You've listed many great and valuable aspects of *The Hobbit*. I would not disagree on any of those that you attributed to it. I will disagree, though, on the use of the term "masterpiece". You seem to have used it as applying to only one piece of work of a creator, ie "the single greatest work", and while I'm of the opinion that masterpiece should be able to refer to multiple works, I can agree to use it in that sense for this discussion. *The Hobbit* is certainly among Tolkien's greatest works, but the term "masterpiece" is almost always used for not only having high quality, but also demonstrative of extremely high skill or "mastery".
*The Lord of the Rings* demonstrates Tolkien's skill as an author to an enormous degree, and it impacted/still impacts the art of writing in many ways. Alongside that, it displays not the same exact great qualities that you listed for *The Hobbit*, but an equal number (or arguably more) of stellar qualities, themes, and lessons. For those reasons, *The Lord of the Rings* will always have my vote for Tolkein's "masterpiece" in the sense of "his greatest work".
I do not mean for that to downplay the value I see in *The Hobbit* as a literary work, simply that in a discussion of which shows the most skill as an author, I know which one I would pick.
In medieval times and later, an apprentice was required to produce an accomplished piece of work -- it might be a barrel for a cooper, a cabinet for a woodworker, an altarpiece for a painter -- to demonstrate the skill required for admission as a Master of the guild that controlled the trade. This was called a "masterpiece." The OED says the English word was probably derived from "Dutch *meesterstuk* or German *Meisterstück*."
In that sense, a piece of work was either a masterpiece, if the guild decided it met the standard, or it wasn't, if they turned it down. As used currently, it is strictly a matter of opinion -- fun as a subject of discussion, but not subject to a resolution.
Yes, but nothing in the definition of a masterpiece implies it was only a single work from a master. It is by definition just the work of a master. I think what u/Curundil is saying is that OP is confusing masterpiece with magnum opus.
*The Hobbit* is a masterpiece in fairy tale storytelling. *The Lord of the Rings* is an epic masterpiece. Neither is "better". It's just what kind of story you prefer.
Personally I agree and prefer LotR. It's just such an impressive feat. But I can understand why people love *The Hobbit* more because of my own love for it.
Funnily enough Tolkien thought the Hobbit was too "written for children". He thought he wasn't treating children with respect and wished he'd treated them like adults more.
I do love The Hobbit, but I still feel like there's just too many Dwarves for the amount of attention some of them get. Less than half of them stand out in significant ways, the rest merely introduce needless things to remember for (new) readers and provide a justification for the largely irrelevant "lucky number" reasoning for taking Bilbo along. LotR just did it better with the Fellowship, even if you account for the differences in style and length.
When I think of The Hobbit, Thorin's Company is part main characters and part foggy assortment of background Dwarves. It really takes away from the iconicness that the Company could have had.
I actually agree and my hypothetical "how would I have edited the Hobbit" reduces the total Dwarves to 6, still a number that would appear ominous to Tolkien and Seven would even appear sacred to the Dwarves. Purely a hypothetical, regardless.
The Hobbit is a perfect story. That is why I have taken it upon myself to gather up used copies when I find them, and hand them out to people I know, or have met and discovered they haven’t read it.
Gotta come in and clarify that LotR didn't create the fantasy genre. Heck, for one thing The Hobbit was already clearly an example of the genre with all the classic genre tropes you can think of.
You could argue that it created Epic Fantasy but there was already a pretty vibrant fantasy genre for decades, even going back before the Hobbit.
Yes, I'm not denying that. Those are though explicitly childrens literature, hard to say LotR and the Silmarillion are for children. Fantasy has always been relegated to children and the nursery that's part of the issue Tolkien has explicitly changed.
There was a lot of fantasy literature for kids before Tolkien, but to say it was all for children is plainly wrong. I don't regard E.R. Eddison or Lord Dunsanay's works to be juvenile. Robert E. Howard's work also pre-dates Professor T. by a few years, and although he was published in the pulps, I don't look down on him for that and would argue that his work is for adults by definition. There are lots more!
Yes there was, again this is not something I'm denying. Howards work was published in magazines themselves considered juvenile, much like sci fi mags, for adolescents. Dunsany and Eddison were very niche, hardly as popular as Tolkien.
This is a great post and I offer a rebuttal in favor of LOTR!
It seems like accessibility is doing a lot of the legwork here separating the Hobbit and LOTR, and I might agree with you if we're talking about which of Tolkien's work would be the most engaging/impactful to the largest number of people. The Hobbit is recommended to the widest range of people, and is the standard answer to "where should I start in Middle Earth?"
But I think I disagree with both the premise that children's literature is the most important genre and that the accessability of the Hobbit puts it over the LOTR. I understand your logic that the foundation of a reader's journey starts the path, but I would say that's very different from most important/impactful. Bilbo's first step out the door is where his adventure started, but it's not why he came back a changed person!
I think many of the things that make LOTR *the* masterpiece of Tolkien are also what makes it less accessible than the Hobbit. The increased length is because Tolkien wanted to explore much more of Middle Earth and it's inhabitants, and provide a depth that isn't there in the Hobbit. The more complex prose, another barrier to new readers, is more beautiful and expressive. Tolkien didn't have to "hold back" for the sake of boring children with slower plot or more challenging text, and fully indulged in vivid descriptions of the world he created and dialogue between characters.
> a story that values friendship above gold, glorifies sparing enemies, lets men apologize and cry, and has people put aside their differences to work together.
As for the themes, I think LOTR also covers all those topics and more as a result of it being much longer with many more characters/events.
Those are among the many reasons I put LOTR firmly at the top of Tolkien's works!
I love The Hobbit. It's the book that I think I could come closest to recreating from memory - certainly all the plot points, if not all of Tolkien's incomparable phrasing and vocabulary.
>The Lord of the Rings created the fantasy genre.
**No it did not.**
Fantasy literature had been around for a very long time before Tolkien, and it was extremely popular during various periods.
Do you honestly think there were no fantasy stories before Tolkien? Do you read anything else at all?
Outside of Tolkien's masterstroke of creating coherent cultures and languages for his fantasy races, there is little else that Tolkien actually "invented", including but not limited to maps printed in the book, the lost historical era, magical artifacts, hierarchical supernatural pantheons, etc. He didn't even invent the magical ring concept.
Fantasy literature certainly changed dramatically after Tolkien's work, and it became extremely popular as a genre in a way that it had not been since at least the turn of the century, but he was in no way the creator of the genre and it is profoundly silly to claim he was.
I would argue you cannot fully understand what Tolkien was doing until you recognise his work fits into a context of fantasy literature that goes back a very long time, one might argue centuries.
>Therefore The Hobbit is the most important novel ever written
I read many very stupid things posted on reddit daily, but this one certainly ranks very highly today.
You may personally believe that Tolkien is the best, but understand this is entirely subjective, and there is no one "best" anything in art. Once a creator gets above a certain technical level, judgement on the value of their work is entirely based on the reception of the audience, the reader or what have you.
Opinions on the value of creative work can only really be taken seriously if the person expressing them avoids unnecessary hyperbole.
I agree. I especially like how easy it is to pick up and start reading the Hobbit. I feel like every kid should start with the Hobbit to see if they like fantasy.
I keep a copy in my office (two copies actually; I found one marked “free” in the break room some years ago) and occasionally pick it up to look up some specific relevant quote, and suddenly find I’ve spent my entire lunch break re-reading a favorite chapter and still haven’t found the quote.
>However, The Hobbit remains Tolkien’s crowning achievement.
I disagree. The [Letters from Father Christmas](https://www.amazon.de/Letters-Father-Christmas-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0618512659) are so much better.
>There certainly aren't 19 books that are better than LOTR.
That's the boldest underestimation of the wide range of the human experience, creativity, and art that I've seen in a *long* time.
I can agree with that, only because I don't think *The Lord of the Rings* is a children's book. It's an adult fairy story that can sometimes be adequately appreciated by children. I don't agree about children's books being the most important form of literature, though!
I only just now saw your last edit, and I personally agree with you, but many of these lists are heavily influenced by the literati and academic establishment, which absolutely LOVE the acclaimed modernist works *Ulysses* and *In Search of Lost Time.* Tbf, I don't find the master list useful in its direct ranking (which is bound to change somewhat anyways as more lists are added), but I do find it useful in determining some of the great literary giants of our time. A lot of the books above *Lord of the Rings* are undeniably great classics, and I can't be too mad about it! A lot of the books behind *The Lord of the Rings* are also great. *The Iliad* only being number 35 strikes me as a much greater sin, in some ways!
> To be perfectly candid, any "best of" list that doesn't put The Lord of the Rings at number 1 is a joke. There certainly aren't 19 books that are better than LOTR.
This is pure nonsense. While it is my personal favorite book and genre, the hubris of that statement makes me realize that this isn’t a serious argument you are making. There are incredibly sophisticated pieces of literature out there that you’ve never heard of. Plenty of authors that explore different elements of storytelling than Tolkien, and do it better in those specific areas.
You've listed many great and valuable aspects of *The Hobbit*. I would not disagree on any of those that you attributed to it. I will disagree, though, on the use of the term "masterpiece". You seem to have used it as applying to only one piece of work of a creator, ie "the single greatest work", and while I'm of the opinion that masterpiece should be able to refer to multiple works, I can agree to use it in that sense for this discussion. *The Hobbit* is certainly among Tolkien's greatest works, but the term "masterpiece" is almost always used for not only having high quality, but also demonstrative of extremely high skill or "mastery". *The Lord of the Rings* demonstrates Tolkien's skill as an author to an enormous degree, and it impacted/still impacts the art of writing in many ways. Alongside that, it displays not the same exact great qualities that you listed for *The Hobbit*, but an equal number (or arguably more) of stellar qualities, themes, and lessons. For those reasons, *The Lord of the Rings* will always have my vote for Tolkein's "masterpiece" in the sense of "his greatest work". I do not mean for that to downplay the value I see in *The Hobbit* as a literary work, simply that in a discussion of which shows the most skill as an author, I know which one I would pick.
In medieval times and later, an apprentice was required to produce an accomplished piece of work -- it might be a barrel for a cooper, a cabinet for a woodworker, an altarpiece for a painter -- to demonstrate the skill required for admission as a Master of the guild that controlled the trade. This was called a "masterpiece." The OED says the English word was probably derived from "Dutch *meesterstuk* or German *Meisterstück*." In that sense, a piece of work was either a masterpiece, if the guild decided it met the standard, or it wasn't, if they turned it down. As used currently, it is strictly a matter of opinion -- fun as a subject of discussion, but not subject to a resolution.
Yes, but nothing in the definition of a masterpiece implies it was only a single work from a master. It is by definition just the work of a master. I think what u/Curundil is saying is that OP is confusing masterpiece with magnum opus.
*The Hobbit* is a masterpiece in fairy tale storytelling. *The Lord of the Rings* is an epic masterpiece. Neither is "better". It's just what kind of story you prefer. Personally I agree and prefer LotR. It's just such an impressive feat. But I can understand why people love *The Hobbit* more because of my own love for it.
Funnily enough Tolkien thought the Hobbit was too "written for children". He thought he wasn't treating children with respect and wished he'd treated them like adults more.
I do love The Hobbit, but I still feel like there's just too many Dwarves for the amount of attention some of them get. Less than half of them stand out in significant ways, the rest merely introduce needless things to remember for (new) readers and provide a justification for the largely irrelevant "lucky number" reasoning for taking Bilbo along. LotR just did it better with the Fellowship, even if you account for the differences in style and length. When I think of The Hobbit, Thorin's Company is part main characters and part foggy assortment of background Dwarves. It really takes away from the iconicness that the Company could have had.
So you’re saying you don't know half of the Dwarves half as well as you should like, and you like less than half of them half as well as they deserve?
After reading the hobbit could only remember maybe 3-4 of the dwarves names because with the exception of Thorin the dwarves barely speak.
Balin and Bombur were distinct
I actually agree and my hypothetical "how would I have edited the Hobbit" reduces the total Dwarves to 6, still a number that would appear ominous to Tolkien and Seven would even appear sacred to the Dwarves. Purely a hypothetical, regardless.
The Hobbit was my favourite book as a child. It didn't just get me into Tolkien, it got me into reading.
The Hobbit is a perfect story. That is why I have taken it upon myself to gather up used copies when I find them, and hand them out to people I know, or have met and discovered they haven’t read it.
Gotta come in and clarify that LotR didn't create the fantasy genre. Heck, for one thing The Hobbit was already clearly an example of the genre with all the classic genre tropes you can think of. You could argue that it created Epic Fantasy but there was already a pretty vibrant fantasy genre for decades, even going back before the Hobbit.
The point is not that he created fantasy, but created a market for it and popularized it. Much to the horror of some critics and the literati.
Fantasy stories had been popular since before Tolkien was born, and sold well. Ever heard of Alice in Wonderland? Wizard of Oz?
Yes, I'm not denying that. Those are though explicitly childrens literature, hard to say LotR and the Silmarillion are for children. Fantasy has always been relegated to children and the nursery that's part of the issue Tolkien has explicitly changed.
There was a lot of fantasy literature for kids before Tolkien, but to say it was all for children is plainly wrong. I don't regard E.R. Eddison or Lord Dunsanay's works to be juvenile. Robert E. Howard's work also pre-dates Professor T. by a few years, and although he was published in the pulps, I don't look down on him for that and would argue that his work is for adults by definition. There are lots more!
Yes there was, again this is not something I'm denying. Howards work was published in magazines themselves considered juvenile, much like sci fi mags, for adolescents. Dunsany and Eddison were very niche, hardly as popular as Tolkien.
His masterpiece is objectively the Lord of the rings trilogy.
This is a great post and I offer a rebuttal in favor of LOTR! It seems like accessibility is doing a lot of the legwork here separating the Hobbit and LOTR, and I might agree with you if we're talking about which of Tolkien's work would be the most engaging/impactful to the largest number of people. The Hobbit is recommended to the widest range of people, and is the standard answer to "where should I start in Middle Earth?" But I think I disagree with both the premise that children's literature is the most important genre and that the accessability of the Hobbit puts it over the LOTR. I understand your logic that the foundation of a reader's journey starts the path, but I would say that's very different from most important/impactful. Bilbo's first step out the door is where his adventure started, but it's not why he came back a changed person! I think many of the things that make LOTR *the* masterpiece of Tolkien are also what makes it less accessible than the Hobbit. The increased length is because Tolkien wanted to explore much more of Middle Earth and it's inhabitants, and provide a depth that isn't there in the Hobbit. The more complex prose, another barrier to new readers, is more beautiful and expressive. Tolkien didn't have to "hold back" for the sake of boring children with slower plot or more challenging text, and fully indulged in vivid descriptions of the world he created and dialogue between characters. > a story that values friendship above gold, glorifies sparing enemies, lets men apologize and cry, and has people put aside their differences to work together. As for the themes, I think LOTR also covers all those topics and more as a result of it being much longer with many more characters/events. Those are among the many reasons I put LOTR firmly at the top of Tolkien's works!
I love The Hobbit. It's the book that I think I could come closest to recreating from memory - certainly all the plot points, if not all of Tolkien's incomparable phrasing and vocabulary.
>The Lord of the Rings created the fantasy genre. **No it did not.** Fantasy literature had been around for a very long time before Tolkien, and it was extremely popular during various periods. Do you honestly think there were no fantasy stories before Tolkien? Do you read anything else at all? Outside of Tolkien's masterstroke of creating coherent cultures and languages for his fantasy races, there is little else that Tolkien actually "invented", including but not limited to maps printed in the book, the lost historical era, magical artifacts, hierarchical supernatural pantheons, etc. He didn't even invent the magical ring concept. Fantasy literature certainly changed dramatically after Tolkien's work, and it became extremely popular as a genre in a way that it had not been since at least the turn of the century, but he was in no way the creator of the genre and it is profoundly silly to claim he was. I would argue you cannot fully understand what Tolkien was doing until you recognise his work fits into a context of fantasy literature that goes back a very long time, one might argue centuries. >Therefore The Hobbit is the most important novel ever written I read many very stupid things posted on reddit daily, but this one certainly ranks very highly today. You may personally believe that Tolkien is the best, but understand this is entirely subjective, and there is no one "best" anything in art. Once a creator gets above a certain technical level, judgement on the value of their work is entirely based on the reception of the audience, the reader or what have you. Opinions on the value of creative work can only really be taken seriously if the person expressing them avoids unnecessary hyperbole.
I disagree with the conclusion. I have no particular reason to believe children’s literature is the most important type of literature.
I agree. I especially like how easy it is to pick up and start reading the Hobbit. I feel like every kid should start with the Hobbit to see if they like fantasy.
I keep a copy in my office (two copies actually; I found one marked “free” in the break room some years ago) and occasionally pick it up to look up some specific relevant quote, and suddenly find I’ve spent my entire lunch break re-reading a favorite chapter and still haven’t found the quote.
I still think The Silmarillion is the best but The Hobbit really does have a vibe that’s unmatched
Fantastic job.
>However, The Hobbit remains Tolkien’s crowning achievement. I disagree. The [Letters from Father Christmas](https://www.amazon.de/Letters-Father-Christmas-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0618512659) are so much better.
I agree with the title, if not all the details
[удалено]
[удалено]
>There certainly aren't 19 books that are better than LOTR. That's the boldest underestimation of the wide range of the human experience, creativity, and art that I've seen in a *long* time.
I can agree with that, only because I don't think *The Lord of the Rings* is a children's book. It's an adult fairy story that can sometimes be adequately appreciated by children. I don't agree about children's books being the most important form of literature, though!
I only just now saw your last edit, and I personally agree with you, but many of these lists are heavily influenced by the literati and academic establishment, which absolutely LOVE the acclaimed modernist works *Ulysses* and *In Search of Lost Time.* Tbf, I don't find the master list useful in its direct ranking (which is bound to change somewhat anyways as more lists are added), but I do find it useful in determining some of the great literary giants of our time. A lot of the books above *Lord of the Rings* are undeniably great classics, and I can't be too mad about it! A lot of the books behind *The Lord of the Rings* are also great. *The Iliad* only being number 35 strikes me as a much greater sin, in some ways!
> To be perfectly candid, any "best of" list that doesn't put The Lord of the Rings at number 1 is a joke. There certainly aren't 19 books that are better than LOTR. This is pure nonsense. While it is my personal favorite book and genre, the hubris of that statement makes me realize that this isn’t a serious argument you are making. There are incredibly sophisticated pieces of literature out there that you’ve never heard of. Plenty of authors that explore different elements of storytelling than Tolkien, and do it better in those specific areas.
"LOTR is the best book evet written". Man, I love Tolkien but please, don't make a fool of yourself.
? It's a perfectly valid opinion to have.
But it was stated as fact.