Re-reading the Hobbit, it almost feels like a distinct setting from LotR's Middle-Earth

[Ralif Redhammer]

It has to be said...

Yeah, well, The Hobbit was published in 1937. LotR was published in 1954. Are you the same person as you were 17 ears ago, back in 2005?

Another thing that deserves mention is that both The Hobbit and LOTR were written with different audiences in mind. One wonders what The Hobbit would've been like had it been written for adults, or LOTR if it had been written for children.

 

[deganawida]

Frankly, as I've aged, I've grown to prefer the fairy tale approach of The Hobbit and Farmer Giles of Ham over the tone of The Silmarillion or The Lord of the Rings. I've grown to appreciate works of wonder in the familiar world over epic works in legendary worlds. Thus, I appreciate that he wrote them in different styles.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Another thing that deserves mention is that both The Hobbit and LOTR were written with different audiences in mind. One wonders what The Hobbit would've been like had it been written for adults, or LOTR if it had been written for children.

Including Tom Bombadil in a book for children would be needlessly cruel.

 

[Umbran]

Another thing that deserves mention is that both The Hobbit and LOTR were written with different audiences in mind. One wonders what The Hobbit would've been like had it been written for adults, or LOTR if it had been written for children.

Yeah, that shouldn't be discounted. Our relentless drive to make it a single continuous universe can be stymied by the fact that it is a story, not a universe.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I see these as very different books. One was written for children, and it has an appropriate style for that, whereas LoTR feels more literary to me. They are both trying to do different things but using the same setting. And obviously the ideas for the setting were able to develop more by the time he got to Lord of the Rings.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Poor Tom Bombadil. One day he'll appear in an adaptation, along with Glorfindel...

Joking aside, his presence does feel more in line with The Hobbit than other elements of LOTR.

Including Tom Bombadil in a book for children would be needlessly cruel.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tolkien uses the authorial device that he is the translator, not the author. The Hobbit is based on Bilbo's diaries, and reflects his perspective on events, whilst LotR is based on Frodo's diaries (completed by Sam). The movie versions hint at, but don't sufficiently lean into IMO, the idea that Bilbo is an unreliable narrator.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Tolkien uses the authorial device that he is the translator, not the author. The Hobbit is based on Bilbo's diaries, and reflects his perspective on events, whilst LotR is based on Frodo's diaries (completed by Sam). The movie versions hint at, but don't sufficiently lean into IMO, the idea that Bilbo is an unreliable narrator.

I get the in-world explanation, but it's still hard for me to reconcile just how different the setting of the Hobbit is in many ways. This is probably my fifth or sixth time reading it and, if folks haven't read it recently, just remembering it, a lot of the little details are striking in how they aren't what anyone would associate with the world of LotR.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Including Tom Bombadil in a book for children would be needlessly cruel.

I find the most disturbing element of the Serkis LotR audiobook is when he sings every line of Tom Bombadil's dialog. Every. Line.

 

[Celebrim]

I get the in-world explanation, but it's still hard for me to reconcile just how different the setting of the Hobbit is in many ways.

Could you perhaps list those for me?