▲ 223 points
back
123 comments
It has a real “where the wild things are” feel…which is the art used to decorate my local library.
A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother—-including Peter Jackson—-and have missed out on the absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing.
The Hobbit does a wonderful job of introducing the ideas and characters of LotR in a way which is accessible for children and I think the art presented here is a valid artistic take on a children’s book about a dragon.
"absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing"
There is the bed-jumping scene, so there is childishness in the movies too. (I also hated that scene; I started to root for Sauron when I saw that scene.)
Apropos rooting for Sauron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
> A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother
Do you refer to the LOTR trilogy as The Hobbit's older brother here? I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?
> I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?
Yes: But the Hobbit is much shorter and is a much easier read. It also was edited after LOTR was published to fix some minor plot holes.
WRT the movies: Peter Jackson added a lot to the "Hobbit" trilogy that wasn't in the book, such as the whole story arc about Gandalf when he wasn't with the dwarves, or the other wizards. The book isn't the epic that the movie makes it out to be.
Obviously true, but LOTR is also obviously more mature than The Hobbit, which I think was OP's point.
It’s as valid as any art. But as an illustrated book, it’s lacking.
If I had read this version as a kid, I’d be extremely confused as to why Gollum was 20 feet tall and wearing a flower crown. And then I’d be mad and consider it a bad illustration. (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”)
If there’s a character in a book who is known for wearing a red shirt, you might think it’s interesting to subvert expectations and give him a green shirt. But when the picture with the green shirt appears next to text describing a red shirt, it fails as an illustration. Especially in a book meant for children.
I... actually really liked these. And yes, sure, they aren't completely obedient to Tolkien's descriptions of the characters, but the atmosphere feels right.
But then again, I grew up with the Moomins.
It feels like a Nordic interpretation of a folk tale shared across Europe, meaning it has small differences and a local flavor. Which seems very appropriate for what Tolkien was trying to do in the first place.
I acquired a taste for Moomins rather late in life due to a chance encounter with Mika Pohjola who was performing Moominröster.
Collected the newspaper strips and some novels.
It was all very incongruous and absurd… but then so are salt licorice, pickled herring, and many other Scandinavian things that aren’t to everyone’s taste.
I found the Tolkien Calendar edition which used Jansson’s art. I find it adorable. No one else does.
Moomins don't depict anything like saving the world, it's a whimsical universe dealing with whimsical non-issues.
I can see why Tolkien lovers are upset at these even though I'm not really one of them.
I'm a fan of Tolkien's art and have a couple of prints on my wall, The Hill and The Tree of Amalion. They have been up for years now and I haven't gotten a bit tired of them. They convey Tolkien's voice to me almost as effectively as his books. He didn't need an illustrator.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/jrr-tolkiens-estat...
https://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/2/20/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_Th...
Those are wonderful! It's really interesting to see Jansson's take on the characters and settings. When I read _The Hobbit_ in the early 1970s, there was already a well established tradition of how to portray Tolkien's world. Jansson's seems very fresh to me.
Also of interest, and probably just as upsetting to some, is Gene Deitch's version of _The Hobbit_ which was made in the mid 1960s in an attempt to retain the movie rights. Made in 30 days!
The Hobbit is today usually viewed through the lens of The Lord of the Rings, and The Lord of the Rings is viewed with the baggage of 70 years of post-Tolkien epic fantasy culture.
Being deeply embedded in that culture myself, I must admit that these illustrations don’t appeal to me at all, and don’t match my mental imagery of the story. But I can see how they might have looked like a perfect fit to someone who read The Hobbit with a fresh eye when it was still fresh. I wish I could have read it like that.
lolz. I am so glad you told me why it was made. Otherwise it would be completely unforgivable.
Ugh. That video should have come with a flashing [INFORMATIONAL HAZARD] warning sign.
Tolkien fans, beware. This may ruin your day.
I'd have to see more to have a final thought.
As presented, Gollum is badly off, I reckon - missing the books textual description. The flowers are out of line.
The dragon scene is wonderful and captures the situation.
The dwarves are a bit dopy looking but I think could cohere with the early introduction in the Hobbit.
> As presented, Gollum is badly off, I reckon - missing the books textual description. The flowers are out of line.
This is addressed in the article. "Paul Gravett writes in his new book about Tove Jansson: ‘Her Gollum towered monstrously large, to the surprise of Tolkien himself, who realized that he had never clarified Gollum’s size and so amended the second edition to describe him as ‘a small, slimy creature’."
We have Jansson to thank for the clarification, it seems!
Funny that the first Swedish translation, from 1947, also had an illustration of a huge Gollum, and Tolkien already commented on that long before Tove Jansson's did her version.
> The translation of the name 'Hobbit' to 'Hompe' was not the only thing that annoyed Tolkien about this edition. Already in 1948, he wrote to Rosemary, a young fan, that "the picture of Gollum in the Swedish edition of The Hobbit makes him look huge."
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Hompen
Overall seems like a weird edition.
These are lovely. I knew about the Moomins of course but I didn't know about the other stuff she did, some of which I really like. I wish the website had more of the illustrations but I guess there might be copyright issues.
I'd be particularly interested in seeing more of her illustrations for Alice in Wonderland and The Hunting of the Snark (the latter is a great poem if you haven't read it: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29888/29888-h/29888-h.htm)
Does anyone here not know that ‘twas brillig, when the slithey toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe?
The dragon is just great. These are so charming.
I've been thinking about that illustration of Smaug for nearly 40 years and I never knew where it came from (I didn't recall it was from a Tolkien-related thing, but I remember it vividly otherwise)! I must have seen it at a friend's or the library since as far as I know we never had these at home.
I believe Tove Jansson also painted the color cover for the first authorized American edition of Fellowship of the Ring (1965). In _Letters_ one can read Tolkien’s reaction. He was quite taken aback, calling out the Emus (!) in the foreground. As if “ the illustrator hadn’t read my book.”
The 1973 Ballantine editions carried only Tolkien’s own paintings on the covers and slipcase.
I only learned of her involvement after becoming a huge Jansson fan. I had to take another look at the Emu.
It seems those were drawn by Barbara Remington [1] who didn't have time to read the books before making her illustrations. Apparently, the Lord of the Rings was in public domain in the US for a short while, so the publisher (and Tolkien) had to rush for a new 'authorized' version.
[1]: https://arrgle.com/emus-and-piracy-the-story-behind-the-lord...
I'm vaguely aware of what the Moomin are, yet I really like these drawings. Ok, unsure about Gollum, but the dwarves and the dragon rock.
I love these illustrations! It’s always hard for me not to automatically conjure pictures from the Ralph Bakshi animated film when I think about The Hobbit, these give me another very cool perspective.
As someone who loved the Moomintroll illustrations I find this both familiar and hilarious. I suppose I might have a different opinion if I'd actually read any of Tolkien's works.
> "She even made some of the characters especially tiny to elevate the landscapes." wish there were more examples of this in the images shown in the article.
The article seems to be more of a review of the new book than any attempt to actually discuss the topic.
Jansson’s illustrations were reused in one of the annual Tolkien calendars. I kept it on my wall for years, changing the month every so often. So… 13 illustrations reprinted
Here are some book covers:
https://www.amazon.com/Hobitti-eli-Sinne-ja-takaisin/dp/9510... https://www.amazon.com/Hobbitten-Eller-Ud-hjem-igen/dp/87023...
My favorite art for The Hobbit is from the version released in the USSR.
https://www.openculture.com/2014/03/discover-soviet-era-illu...
We're these only used in Sweden? I know I've seen some of them before, but I'm not sure if it's from decades on the internet or my school having a specific thirty year old edition of The Hobbit.
I seem to recall thinking Gollum was big, but honestly could be remembering the Shelov scene. It was long time ago.
This gets posted every few months, so you probably got it from the internet
I read Finnish version of Hobbit that had Tove's art about 40 years ago.
This was my first literary experience, my mother read it to me when I was three years old. Seeing Janssons rendering of Smaug made me remember it was this version she read for me.
Well ... it looks more like a midget-man than a hobbit. But what exactly is a hobbit? In the movie "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" from 2001, the hobbits shown pissed me off. When they started to jump on the bed, I started to root for Sauron. It got much better in the movie "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" from 2012 but even then they look mostly just like midget humans, with a bit of an elfish touch (and I hated the elves in the movie from 2001; the depiction was just lame). The only hobbit-like entity I liked was Gollum.
So how does a hobbit really look like? "Tolkien presented hobbits as a variety of humanity, or close relatives thereof".
So based on this, while Tove's pictures look more like a parody, I don't really see it as intrinsically wrong. It's just less of a "standard" depiction - Tolkien could have assumed hobbits to be anything but midget-humans, but they are mostly midgets with stronger feet.
I'm always of two minds about this kind of stuff.
First of, the illustrations are great. I love them.
Separate though, if they don't represent the original material then why not just make some new IP instead if effectively taking a piss on someone else's?
The "original material" was modified significantly - Tove's illustration of Gollum, e.g., was not inconsistent with the 1937 edition she was working from, before Tolkien rewrote the scene to bring it more in-line with the version of the character from the Lord of the Rings in the second edition.
They do represent the original material, as interpreted by the illustrator. And Tove was hardly pissing on anything - she was commissioned to illustrate a version of the book by the publisher.
I don't think it's pissing on the source material, it's adapting it.
Alastair Reynolds once expressed this sentiment in a nice way:
I didn’t want to be slavishly bound by the earlier story. So I made the decision that House of Suns would take its cue from the events and characters in the shorter piece, but it wouldn’t be afraid to contradict them if that made for a better story.
somewhat comforting to know that this kind of reflexive fan bitching about departures from canon has been around forever
"In her illustrations in Bilbo – en hobbits äventyr, Jansson concentrated on the landscapes, she was not as interested in the characters of the story.
She even made some of the characters especially tiny to elevate the landscapes.
The illustrations consisted more of her impression of the story than literal repetitions, which many Tolkien fans found unsatisfying.
According to them, Jansson overlooked many of the central characteristics of the characters.
...she edited the pictures many times to avoid them being too much like the Moomin illustrations.
However, the readers saw the illustrations as more Jansson like than truly Tolkien like."
"Snuffkin (Snusmumriken) and the ring", that's what I see. Or Mummy troll. I saw some cartoon adaptations of the LotR, never liked it much because of the dead seriousness, but this makes it carelessness, which probably could have made me read it.
Very typical arrogance of the so-called modern "artist" mind - "it was an adventure for me", getting an assignment to complement a great work of art and making it about herself.
The problem with these modern artists is they're not working hard to improve a skill, but rather keep doing more of what comes easy hoping the world maybe recognizes their "natural genius" ... as a result they go hard on pushing that one thing unique to them (whatever it is, scriblles, splashes, infantile characters) ...
And yeah let's not forget the "you just don't understand modern art" shaming.
this comment is very typical arrogance of the modern computer nerd raised on capeshit hahahha
Dreadful and painfully Nordic.
Poor sods never know if they are getting devoured by a polar bear or not, and it shows.
Gollum as massive creature is so inaccurate to the book that i criticise too
The book never stated Gollum's size. In later revisions, Tolkien actually added that after these illustrations for that reason!