There and Back Again

[Boromir88]

I decided to read The Hobbit again and I don't understand why it gets pushed aside as a story. The Lord of the Rings is a grander tale and a larger scale, which might make TH look like a "little brother" by comparison. But the two stories follow quite a similar pattern and structure, which both makes them great stories on their own.

When reading TH again, I truly realized what makes the story (and LOTR does as well) succeed to me. They're both simply stories of establishing a sense of "home," a character is thrust into a world of strange and mysterious lands, and then the character returns home.

To succeed every part of the story must be told and must be convincing. Even though The Shire is a strange fantasy land to the readers, Tolkien must make us feel at home. Frodo mentions The Shire being a "foothold," if he knows home lies safe behind he can pursue this quest to destroy the Ring and save it. The Shire must make us feel at home, just as it's a foothold for Bilbo and Frodo. Then both hobbits (and the readers) get pulled into unfamiliar and strange lands. The characters we encounter are mysterious, some are frightening, the strange is meant to be shocking, frightening, thrilling. We're certainly not "at home" anymore.

The story can't end with the victory at the battle and Bilbo in Erebor. To Tolkien, the return home seems just as important in completing the story. It's why he says in The Foreward to LOTR, the Scouring was an "essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset." We have to come full circle, and no matter how many times you read either story, it's bitter-sweet. Bilbo and Frodo set out from The Shire, leave home and long to return there, but they return changed and see The Shire in a different light. Tolkien doesn't need to change The Shire (although in LOTR it is quite a different Shire, because of Saruman), the return to home has to be perceived differently because Bilbo and Frodo have changed.