LOTR Or The Hobbit II?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

My feeling is that if JRRT had produced another book in the style of TH then both books would quite possibly have been long forgotten - yes, the Narnia Chronicles are still around, but many, many childrens' books from that period are not.

I agree that a direct emulation of TH would probably not have been nearly as memorable as LOTR. I wonder too if TH itself would not have suffered from such a clone: LOTR to me enhanced the earlier book, brought it to a level above its contemporaries.

Originally Posted by Lollipop010900

I think that the Hobbit sort of became "more serious" towards the end of the book, so it would make sense for the sequel to either stay serious or get more serious.

True, and that seems in line with Bilbo's increasing maturity and wisdom as the book progresses.
Frodo does the same thing, of course. However, when he was Bingo the Hobbit in the earlier conceptions, the "hobbitishness" of him and his companions seems over the top to me, even by TH standards. The Professor seems to have thought the same way.

Originally Posted by Lollipop010900

Like others have already posted, Tolkien tried many different ideas before settling on the final idea and good authers know when they have a really good idea, and if they can figure out a bit of the story in their head, they usually go with that idea. As a part-time author myself (i'm still trying to get published) i know that when you get an idea it either "clicks" or it just doesn't feel right. I think Tolkien sort of "used hs instincts" when it came to LotR and maybe he just though that it'd be nice to try something new or maybe he just liked the idea i don't know but my best guess is that he just went with what he felt was right, not what other people told him to do.

Well, he apparently got some criticism from Raynor Unwin, among others, who disliked all the "hobbit talk" in the early drafts, and that was certainly a consideration for him. According to letters he wrote, he had meant to write something more "grown up" to follow TH from the start, as the Necromancer wasn't really a matter for light-hearted fancy. It seems curious that even with that intent, he still retained the desire to focus on the hobbits, as I said, making the Strider character one.

I believe that had Tolkien continued on the vein of the early LOTR drafts, the book would have been much shorter, and would have ultimately lacked the depth and sense of immensity the finished work contained. We might hear of Tolkien today spoken in the same breath as a Kenneth Graham or an A.A. Milne, and the even larger compendium of works brought to some form of completion by CJRT would likely have remained private papers for the family. So perhaps the critics of "hobbit-talk" did more good than they ever knew.

[Juicy-Sweet]

It seems to me that he started with a "light" tone to the book, then changed his mind and whenh for dark instead.

What is interesting is that he KEPT the light tone in the early chapters, and sort of gradually made it darker and darker in the chapters leading up to Frodo getting stabbed by the Nazgul. I had fun rereading the book and trying to pinpoint exactly where the mood changes - but I couldnt, he made it so gradual.

When the Hobbits takes off everything is very light, lots of mention of food and suppers. The sniffing Nazgul shows up, bringing a darker mood. They immedietaly return to talk about cooking mushrooms and stealing apples. Then you get Old Man Willow - but Bombadil immediately defuses the mood, making it feel like nothing is really dangerous and someone or other will always save you in the last minute.

The Barrow Wight is so creepy - here you dont get the impression you would just be "OK" with everything after that. And then Frodo gets REALLY hurts at weathertop. I think Weathertop is when it changes for good - since we know know the heroes are vulnerable and they can die.

After this point there are a few relapses to the light mood - but now it seems sort of insencere, making it a bit eerie and creepy. Like WWI soldiers celebrating someones birthday in the trenches.

Sam tries to turn the clock back and ligthen the mood with the rabbit cooking. But it just seems eerie making a nice cosy meal with Gollum invited and Frodo going coo-coo from the ring.

Another example is the chatter about pipeweed at Isengard. But here we get the contrast between the homely-familiar and the image of a city rutined by war.

I find it really great the way he managed to mix these two completely different moods in one book without making the break seem artificial.

[Rhod the Red]

My feel of the book when I repeatedly read it is that in Shadow from the Past since the events are pretty grim the tone of the writer is appropriate.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I believe that had Tolkien continued on the vein of the early LOTR drafts, the book would have been much shorter, and would have ultimately lacked the depth and sense of immensity the finished work contained. We might hear of Tolkien today spoken in the same breath as a Kenneth Graham or an A.A. Milne, and the even larger compendium of works brought to some form of completion by CJRT would likely have remained private papers for the family. So perhaps the critics of "hobbit-talk" did more good than they ever knew.

Oh yes! There are stacks of great children's books that were just as good as The Hobbit and didn't have the 'fatherly' tone, that have now largely fallen into the dusty ranks of 'classics', namely books that only the bookworm kids read or those lucky enough to stumble on them - thinking of books by John Masefield, E Nesbit, Arthur Ransome etc. Had Tolkien rushed out a sequel it might have had that same tone and now few of us would be discussing his work (fans of the above three mentioned writers certainly exist but it's very niche). Eh, thank goodness for the spectacular writer's block that Tolkien suffered.

But I don't see A Long Expected Party as all that close to The Hobbit. It might well be about rural Hobbits and assocated fun and games, but it's written in a more adult style and tone. I tend to think that it serves throughout the entire Lord of the Rings as an anchor, as something worth fighting for. And at the very end of the story, when the Hobbits finally take their country back from Saruman, they quickly try to turn it back to the way it was, and the tone returns back to that of the beginning, but with an underlying sadness. I think that's important, because at heart the story is not about saving Elves, or Dwarves, or Men, it's about saving The Shire.

[Boromir88]

If we're talking about the tone of LOTR and the difference in the tone of The Hobbit, I think some might find the "narrator's voice" enlightening to to the topic.

As John Rateliff illuminates in The History of the Hobbit, Tolkien never really liked the "Narrator's voice" in The Hobbit, feeling it talked down to the audience:

The narrator's importance to the story is usually slighted by critics who would prefer The Hobbit to conform to and resemble its sequel in every possible detail. In later years Tolkien came to regard the tone of the intrusive narrator's remarks as condescending, feeling that it marked the book as targeted for children, and said over and over again in letters that he regretted this, considering it an error on his part and a severe flaw in the book.~History of the Hobbit Part 1; Bladorthin script

Rateliff however, appears to be a proponent of the Narrator's voice:

Finally, there is the voice of the narrator, an essential element in establishing the overall tone of the story and hence of the book's success.

Well, I suppose there is no denying that it was an "essential element" of the book, and Tolkien didn't seem happy with it even thinking it was condescending and a "severe flaw."

Personally, I always rather liked the Narrator, and the tone the voice establishes in The Hobbit. As the story continues, the Narrator gets used less and less as the book changes from light-hearted to a more serious tone. However, I don't think it's good or bad writing, just a matter of personal taste. Something the reader will probably either love or dislike (not much middle-ground ). I would have been most disappointed if a book of LOTR's magnitude and darkness used the Narrator's voice. But for The Hobbit I quite like it.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Personally, I always rather liked the Narrator, and the tone the voice establishes in The Hobbit. As the story continues, the Narrator gets used less and less as the book changes from light-hearted to a more serious tone. However, I don't think it's good or bad writing, just a matter of personal taste. Something the reader will probably either love or dislike (not much middle-ground ). I would have been most disappointed if a book of LOTR's magnitude and darkness used the Narrator's voice. But for The Hobbit I quite like it.

Yes, it's not at all an essentially 'bad' thing. It's something you find in children's books even now, though more often in stories aimed at younger kids. If you read a lot of children's lit from a hundred years ago or more, you find it used quite often. It's not that Tolkien wrote 'badly', he wrote in a perfectly acceptable tone for a children's book, especially one of his era. Even JK Rowling starts the Harry Potter series with a more authorial tone which she lost rapidly as the books kept coming.

Tolkien did indeed dislike it - Verlyn Flieger brought it up in a lecture at Birmingham 2005 where she highlighted that it was a prime example of the 'pigwiggenry' Tolkien deplored so much in On Fairy Stories.