New Style...Why?
 

Perhaps it is just me however has it occured to anyone else that the HObbit and LOTR are written in extremely different styles. The Hobbit plays much more as a fantasy adventure while the LOTR seems to be a more serious and less fantasy. Obviously both are fantasies however one must admit LOTR is much darker and more serious than the Hobbit which is playfully full of light and the dangers they incounter although lethal play off as much easier to defeat while LOTR is extremely difficult to destroy key enemies.

Does anyelse have thoughts on this?

"The Hobbit" was written as a childrens' book.

"The Lord of the Rings" was first conceived as a sequel, another book for children, and the first chapter is written in the same style as "The Hobbit". However, it quickly grew into something deeper and darker as it developed in Tolkien's mind, becoming more adult and much longer than intended.

Selmo has put it in a nutshell, but if you want more information then the Humphrey Carpenter biography is a good place to start. If you want to follow the precise development then the History of the LOTR volumes of HoME are much less daunting (in my opinion) than the rest.

Well, The Hobbit is a children's book & LotR is an 'adult' book certainly but maybe its a bit more complex. Perhaps the explanation is that TH was written for his children while LotR was written for himself. He knew that his children wanted to be entertained, so he produced a lighthearted romp which would serve as a perfect bedtime read. One only has to read Roverandom (also writen for his children) to see that they liked that kind of thing - fast moving adventure centred around a likeable little hero.

LotR certainly starts out the same way, & while his own children had grown up by the time he began it he still had in mind the audience of TH when he started to write it. Its clear from HoME though, that pretty soon he was writing, as I said, for himself. So rather than considering others he began considering himself. If there is a difference between the two works - beyond the obvious one of childrens book vs adult book - I think its that: LotR was the kind of story he wanted to write while TH was the kind of story his children had wanted him to write.

I think its a lot of things contribute between the two differences, you can definately tell differences. I recently picked up The Hobbit (since I didn't read it yet, didn't get the chance in school like a lot of people), and there are some big differences. I notice the dwarves are more rude, and ill-mannered, sort of how Gimli was in TTT (PJ's version when in The Golden Hall). You might say this is biasism, since I've read The Hobbit once (and after I've read LOTR several times) that I was shocked to see how the dwarves acted, but then again they are two different styles.

I think one is The Hobbit started out as a bed time story to his kids, and LOTR was more for adults. To expand upon davem's point, since I think he's on to something...Wasn't LOTR written after Tolkien's experiences in the War? War can definately change a man, that's not saying Tolkien was crazy after the war, but his feelings could have changed. He went to war thinking it would make the world a better place in the end, and when he returned home, he realized it wasn't so. Depression, lots of destructiong, and loss of lives. Could have changed his view on life, explaining the contrast between the two.

Actually, Tolkien did almost ALL of his writing after the First World War. The Hobbit was written in the 30s, and the Lord of the Rings was written in late 30s and during the 40s. Although the war certainly influenced Tolkien's understanding of what war does, and this shows in the LR, I don't think that Tolkien's war experiences actually had anything to do with The Hobbit, and its differences from the LR. The timing isn't right.

Certainly his writings pre-war were more 'romantic', & the mythology as such found some its form & philosophical underpinnings as a result of his experiences in the trenches & through the loss of his friends.

I would, however, speculate that only someone who had been through the brutal realities of modern warfare, could have written the account of the Battle of Five Armies as it appears in The Hobbit, with all the cynicism, greed & backbiting involved in its cause & the fact that the 'good guys' only join together when a worse enemy appears. If the Goblins & Wargs hadn't turned up our 'heroes' would probably have slaughtered each other & if the Dwarves had won they would probably have hanged Bilbo as a 'traitor'.

Agreed. I'm not saying that World War I (the major war for Tolkien) didn't influence the Hobbit, merely I'm pointing out that it occurred before either work was written, and so cannot be held accountable for the differences in style.

As for World War II, although it occurred during the writing of the Lord of the Rings, I would not hold it accountable either, as it was apparent from a very early stage of the writing of that book (before War broke out or had become truly bad in Britain) that it was destined to be much darker and deeper.

I think that The Lord of the Rings was written under the Hobbits' perspective, and maybe it is, in fact, narrated by the Hobbits; therefore, I think that the books "grow up" with the Hobbits over the course of the story, i.e. from the innocence of the Shire (childish) to the dreads of The War of the Rings/Mount Doom (adult), and the literary style accompanies the Hobbits' development throughout the story.

Have you noticed that the Hobbits are not present only in few passages of the books (like when Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are on the errand to find Pippin and Merry)?

We have to keep in mind that in the end of the story, even The Shire is totally changed in view of Saruman"Sharky"'s control (not so innocent anymore), and the story only really ends when Sam is safe home: "Well, I'm back!"

In the end I think that Tolkien, being the perfectionist he was, would not have changed styles without a clear purpose.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Hobbit was written as a children's book. After reading it, fans wrote to Tolkien asking for a sequel, which became LotR. I believe Tolkien's experience in the war led him to write LotR as a darker book. I love how once in a while Tolkien lets humor slide in though. :)

it depends on what you all mean by children's book. When did the majority of us actually read LOTR? I put it to you that most of us were Children at the time. So, to me, LOTR is also a Children's book. The only difference to me is that the Hobbit can be seen as meant for a slightly younger audience of children, for example those at their primary school.

We just need to ask if lotr is not a Children's book, then why did so many of us read it when we were young?

It is true that it is more difficult to place LoTR into a particular category, since its "style" is accessible to people of most ages, whereas TH is primarily a children's book and probably only adult fans of JRRT would probably want to read it as they get older.

The Hobbit was only published accidently; JRRT had (I believe) lent it to someone who knew someone.. etc). Therefore, when he wrote it, he didn't really have a clear thought in his mind about his reading audience, since he was writing purely for pleasure with the view to entertain his children.

Of course, the LoTR was created from a direct result of the unexpected popularity of TH. Therefore, JRRT had a purpose in mind: to write a sequel (supposedly another children's book) for an anticipating audience. Indeed, as others have mentioned, the initial style that JRRT used was similar to the style of TH. However, he soon became inspired and suddenly the sequel took a different path. As a perfectionist, Tolkien realised that with the type of story that he had in mind would reqiure a different strategy. LoTR was to be bigger, more character-centred, more plot driven, more detailed, more serious etc. It was to encompass the simplistic "hobbit-like" style of TH, with the more "adult" style from his own private mythology.

I think the most interesting thing to consider in this context is the way that as LotR took on its own more adult style Tolkien went back & changed The Hobbit - I'm talking about the revision of Riddles in the Dark, which is much darker & more filled with 'pathos' in the later version. So we have LotR starting out a children's story but growing into an 'adult' story which feeds back into The Hobbit & leads that to become more 'adult'.

a bone to pick
 

Well, it seems to me that we have more than enough evidence of how Tolkien was constantly rewriting and revising to create internal consistency in both the legendarium itself (as mythology) and in the written texts themselves. Perhaps as a philologist dedicated to the concept of consistent historical development, he could not bear the idea of evolutionary jumps, leaps, and gaps in the 'fossil' records, so to speak, so that he worked to provide plausible consistency. This is certainly how he handled his elven names, isn't it?

He simply treated story with a similar 'backward revision', so that even the initial "children's story" idea was reworked to fit in better with where that story lead. Thus, we have this flow from one text to the other, not seamless by any means, but made more coherent by the author's professional habits.

And, in conjunction with this comment from before, if you think about even the goals of the two "quests", The Lord of the Rings has a more ominous theme in general. There was a lot less at stake for Middle Earth as a whole in The Hobbit - it was a much more personal mission the Dwarves and Bilbo were on. Yes, Smaug also caused devastation to the surrounding people, but there were not entire races of beings at stake. The Dwarves were not going on a journey to save all of their people, but it was more about treasure. Though Dwarves valued their treasure as much as their solitude, they were seeking a tangible luxury, granted one that was rightfully theirs.

Meanwhile, in The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship has the fate of all of Middle Earth resting in their hands. They were trying to protect a far more precious thing: freedom. The tale as a whole encompassed far more land, time, races, and points of view than The Hobbit. In The Hobbit, we're only given the views of Bilbo and the Dwarves, while we achieve at least a general understanding of the motives behind basically every race in The Lord of the Rings. The slightly more simple view in The Hobbit was, as we said, obviously intentional, as it was intended to be more suitable for a younger crowd than The Lord of the Rings. This is not to say that adults cannot enjoy The Hobbit and younger children The Lord of the Rings, but, to reiterate, the main crowd was different. I think that - having read The Lord of the Rings first when I was eight and nine, then having reread it a few times subsequently, there are certainly dark themes that I - and many I know who read them at about the same age - did not quite pick up on until we were older. Meanwhile, as a seventeen-year old, I am by no means "an adult", but I still enjoy The Hobbit as much as I did when I was young.