Chapter 1: A Long Expected Party

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

This chapter sets the scene for the rest of the book, and establishes the nature of Hobbits. Here we can see the naivity and peculiarities of the Shire-folk, as described in the Prologue. We learn especially of a Baggins character, who lives in Bag End and whose pockets never seem to run dry with gold. He's 'well-preserved' and considered queer amongst the Shire-folk, whom all envy his wealth and good health. Who is this extraordinary fur-footed devil of a man (hobbit ;))...? Why, its Bilbo Baggins of course!

The Shire is bustling with excitement; ears are burning and tongues are rustling. It seems Mr. Baggins is 111 today, and his nephew Frodo is 33! And even better- practically everyone is invited! Stories fly to and fro of Frodo's mysterious childhood; how did his parents die? Why did he move in with his uncle? Where is Bilbo keeping all that gold? Those hobbits are very suspicious of Mr. Baggins, and his life keeps them entertained over a good tankard of ale.

But as the day of the party approaches, a familiar face appears at Bag End. Gandalf the Grey, former companion and longtime friend of Bilbo Baggins. The two are obviously forming some sort of plan for this party... what could it be? But the reader finds out soon enough... because the party comes upon the heels of a cloudy day.

Fireworks, smoke, and toys! Food, ale, and festivity! Hobbits (even those uninvited) come from all over to dance and celebrate, not to mention snatch up as much free food as possible. After everyone is very content, the dreaded speech comes up. In past years Mr. Baggins has had quite long-winded speeches, and the hobbits feared the same for this year. But they were all shocked and offended when Bilbo disappeared with a great flash before their eyes, and they never saw him again. The old hobbit had snuck on a golden ring, and Gandalf had added a bit of a spark to his disappearance.

Bilbo, satisfied and grinning, trots off invisibly to Bag End, where all of his traveling supplies are ready for departure. Gandalf sees him off, but not before a peculiar confrontation involving a ring. Bilbo becomes angry when asked to leave it, even violent, and the thing seems to have some strange control on this genuine hobbit's mind. But soon Bilbo releases the ring from his person, and strolls down the road, 'happily ever after.'

Frodo, now the master of Bag End, recieves all of Bilbo's belongings, including this strange ring, and Gandalf leaves, heeding him to keep it secret, and keep it safe. He is suspicious of the ring, and goes off in search of answers. This is where the chapter ends... leaving the reader wondering what is going on with this ring, and what suspicions Gandalf has about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This chapter is very light-hearted, and in my opinion, can throw people off from the coplexity and seriousness of the novel. The speech is unsophisticated, the people are odd, and it is pretty silly actually. What are your thoughts on this, what was your experience the first time reading LOTR? I know I was thrown off, and left confused... I remember thinking, how could THIS be the greatest book of all time?

But then of course, I read on, and it was interesting to see how the light-heartedness elevated to very noble speech, and mixed with all types of modes of speech. This, IMO, makes Tolkien's work so great, the ability to clearly and effectively blend a myriad of cultures into one tale, so that they all compliment one another, and the transition of the language goes with the storyline. Brilliant!

Another point- the Sacksville-Bagginses. They sure are bitter folk... what do you think Tolkien's inspiration was behind them? I'm thinking Cinderella's step-sisters. :) Seriously! Tolkien did blend many a fairy tale and myth together for this story... he had to have gotten them from there or from his own life. Anyways, theres a few thoughts to get this chapter moving.

[Red Istar]

The prose of LOTR got more serious as it went on, because the story did. I think it has a nice effect, because even if you aren't conciously aware of it, it has eases you from the jolly Shire to desolate Mordor. ;)

[jallan]

The first chapter switches wonderfully between light comedy and the serious.

For someone who has read The Hobbit it is the necessary reintroduction to Bilbo and the Shire and to Gandalf.

The tragedy of the death of Frodo’s parents is mediated through comic dialogue. There is excellent ironic and comic writing pointing out the foibles and petty desires of the Shire-folk mixed with their their honest expectations about this forthcoming event.

This is honest ironic comic description deriving from situation and character that are humorous in themselves. There is no forcing of the humor.

The firework description is wonderful.

But all the while Tolkien drops hints of some hidden agenda of Bilbo’s. What is Bilbo actually planning to do?

Bilbo gives his comic speech, voicing some of his own tiredness with mundance, hobbit pettiness. Then he is gone. We return to comedy as the hobbits mostly return to enjoying the party and food and drink.

Yet at that point the tone changes:Frodo was the only one present who had said nothing. For some time he had sat silent beside Bilbo’s empty chair, and ignored all remarks and questions. He had enjoyed the joke, of course, even though he had been in the know. He had difficulty in keeping from laughter at the indignant surprise of the guests. But at the same time he felt deeply troubled: he realized suddenly that he loved the old hobbit dearly.We then jump to Bilbo and the harsh unyielding statment:... and he was never seen by any hobbit in Hobbiton again.

Bilbo’s return home and his bittersweet conversation with Gandalf follows:I might find somewhere where I can finish my book. I have thought of a nice ending for it: and he lived happily ever after to the end of his days.This is actually from the ending to The Hobbit, now revealed as based on this book that Bilbo is attempting to complete.

But a quarrel breaks out over the Ring.

And Bilbo speaks:It is mine, I tell you. My own. My precious. Yes, my precious.The unexpected words stab like a knife. At least they did so to me who had read The Hobbit before reading The Lord of the Rings.

The new story has begun.

The tension between Bilbo and Gandalf is masterfully defused, and Bilbo sets off with three Dwarves, singing a variant of the song from almost the end of The Hobbit, but one looking forward to wandering rather than to home.

Then the bustling clowns return with the distribution of gifts as Frodo attempts to keep order. Otho actually says:Foiled again!But we are not allowed to forget the strange moment with Bilbo and the Ring.

Gandalf, for reasons he does not explain, is leaving at once. (We can guess they have something to do with the Ring.)He gave a final wave of his hand, and walked off at a surprising pace; but Frodo thought the old wizard looked unusually bent, almost as if he was carrying a great weight. The evening was closing in, and his cloaked figure quickly vanished into the twilight. Frodo did not see him again for a long time.

[Red Istar]

A very nice analysis, Jallan. :)

[Ravenna]

This chapter also gives us a picture of an idyllic lifestyle, everyone has enough of everything, it's almost a garden of eden setting (with perhaps the Sackville-Bagginses in the role of serpent;) ).
Whilst the darker moments give us a necessary hint of things to come, as we continue further with the story, the whole piece gives us something to hold on to as a reminder of what will be lost if the fellowship fails.

From a purely technical point of view, it gives us some vital information, The Ring is shown to be the focus of the story. BIlbo is rather neatly disposed of and the Ring passes to Frodo. Although it may seem not to advance the story much, it is very much a scene setter for what is to come.

Personally, I've always rather liked the chapter, it shows what the Hobbits are about, and there are enough dark hints in it so that the second chapter is not too much of a surprise. Plus, when first reading it at about 12 years old, too much deep and meaningful at the start would quite possibly have put me off a bit. Get the reader interested and amused in the first chapter, and with a little luck you've got them hooked, especially if there are hints of exciting adventures ahead.

[Eru]

I think this chapter is essentially for the contrast that Tolkien develops between the quest, and essentially Mordor, and the idyllic Hobbiton.

Even when visiting places of utter beauty and awe, the hobbits are still drawn to reflect on the comfort and paradise of their home which is drawn in a beautiful picture in this first chapter.

Whilst many may argue that this chapter adds only a sense of boredom and confusion compared with the thrills of the rest of the epic story, I would disagree, suggesting rather that Tolkien was very found of the picture of Hobbiton that he created. It is clear in this chapter in particular the curiosities and humour of the Hobbits that are evident in the four on the adventure. However, the reader finds themselves grieving the loss of the naiveté that the Hobbits once possessed, the naiveté that is evident in this first chapter.

[jallan]

An excellent post, Nóm.

Nóm posted:I wish there were some magical way to undo having read the books and do so again for a first time.Yes.

One thing no-one has noted yet is that most of this chapter was written when Tolkien hadn’t a clue what this new hobbit sequel was actually going to be about.

He just starting writing something, anything, hoping that inspiration would strike (as it eventually did, after he decided against his first idea that Bilbo had run off to get married!!!).

But the bundle of Hobbit names and details about Hobbit customs that came pouring forth already showed the increased depth of this new book.

And I don’t think patchwork creation of a book is necessarily bad at all. There are too many meandering and obvously unplanned books like Melville’s Moby **** and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn which drive critics crazy because they sprawl all over the place away from what some critics think the books should be about.

One thing strikes me ... while Hobbits in general in this chapter are treated with the somewhat ironic and supercillious attitude that Tolkien mostly adopted towards Bilbo in The Hobbit, Bilbo himself seems to me to be treated with enormous respect here.

Another is that Tolkien mostly drops this ironic style almost entirely after this chapter. This is one reason some literary critics prefer The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. Fantasy is alright only as long as it is not done seriously for its own sake.

[Beleg]

Posted by Jallan
Fantasy is alright only as long as it is not done seriously for its own sake.

Erm, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Do you mean lighthearted Fantasy is better then serious fantasy?


I personally think that this is one of the better chapters of TLOTR.
Tolkien could write about hobbits very well and it's a shame that we don't get many purely hobbit scenes in LOTR.

[jallan]

I was not clear, Beleg. My statement about fantasy was intended to summarize what some critics seem to believe: fantasy must be symbolic or ironic or whimsical.

The seem to believe that if you introduce Elves (or extraterrestrial aliens) that it should be as a device to point to something else, not for their own sake. It’s long be noted that academic criticism can’t seem to cope with science fiction except as satire, parody, dystopian literature, utopian literature or allegory.

That Tolkien’s depiction of Elvishness (or Asimov’s depiction of robots) is its own justification is outside a lot of the theories.

Nóm posted:And it just occurred to me that I have no idea exactly when Tolkien decided these hobbit tales would be part of his lengendarium.Well Tolkien’s legendarium was never complete in any case and The Hobbit was already at least an offshoot from it. It is not clear that Tolkien knew that the Necromancer was really Thû/Sauron when he wrote The Hobbit but he soon decided that this was so.

From letter 19, dated 16 December 1947, to Stanley Unwin, upon rejection and return of the Silmarillion material he had offered for consideration:I think it is plain that quite apart from it, a sequel or successor to The Hobbit is called for. I promise to give this thought and attention. But I am sure you will sympathize when I say that the construction of elaborate and consistent mythology (and two languages) rather occupies the mind, and the Silmarils are in my heart. So that goodness knows what will happen. Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional and inconsistent Grimm’s fairy-tale dwarves, and got drawn into the edge of it – so that even Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge. And what more can hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental. But the real fun about orcs and dragons (to my mind) was before their time. Perhaps a new (if similar) line?I think this says it all. Part of Tolkien’s mind obviously knew very well what was likely to happen though Tolkien seems to have sometimes doubted and occasionally struggled against it, at one point planning to restart again with a more comic Bingo.

On the other hand, in many ways The Lord of the Rings is quite separate from Tolkien’s earlier legends, though bits of them appear as background.

The forging of the great Rings and the War of the Last Alliance are new material beyond Tolkien’s previous writing and much of the Silmarillion material, particularly its cosmology, doesn’t fit and Tolkien was never able to make it fit so that eventually The Silmarillion came to be seen as a legendary and garbled account made by ancient Men within the more real world of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

[Shaky_the_Mohel]

That Tolkien’s depiction of Elvishness (or Asimov’s depiction of robots) is its own justification is outside a lot of the theories.

I disagree--I think the chapter-and-verse adherence to what the Tolkien "intended" can impose just as severe a limit on a reader's engagement with his work as any "critical" or ideological framework: it assumes there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to read Tolkien. As Nietzsche says, "when the book opens its mouth, the author must shut his."

Scholarly writing on Tolkien has at the very least enabled his work to be taken seriously, and I think there should be more of it.

[jallan]

Shaky_the_Mohel:I disagree ...I don’t know what you disagree with. My statement was:That Tolkien’s depiction of Elvishness (or Asimov’s depiction of robots) is its own justification is outside a lot of the theories.I don’t see a link between what I said and your comments.

You continued:I think the chapter-and-verse adherence to what the Tolkien "intended" can impose just as severe a limit on a reader's engagement with his work as any "critical" or ideological framework: it assumes there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to read Tolkien. As Nietzsche says, "when the book opens its mouth, the author must shut his."Nietsche said a lot of things.

I think authors have as much right as anyone to speak about their work. They are often asked to so. Sometimes they actually do understand it better than many critics which is not surprising. (And sometimes they don’t understand it on some points or on some levels as well as some readers. Sometimes they cover up. But critics can be worse.)

Nietsch’s rule implies that if you say something in a post and I misunderstand what you intended your words to mean, that my understanding of your words is just as valid as yours and you are not allowed to correct my misapprehension.

If in writing a literary work I refer to something outside that work and you don’t know anything about what I’m referring to, is your interpretation of my reference likely to be as good as someone who knows very well what I am referring to?

I’ve certainly been in the position of misinterpreting what an author says in areas where further reading of the author or of the kind of literary or philosophical environment the author is coming from or just rereading the work again makes it clear that the misunderstanding was mine.

Or someone says: ‘You are wrong!’ and then supplies some reference or insight which makes it clear to me that I was wrong.

But there are cases where it would be correct to read Tolkien against his intent.

That kind of reading is quite reasonable, if you wish to point out that Tolkien’s intent (whatever it was) does not come across clearly because readers disagree or because you wish to show that Tolkien’s philosophy or aesthetic judgement fails at some point or that Tolkien’s later comments on some point don’t fit with what he wrote.

But intent, as far as it can be determined, still comes into it, although you don’t have to agree with that intent.

E.g., it is quite proper to say that you find Aragorn an annoying and pompous and wooden character, if you do so find him. I think it would be wrong to say that Tolkien intended Aragorn to be annoying, pompous and wooden.

It is quite proper to say that the name Erech makes you think of the Biblical city of Erech, or of the Athenian king Erechtheus or whatever. It would be wrong to say that Tolkien intended the connection.

Too often literary commentary does the latter and presents the commentator’s idiosyncratic reading as the author’s intention.

I’m not sure whether I’m disagreeing with your words or accepting them with the proviso that one has to be careful both about determining intent and about reading into a work what was never meant as part of a work.Scholarly writing on Tolkien has at the very least enabled his work to be taken seriously, and I think there should be more of it.I think the reverse is better, that is, it is because many take Tolkien seriously that scholarly commentary has appeared.

A lot of it is horrendously bad. That is partly Sturgeon’s Law. Also, a bad book on Tolkien may sell better than an excellent book on Ludovico Ariosto.

[Helcaraxë]

I loved this chapter. Undoubtedly, some of the book is dark, and I think this provides a wonderful light-hearted beginning to an otherwise grand and solemn epic tale. Pardon my ignorance, but who on EARTH is this Ariosto guy?:confused:

--MB

[Shaky_the_Mohel]

I don’t know what you disagree with.

My fault--I should have clarified that I was disagreeing with the thrust of your remarks about academic writing on Tolkien.

Nietsch’s rule implies that if you say something in a post and I misunderstand what you intended your words to mean, that my understanding of your words is just as valid as yours and you are not allowed to correct my misapprehension.

Yes--Nietzsche's maxim implies that the reading of a text should not be governed by the author. It does not imply that the author should not be able to comment upon his/her own work--it merely suggests that when he/she does so it is as a commentator, not an author: having written LOTR, Tolkien becomes a reader of his work along with the rest of us.

If in writing a literary work I refer to something outside that work and you don’t know anything about what I’m referring to, is your interpretation of my reference likely to be as good as someone who knows very well what I am referring to?

Are you suggesting that someone who reads Lord of the Rings but knows nothing about Tolkien will have a poorer understanding and will get less out of the book than someone who is acquainted with Tolkien's biography, his theories on fantasy, language and literature, The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth series (all 12 volumes), etc. etc. . . . ?

The French literary theorist Roland Barthes had something to say very similar to Nietzsche about the relationship between authors and their works:

"We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture . . . . Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, . . . to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then alloting itself the important task of discovering the Author . . . beneath the work: when the Author has been found, the text is explained--'victory' to the critic."
--- "The Death of the Author"

Barthes latter comments resonate very well with your remarks about literary commentary which
presents the commentator’s idiosyncratic reading as the author’s intention.
But it would be simplistic to assume that all such commentary does this.

And it is possible that many scholarly commentators on Tolkien are also avid fans of his work; it is possible, after all, to enjoy LOTR and yet still be able to engage with it critically (even if such criticism is conducted under the sign of Marxism, feminism, ***** theory, cultural studies, etc.). The dichotomy between "Critics" and "Readers" is a false one.

[jallan]

Shaky_the_Mohel posted:Yes--Nietzsche's maxim implies that the reading of a text should not be governed by the author. It does not imply that the author should not be able to comment upon his/her own work--it merely suggests that when he/she does so it is as a commentator, not an author: having written LOTR, Tolkien becomes a reader of his work along with the rest of us. I quite agree, save that the author may have somewhat more insight into the work then most readers and that should be recognized.Are you suggesting that someone who reads Lord of the Rings but knows nothing about Tolkien will have a poorer understanding and will get less out of the book than someone who is acquainted with Tolkien's biography, his theories on fantasy, language and literature, The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth series (all 12 volumes), etc. etc. . . . ?
A first-time reader of The Lord of the Rings who has not read The Hobbit will (all other things being equal which they never are) get less out of The Lord of the Rings then one who has. There are back-references in The Lord of the Rings which are more evocative and moving if one has read the previous work. It was intended as a sequel.

Similarly someone who first comes upon The Hobbit after reading The Lord of the Rings will have a different perspective on events related there, indeed for some of the events a very different perspective than Tolkien had when he first wrote those events.

What other fantasy or mythology or similar works one has read also makes a difference, not always to the betterment of one’s enjoyment of The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings is more likely to seem hackneyed and unoriginal to someone who is emersed in D&D and has read much other modern fantasy. But such a reader may understand parts of it better than a reader who comes upon it having read almost no previous fantasy texts (and almost no genuine myth and legend).

You cite Barthes:Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, . . . to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then alloting itself the important task of discovering the Author . . . beneath the work: when the Author has been found, the text is explained--'victory' to the critic."I can’t tell whether you agree or disagree with Barthes. I believe Barthes grossly overstates and grossly understates at the same time.

To find anything outside a text that elucidates its meaning to a reader imposes a limit on that text to that reader. To find anything within a text the elucidates the meaning of another part of that text imposes a limit on that text to that reader.

This new limit may be wrong because the supposed elucidation is false. The new limit may be correct. People understand differently.

No text exists without context. No text is entirely self-contained. It is the rare text that has been written with no intention whatsoever at any level. One may not be able to determine the intention at all levels. One may not care.

Two people may read the same text for entirely different reasons, one for a fast-moving adventure story to pass the time and the other for the particular style of a particular author. I don’t see either motive as wrong.

All authors pass on much that they did not originate themselves and they do not know the origin of many things that come to them.But it would be simplistic to assume that all such commentary does this.Yes, it would be simplistic.

I never claimed that all commentary presents the commentator’s idiosyncratic reading as the author’s intention. Nor did I assume anything. In my opinion too much commetary that I have read does this.And it is possible that many scholarly commentators on Tolkien are also avid fans of his work; it is possible, after all, to enjoy LOTR and yet still be able to engage with it critically (even if such criticism is conducted under the sign of Marxism, feminism, ***** theory, cultural studies, etc.). All kinds of things are possible. But what you say here is obviously true. This can happen. This does happen.

I am missing any point here.

What you say is just as true for any author. And the commentary may range from superb to atrocious.

It is difficult to provide insights into a work with which one has no sympathy, which one finds it a chore to read. On the other hand, the joyous burblings of enthusiasts may provide nothing but unconsidered praise.The dichotomy between "Critics" and "Readers" is a false one.Strawman.

Again, I don’t see what your point is. One must first be a reader in order to be a decent critic. Critics are a subset of readers.

Someone reading usually switches back and forth on occasion between pure reader mode and critical mode, sometimes pondering on text rather than simply absorbing it and sometimes just aborbing. (If bored, the reader may do neither, suddenly realizing that he or she can’t remember anything that happened on the last four pages.)

Quite, honestly, this discussion is interesting. But you seem to me to have some overriding point you want to make and I don’t see what it is.

We may be mostly speaking past each other.

[Hikaru]

Originally posted by jallan
A first-time reader of The Lord of the Rings who has not read The Hobbit will (all other things being equal which they never are) get less out of The Lord of the Rings then one who has. There are back-references in The Lord of the Rings which are more evocative and moving if one has read the previous work. It was intended as a sequel.


Allow me to chime in here and agree with Jallan. I read the trilogy for the first time when I was 9 years old, without having read The Hobbit, and I wouldn't have experienced such a struggle to get through it if I had been familiar with Bilbo's previous adventure.

I did get through it, however and the light tone of the first chapter is probably the major reason I was able to persevere
:D Without having the stage set so enjoyably, and Hobbit culture introduced in such detail, I wouldn't have had a clue.

[laurelindorenan]

I agree with most of you. I think that it might be al little harder to get in to LOTR without reading the Hobbit. Not in the sense, however, that the characters base wold be harder to understand, but sort of like it has to prepare the reader for the literary onslought of the entirety of LOTR. Obviously it is a daunting task for some without a ferverent passion for the books. If you go for the films, but cant be bothered to read the books, it's a bit of a rip off to say that you are a lord of the rings fan, simply a fan of the films. I think there is a big difference.

Anyway, I agree that the style of writing is totally different from the rest of the book, which kind of helps if you start to think it is a bit heavy reading. The Hobbit makes for very light reading, like it is just a short prologue for the main part of the story, which is Lord of the Rings. Of course, this in turn is only a short section of the whole history of Middle Earth (which I have regretfully not read yet), so gives you the sense of looking on just a small window of a whole culture and history.

Another thing, does anyone think that Gandalf's character is different in The Hobbit? He is sort of less grand, and scolds the dwarfs and Bilbo, whereasin LOTR, he is a lofty giver of advice. Anyone else pick up on that, or is it just me?

[jallan]

Seems to me Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings still at times made fun of folk and scolded them, especially Pippin.

Even after becoming Gandalf the White he still becomes angry at times. For example, Gandalf was not altogether pleased to learn that Aragorn had attempted the Palantír.

[laurelindorenan]

Well, yes, but in The Hobbit he scolded as perhaps a grouchy old grandfather, but in LOTR he had a right to, because the matters were of such importance. I think scolding Pippin for instance was to show he still cared for the Hobbits and let them know he wanted to protect them still.

[Hikaru]

That and the fact that Pippin, the Fool of a Took, almost got them killed at least once. I would have scolded him too.

[jallan]

Indeed, one of Pippin's unthinking actions, dropping that stone down the well, led to Gandalf actually being killed.

Fortunately, Gandalf got better. :)

[Inderjit S]

The scolding of course does not stop with Gandalf. Aragorn and Faramir (both 'akin' to Gandalf) scold people on occasion. Faramir scolds Sam when Sam gives Faramir a "talking too" and Aragorn scolds Gimli when he questions Aragorn's use of the Palantír.

We are soon of course introduced to Gandalf's 'more serious' side in ‘The Hobbit' when he helps drive off the Necromancer. The Necromancer was a being of immense power, even the stay-at-home Hobbits knew of him and he tells Thorin that even if all the Dwarves in the world were gathered together they would not be able to defeat him.

Early in LoTR we get a sign of his importance when the narrarator hints at Gandalf's 'real' "dark and dangerous" tasks.

[amandil]

I believe that the chapter, "A Long Expected Party," is a perfect bridge from "The Hobbit" to "The Lord of the Rings" from not only a stylistic point of view, but also as an underlying theme for the entire work as well. The chapter reads much like "The Hobbit," but by the end it takes on a more serious conotation. I truely believe that this was not intentional, and that the story began to take on a life of is own, eventually metamorphasising into the regal and dark tale that it eventually becomes in later chapters.

Most importantly, this chapter sets the foundations as to why Hobbits are less susceptible to the temptations of the One Ring. Because of their simpler, more agrarian life-styles, Hobbits have no desire for great power or reknown. This chapter is ripe with examples of this. If one looks to the Prolouge, they will find information that only exentuates this point. For example, the Hobbits have a very insignificant form of government, the chief purpose of which is to make sure all the citizens of the realm get their mail on time. Basically, Tolkien is describing a culture that is so honest and so incredibly content in it's surroundings that it needs only minimal government to organize the life of it's inhabitants. Based on this one can easily see why the Ring holds so little sway toward it's Hobbit bearers throughout the rest of the book.

[Sarde]

The first time I had a go at reading TLOTR, I did not quite like the beginning chapter(s). Don't ask why. I don't know how far I got back then. I gave up quite quickly for lack of time and lack of interest. After seeing the movies, I did like reading about the goings on in The Shire, because I had come to love hobbits and The Shire.

I also remember reading The Hobbit and not liking it much (in fact, I believe I quit reading it a dozen or so pages from the end - how odd!). I think I would like it now, in fact, I plan on buying some time this week.

Btw, the fact that I didn't like The Hobbit back then probably had much to do with the fact that I read a translation. Same goes for the first time I tried reading TLOTR (I think there were two failed attempts; one in Dutch and one in English). I really think a lot is lost in translation and I get annoyed by the translations of names of beings and places.

[McDLT]

I was wondering if he had the intention of using this chapter for making the transition between the tones of the two books, or if it just coincidently played that role.

Yes Tolkien did intend it to be used as a transition. LotR was supposed to be a sequel to The Hobbit, but then as Tolkien wrote it, it evolved into much much more. Tolkien was also able to use some aspects of his English (Middle-earth) mythology.

It was a coincidence that it became so indepth and not just a squel to a "children's" novel.

Just some of my thoughts.

[Mali]

through the first chapter, it made my not reading the Hobbit bearable. While I was a little confused on the origination of the ring, and certain references, I was able to get through it. This chapter also help shape Frodo's reason for leaving. He late mentions that as long as he knows that someone is living in Hobbiton, and that it stays the way it was, that he would find it much more bearable to make the quest. We would not understand this if not for this chapter, because it highlights the quiet, carefree lifestyle that much of us would probably love to be a part of (if not for a short time). Without this chapter, I believe that Frodo's character would be much less believable.

[Barliman Butterbur]

What are your thoughts on [the opening chapter of LOTR], what was your experience the first time reading LOTR? I know I was thrown off, and left confused...

This chapter has a cinematic parallel in an "establishing shot." It momentarily creates (I suspect) for those who didn't read The Hobbit beforehand the flavor of the Shire. But once our main characters leave the Shire, it's impossible to keep up a "bubbly/hobbity" atmosphere, since things get very dark and grim very quickly. So suddenly there's a change in the very style of language. It's off-putting to not a few readers. I confess to a number of false starts because of the sudden change, before I was finally able to adjust to what was going on. You're in good company! ;)

Barley

[Ithrynluin]

'Well, I've made up my mind, anyway. I want to see the mountains again, Gandalf, mountains, and then find somewhere where I can rest. In peace and quiet, without a lot of relatives prying around, and a string of confounded visitors hanging on the bell. I might find somewhere where I can finish my book. I have thought of a nice ending for it: 'and he lived happily ever after to the end of his days.'
Gandalf laughed. 'I hope he will. But nobody will read the book, however it ends.'
'Oh, they may, in years to come. Frodo has read some already, as far as it has gone.'

What's the point in saying that? Was Gandalf just being rude?

[YayGollum]

The evil torturer Gandalf thought himself pretty strange for caring anything about nasssty hobbitses. Their love of nasssty hobbit lore was seen as useless but charming. Everybody who's any kind of real scholar in Middle Earth had longer and bloodier tales. The origin of the nasssty hobbit is a mystery. Nobody cares. Who'd want to read it? The evil thief Bilbo Baggins was just an oddity in the Hall Of Fire, to smile and nod at, nothing important.