragonslayer is unceremoniously taken from Bilbo by a character that we hardly know.

I just felt that there was way too much narrative gear-shifting throughout this book. It felt like I was taking a ride with someone who's just learning to drive a stick.

I don't mean to offend anyone with this review. I just felt it was best to be honest. I know lots of people who love this book, people whose opinions I greatly respect. I'll just have to live with a differing opinion on this. In my view, "The Hobbit" is a pretty good story with some major structural flaws that detract from the pleasure of reading it.

If you grew up with "The Hobbit" as I did with "Star Wars" or the stories of Ray Bradbury, you probably have the urge at this moment to poke my eye out with a key or to do something equally terrible. So I'd like to extend a peace offering of some kind. I don't think "The Hobbit" is a bad book, and I think if I had first read it as a young kid, I might have loved it. The same way that if I hadn't seen "Star Wars" until I was an adult, I might have only criticized its bad acting and been blind to the bottomless ocean of magic that swells hypnotically under its surface.


Inferiour to L.R.? I think not! No, just different!   April 7, 2000
 254 out of 258 found this review helpful

The biggest problem with this novel is perception. Tolkien wrote this story for children; to be more specific, this was written for HIS children. There were several stories like this, but it was this, The Hobbit, that was his master achievement in children's literature.

The Lord of the Rings ( a single epic, NOT a trilogy) was written to cash in on The Hobbit's success. Tolkien wanted to get on with the more serious work of his mythology, and ultimately that is what happened with The Lord of the Rings. It became attached to his mythology, and became as important to him as The Silmarillion.

So delineation is required if you want to read this. Do not go in with the thought that The Hobbit is a "precursor" or any such nonsense to The Lord of the Rings. Think of it like you would think of any other children's classics: children's classics. If you take it on The L. R.'s terms, this is a failure, primary because it is not written to be like that. But, on the flipside, The L. R. is as much a failure in children's fiction. It is not children's fiction, it is epic fantasy, and one should not equate it with children's fiction. That is EXACTLY what people try to do with The Hobbit. They try to put it in the same type of genre or playing field as The L. R. They are both masterpieces, and I love them both dearly. But one is for children, the other with adults.

Of course, Tolkien is part of the problem. How many books do you know that is a children's book and has an adult sequel? Not very many. The Hobbit, scarcely 300 pages, was written and published in the children's market. He then talked to his publishers, and they wanted a sequel. So he began "the new Hobbit", as C. S. (Jack) Lewis so aptly put it. He was preoccupied with his mythology, and the sequel was drawn into it. So we have two works, spanning two different genres, and as far as surface connections go its little more than prequel/sequel. Instead of looking at The Hobbit as a prequel, a precursor to his ADULT masterpiece, an inferiour version, think of as his CHILDREN'S masterpiece. The Hobbit is top of the class in children's fiction, one of the few contenders against such other great children's works as Narnia and Wrinkle in Time. The Lord of the Rings, likewise, is THE crowning masterpiece of the fantasy genre, of which its influence is incalculable to that fantasy market. Both are as important as the other, just in different fields.

I haven't talked about The Silmarillion much. I have already reviewed it, so I won't go real in-depth here. But the same thing happened with it. People, expecting another Lord of the Rings, were inevitably disappointed with the Biblical style of the published version. If Tolkien wrote that book out in narrative form as he did Lord of the Rings, it would be ten times longer than Lord of the Rings. The biggest problem with Tolkien is people have to many preconceptions that are incorrect.

So, basically, in conclusion, think of it like this:

1. The Hobbit - Children's masterpiece. He scores big with this one.

2. The Lord of the Rings - a single fantasy, not a trilogy. (Tolkien was always quick to point that out). The Crowning achievement of modern fantasy.

3. The Silmarillion - the Bible of Middle-earth. Much more for students of his work than the causal reader.


The best book ever written published in a beautiful format   October 25, 1996
 61 out of 80 found this review helpful

Tolkien's Hobbit takes the imagination on a wonderful flightof fantasy. I read this book on a yearly basis and each year I am delighted and captivated by the world of Bilbo Baggins. Bilbo is a reluctant member of an adventure that will forever change his life and the lives of those around him. He accompanies 13 dwarves on a mission to reclaim the gold and mountain kingdom of their ancestors from the dragon, Smaug. They have many adventures and mishaps on their journey to the lonely mountain including the climactic battle of five armies. Bilbo finds a magic ring along the way which leads, not only to a rise in his stature, but also to a new adventure for his friends in "The Lord of the Rings." Tolkien is a master storyteller and the depth of his skill is best seen in this tale. In the following trilogy, "The Lord of the Rings" the story is continued, but the sheer delight of "The Hobbit" is never fully recaptured. This collector's edition is beautifully bound. Even more enjoyable are the illustrations and paintings by the author himself.


Not enough can be said   July 6, 2001
 53 out of 65 found this review helpful

How could I possibly fit every glorious thing there is about this series of books into 1000 words? Tolkien is a genius and there is no way to deny that. He has managed to create an entirely different world, every tree, every creature, every nuance of language, every folktale; everything is on these pages that might possibly exist in middle earth. That I believe is Tolkien's true genius, his ability to construct this world in his head and to let us visit it, completely and fully for four glorious books. However, maybe that is not the extent of his genius. Maybe not because Tolkien also tells a ripping good tale throughout these novels. The prelude with Bilbo being swept up by a band of dwarves and being sent against his will to battle a dragon takes about a night to read, despite the fact that it covers over 300 pages. And then you start the true trilogy, and the ring that Bilbo finds which seemed like a neat little trick in The Hobbit (it grants the wearer the benefit of invisibility) this ring is suddenly so much more than a very handy parlor trick. It is THE ring; crafted ages ago in elven halls with unspeakable power and unfightable draw. Men kill for it, dwarves kill for it, everyone would kill for it and suddenly you are swept off on another adventure with another unsuspecting hobbit that covers all of middle earth and includes the fate of the world...all over this little unassuming ring that must be destroyed. The journey you take in these books will not easily be forgotten, here I am getting chills thinking about the epic battles between good and evil that spring up like weeds around the path of this little ring and Frodo, the hobbit who is charged with destroying it. These books are just wonderous, I cannot say that enough.