"Disconnect"-Hobbit and LOTR? Part 1

[Mithril 2000]

It has always seemed to me that there are fundamental disconnects-- inconsistencies-- between these two works.
The tone, even the writing syle, is very different. The Hobbit is written with a self conscious "quaintness", a "once-upon-a-time" style seen in fairy tales in general. It seems calculated to appeal to children. With the exception of the battle of the five armies, the perils faced by the characters seem almost light-hearted and amusing, if not humorous.
The Hobbit also seems to me to be a self-contained work, not really intended as a prelude to LOTR.
To be continued...

[Mithril 2000]

While there are references to the ancient history-- and to one or two current political matters in the broader world-- these are not critical to the plot or to any of the characters. Indeed, there is little in the Hobbit-- except the finding of the Ring of course-- that anticipates the saga of LOTR. The Necromancer of the Hobbit is a far different character than Sauron of LOTR, and the child-like elves bear no resemblance to those grave figures introduced in the later work. The affairs of Men are of almost no import at all. There are many other examples.
Although I love both works, this disconnect has always intrigued me. Tolkien himself hinted at imperfections in his work (in his foreword to LOTR), and I have always wondered whether he had to "force" some of the plot elements in the early chapters of LOTR in order to tie the two works together. If so, he did a remarkable job.
In my opinion the biggest inconsistency is the nature and character of the Elves.

[Greymantle]

Yes, like Walter said, The Hobbit was written as a simple children's story. LotR was much different and came later, originally as a "sequel" to The Hobbit.
The thousands of inconsistencies must be overlooked; they simply represent different stages of Tolkien's thought process. However, in his normal way, he tried to reconcile such inconcistencies in later works.
Take the Elves, for example. The Elves of Mirkwood are Green Elves, we find out, quite different from the Grey Elves or the Eldar. I think they are intended to be rather more "silly." Legolas' seriousness can probably be reconciled by the fact that he is the son of the king, Thranduil.
Sorry, I'm not making much sense.... I'm sort of just typing and hoping something comes out. I really should come to these boards first and save the movie forum for when I've had something to eat. :)

[Mithril 2000]

I agree with your reponses; just wanted to see whether others have noticed the same things.

Actually, it worked out quite nicely, I think. How else could JRRT have introduced us to Middle Earth? IMO, LOTR would have been a "difficult sell" ( at least to the masses) if the Hobbit-- or something quite like it-- had not come first. In a sense-- and since everyone has the Movie on their minds these days-- the Hobbit serves quite well as a "trailer". I remember craving more of this stuff when I first read it ( the LOTR books were just coming out in the USA in those days!), and the innocence of the Hobbit made the profundity of LOTR seem that much more, well, profound.

Somewhere along the line Tolkien reconceived the Elves, and what a reconception! As far as I am aware there are no characters like them anywhere else in literature or, for that matter, mythology.
Thanks for the responses.

[Grond]

Hail and well met, good Mithril2000. Indeed, the world of JRRT is one full of wonder and amazement. I have just opened the heavy Christmas present from my wife and lo and behold, in it are the Complete Histories of Middle Earth. All 12 books packaged in three volumes. While the print is small (alas I have a magnifiying glass if need be), these volumes represent much of his conceptualization of the very topics and inconsistincies you hint at in creating this thread. It is ironic that what begin as a simple children's tale has developed into so many thousands of pages of history, myth and just fine story telling.

I agree with all of the assertions already put forward concerning the inconsistinces and wish you well. :D

[Mithril 2000]

Grond- Merry Christmas. When you open your "surprise", please post the particulars re who the publisher is, where bought, cost (if you can find out), etc.
M2k

[Mithril 2000]

Thanks, and Merry Christmas! It's only 7:10 am here in Atlanta Georgia USA-- the kids are not even up yet! Wow, those books aren't cheap, are they? Nice gift!

[Grond]

There are only 1000 of each of these volumes being printed, hence their exorbitant price. I expect they may bring bonanza bucks on ebay by the third year of the movie. I've already seen some trading for $200 each. And, yes, they are awesome.

[the peon]

Forgive me if this is irrelevant, but I just look at the Hobbit as Bilbo's story in his own words. "There and Back Again."
I know Tolkien wrote it technically, but I get around the inconsistencies because it's Bilbo's story written by Bilbo. It's not as third party as LOTR. Bilbo's bound to get some stuff wrong, exagerate some things forget things, etc. It works for me. It's like 2 authors, Bilbo and Tolkien. Bilbo's writing style is somewhat different than the man's.
JAson
By the way this is my first post here. (and yes I was pleased with the movie.)All the talk about Bombadil around here is very very interesting. The similarillon too...I've never read it.

[Tyaronumen]

I agree with thepeon... while it is, of course, incongruous as you say, Tolkien's explanation is somewhat sufficient in explanation, in that Bilbo is said to have written the Hobbit, and Frodo recorded the future happenings.

The fact that Frodo was a much more efficient writer than Bilbo is not usually mentioned either... (Bilbo seems to have been "working on his book" for a LOOOOOOONG time compared to Frodo. :) )

[Illuvatar]

I think that not only should it be looked at like the Hobbit was adapted to fit in with LOTR, but LOTR, while it was written, was made to fit in with the Hobbit. JRRT could not, however, make them seem more of prelude and actual book without completely changing both.

[HLGStrider]

The Hobbit leads to the Lord of the Rings the way Nancy Drew leads you to Agatha Christie. They'll always be connected. They'll always be inconsistant. I had to approach the Lord of the Rings not as the sequel to the Hobbit but as an entire new books, somewhat. . .but without the Hobbit to catch us when we are young, the Lord of the Rings is hard to grasp.

[Sengir Buendia]

I'm really surprised at people's disappointment for The Hobbit and LOTR's "inconsistencies", as you call it. I HATED to read that! It almost seems as people seeing it as a flaw in Tolkien's work, as something really bothering, which hinders your aprecciation of both books.

Well, I hope I got you all wrong, because it doesn't bother me at all!!!! On the contrary, I see it as one more brilliant move in Tolkien's way of conducting the whole hyper-complex epic. The Hobbit is such a pleasant reading, easy OK, but exactly because of that, delicious, involving, addicting!! It's a "child" book for non-childs, because of LOTR and the others, and after all infancy is the best time in life. That's the feeling I have with the hobbit. LOTR is a serious novel, despite of the hobbits, Sil and the others even more serious (even nonreadable for most). The hobbit is our "comic relief" (working a lot better than the distorted Gimli in the movies) and besides, provide a great insight at the nature of the dwarves, little explored in LOTR. I learned to love them through the hobbit, and that increased my hate for Gimli's foul movie adaptation. I imagine someone who watched the movie without having read the hobbit would find not only Gimli but all dwarves a stupid, mean and useless race! (book LOTR also doesn't help much in "cleaning" their image, maybe the appendices)

I can't find ONE SINGLE "inconsistency" which makes me disappointed. The books melt together perfectly and still stand on their own. So what? Bless Tolkien!