LOTR Or The Hobbit II?

[Inziladun]

In reading The Fellowship of the Ring, specifically the first chapter, A Long-Expected Party, one can detect a marked difference in tone from the rest of the book. It has a lighter feel, closer to The Hobbit. Tolkien ultimately decided against that approach, and in the second chapter of the completed work, The Shadow of the Past, a darker and more serious theme emerges.

Indeed though, when delving into the HOME tome The Return of the Shadow, it seems Tolkien's original conception of the "sequel" to TH was in fact in that vein: very hobbit-centric, fairly light-hearted, and shorter than LOTR became in the end.
For example, Strider the Dúnadan was originally "Trotter", a "wild hobbit" who was related to Bilbo and had been one of those in the Shire moved by Gandalf to go off adventuring.

What I'm wondering is this: do you think the Hobbit sequel would have been as well-received as LOTR if Tolkien had stayed with the first concept in keeping the comic tone and feel closer to its predecessor? Would Tolkien have thus been labeled a "children's author"? Would a mere retread of The Hobbit have affected the chances of any of the greater work, ie The Silmarillion being published and / or taken seriously?

[davem]

I don't know - Tolkien himself was certainly concerned about initial sales of the TH http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19965058

My suspicion is that Tolkien couldn't have written a sequel in the same style - TH itself is 'growing up' by the end & being absorbed into the Legendarium, so it really depends what you consider the 'style' of TH to be. The early drafts of the sequel in HoM-e actually take a backward step & attempt to recreate the early parts of TH rather than the later parts & for that reason don't really fit with the overall mood of the earlier work. LotR starts off very much in tone & mood as TH ended.

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.

[Bêthberry]

I don't think it is just the tone that differs between TH and LotR. Yes, much of the humour disappears (but Sam still is able to maintain some sense of nonsense to help him when he is discouraged.)

What LotR has, which is part of its tremendous attraction, is a far better presentation of those distant hills, the hints of the Legendarium. A long history as well as a long defeat, one might say. So two qualities differentiate LotR from TH and I think account for its success. As davem says, this quality of a hidden history slowly or tentatively unfolded does begin to appear late in TH, so that presence has to go somewhere.

[jallanite]

What Allen & Unwin was obviously looking for was a series of books as much as possible exactly like The Hobbit. L. Frank Baum had done this with his Oz books, followed by Ruth Plumly Thompson. Hugh Lofting had done this with his character Doctor Dolittle. Walter R. Brooks had done this with Freddy the Pig. P. J. Travers had already written two books about Mary Poppins with more to come.

So why couldn’t Tolkien just dash off a Hobbit book every couple of years at least? Allen & Unwin were hoping for something like:

1. The Hobbit and Gandalf
2. The Hobbit and the Treasure of Moria
3. The Hobbit and the Stone Giants
4. The Hobbit Visits England
5. The Hobbit and Hobbita
6. The Son of the Hobbit
7. The Daughter of the Hobbit
8. The Hobbit Family and the Martians
9. The Hobbit Family and the Bobbsey Twins Visit Gormenghast.
   

… and so on, and so on, and so on.

Unfortunately Tolkien had written himself into a corner when he wrote “… he [Bilbo] remained very happy to the end of his days” which seemed to mean Bilbo had no further adventures involving personal danger, or at least very few. Apparently no money would persuade Tolkien to slightly alter the ending or just ignore it.

Of course Tolkien could have written tales similar to The Hobbit set in the same world:

1. Gandalf and the Hot-Air Balloon
2. Dain and the Orkish Invasion
3. A Mirror in Mirkwood
4. Treebeard
5. Lúthien
6. The Journey of Eärendil
7. The Son of the Hobbit and the Daleks
8. Legolas at the Earth’s Core
9. The Hobbit Family and the Bobbsey Twins Visit Gormenghast.

… and so on, and so on, and so on.

Instead Tolkien did something simpler. Bilbo was a little old to get married and have descendants (though Tolkien did try that out for a bit) but Tolkien eventually decided that perhaps if The Son of the Hobbit would not work well then he could instead settle on The First and Second Cousin, Once Removed, of the Hobbit (and the Cousin’s Friends).

If a book starring one hobbit had been so very successful, then one with four hobbits ought to win every prize going. For further assurance Tolkien would even model one of the hobbits on Walt Disney’s Goofy whom he obviously admired.

The book following that would perhaps be Elbereth and the Seven Hobbits.

That still didn’t work out as Tolkien expected. As Tolkien wrote in letter 19 to Sir Stanley Unwin:

I think it is plain that quite apart from it, a sequel or successor to The Hobbit is called for. I promise to give this thought and attention. But I am sure you will sympathize when I say that the construction of elaborate and consistent mythology (and two languages) rather occupies the mind, and the Silmarils are in my heart. So that goodness knows what will happen.

Sir Stanley Unwin probably didn’t sympathize in the slightest. But what did happen? Tolkien had decided that the chatty persona he had adopted as author of The Hobbit was patronizing and offensive to intelligent children and that history showed there was no logical reason why fairy stories should not be now appreciated by adults if written for adults, as they were in days past.

Tolkien would write something more like E. R. Eddison’s The Worm Ourobouros which had at least achieved some critical success and which Tolkien liked.

From the hindrance of other events and from Tolkien’s own care in writing the book was only finished, more-or-less, twelve years later. The protagonist would end up physically fine, save for the loss of a finger, but psychically suffer from what is now clinically called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Frodo had to be put away to Eressëa. Not a nice picture to present to the cannon-fodder of the future.

The first chapter is in some ways more like The Hobbit. But the clear picture of Hobbiton and its inhabitants is otherwise quite unlike The Hobbit. It is more like George Eliot’s Middlemarch done as a comedy for kiddies.

The protagonist Frodo is like Bilbo, one of the idle rich who probably never did a bit of work in his life up till now and mostly pals around with similar idle rich, mostly being idle and walking and eating. Tolkien has realized that rich playboys make the best heroes as they can be good and don’t have the pressure of having to work day-to-day. If you are extraordinarily wealthy but still good presumably you will be really exceptionally good if circumstances require.

Otho Sackville-Baggins is the other kind of idle rich, rotten to the core. He even says, “Foiled again!” Some reviewers apparently missed him altogether. They claimed only Sauron and his horde were presented as evil and nowhere did Tolkien explain why they were evil. Apparently they only skimmed the chapter “The Shadow of the Past” where Tolkien first tells some of the story of Sauron in this book.

That The Lord of the Rings begins more in the style of The Hobbit fits as it is a bridge from The Hobbit to the new book. But the Prologue makes clear that this book will have much more background depth than Tolkien’s earlier hobbit book and even sort of explains pipe tobacco in Europe before Christopher Columus. The first chapter begins to fulfill this promise. But Tolkien carelessly neglects to explain Númenor and the Dúnedain until one mention in the third volume and Appendix A I (i).

Tolkien, from his mentions, made sure that Sir Stanley Unwin would accept The Silmarillion as a sequel (prequel really) this time, if the The Lord of the Rings was a success. Tolkien had sent The Silmarillion to Allen & Unwin once and when they didn’t want it almost got another publisher to take it along with The Lord of the Rings. Now, as his Niggle desired, the publishers and readers were screaming for his uncompleted work.

Like Niggle, Tolkien died before his Silmarillion was finished, about seventeen years later, but mostly not working on his supposedly great work. Tolkien’s story Leaf by Niggle was very much not an allegory.

[Lollipop010900]

Interesting topic Inziladun,

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. 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.

[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.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

The Hobbit for me has always been a children's book. To me the lighthearted feeling of it all and the narrator have been delightful. There are those for which the opposite is the case. My recently turning more treeish friend, Lauri, didn't like TH specifically for its tone, and her mother before her felt the same way. I never had a problem with the tone.

My opinion on the tone at the beginning of Lord of the Rings has been this: the hobbits are in their homeland, the place that has always been full of life, joy, parties, and fun. There is no reason to precede that with a gloomy or foreboding tone. FotR opens with Bilbo and Frodo throwing the most magnificent party this generation of hobbits has known, where fun is to be had by all. After Bilbo sets off (again) and Frodo follows, he does not see the danger he is facing, partly because he is still in the Shire, and he wouldn't think that darkness could follow him all the way there. The Shire was home, and bad things aren't supposed to happen at home, especially in a company of friends. What I see is the light tone being slowly overshadowed by warnings by Gandalf and Gildor, and the first appearance of the Nazgul.

Over time the story obviously gets darker. Juicy-Sweet put it nicely above with:

What is interesting is that [Tolkien] 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 couldn't, he made it so gradual.

There have always been stories about magical places. Some have weathered the test of time very well. I find it interesting in particular stories like Cinderella and Snow White being altered from the originals into a more lighthearted tone for audiences, making them more alike to TH. LotR, if it were still to be purely a Hobbit sequel, might just make it today, though not with such a following as it does now. When you change the tone, you change the book.

I wound be very curious to read The Son of the Hobbit and the Daleks, though.