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


log in or register to remove this ad

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Like I said, it can all be made to work in the context of LotR. But I think the biggest thing that changed between the two books was JRRT himself.
Well, himself and the intent of the work. The Hobbit was written as a story for kids; his own kids, originally, as I recall. The narrator's voice in it, with its modern asides, and the tonal differences all make sense for such a story.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Like I said, it can all be made to work in the context of LotR. But I think the biggest thing that changed between the two books was JRRT himself.

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?
 







jolt

Adventurer
Tolkien really wanted to write about the Elder Days and get that published, but knew that would be a tall order. 'The Hobbit' was written to drum up interest in the themes he wanted to explore, but it wasn't originally the same world as the Elder Days. When 'The Hobbit' was successful he went back to his publisher to drum up support for the Elder Days, but they just wanted more stories with Hobbits. We didn't even get his Elder Day stories until after he passed away and his son, Christopher Tolkien (his literary executor), put together the stories he liked best and called it the Silmarillion.
 

It has to be said...

1671474909929.png

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.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
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.
 

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.
 


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

100% that gnome
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.
 



An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top