BOOKS: The Hobbit versus the LOTR?

Post Reply New Topic

I searched for a topic of this kind at Wrong Planet and was surprised that none resulted.

So, which book is your idea of the better book?

I read that article and I disagree with almost all of the seven points.

1. Yes, Bilbo was a good sneaky character and Frodo was selfless. That's the point, it's even said in the book that "Bilbo went to get something, and we're going to bring something back" or something along those lines. Any selfish character would have taken the ring for himself. It's even mentioned how lucky Middle-earth is that Bilbo found the Ring and chose the right heir for the job, or that it maybe was not a coincidence (left up to the reader).
And of course Sam calls him Mr. Frodo, it appears the Shire is a stratified society (think Downton Abbey) which may not be apparent to readers in the 21st century. Sam is a servant and the other three hobbits are aristocrats. Pippin and Merry just call him Frodo because they are all from the Hobbit elite and are closely related. The Shirefolk are also quite heimisch as they don't even trust people from other parts of the Shire like Buckland, because some of those Bucklanders will even swim! Hobbits are depicted as set in their ways with exception of people like the Tooks and Brandybucks.

2. Yes, Dwarves are great. But I disagree that Gimli was much comic relief in the books, they made him that way in the movies (sadly). The image I got from the books was that Gimli was a pretty serious and stern person. The way he speaks of Moria, finding the failed colony of Balin, his whole attitude, I don't see much comical there. The Dwarves in The Silmarillion are also quite grim characters mostly.

3. There's a reason Gollum wasn't offed in the first book and that Frodo didn't kill him. Gandalf explains why Bilbo did not kill Gollum, and even correctly predicts that he may still have a role to play. #3 made no sense at all.

4. Not much to add, except that LotR also had a few good antagonists. We don't see much of Sauron, but he influences Saruman and Denethor to really mess things up.

(continued in next post for fear the forums eatses my precious )

Lord of the Rings

The Hobbit is really just a children's book, whereas LOTR is a much more adult book and expands the whole middle earth universe. The two film trilogies merge the two source books together as though there is no distinction between the two.

Neither is 'better' they are both great in their own ways, and different from each other. The Hobbit is a more simple story, that does not have quite as complex of a plot, basically Bilbo goes and finds the ring, because he is pressured into an 'adventure' by Gandalf and the Dwarves great story but not quite as in depth as LOTR. LOTR sort of describes history and what not before The Hobbit even took place, ties the story of The Hobbit in obviously to explain how Bilbo got the ring to give to Frodo.

I do also find it a little strange they made The Hobbit into 3 movies, I mean its the shortest book...from my recollection so not sure how they got all the material to make 3 full length movies of it. My brother who is a bit more familiar with the other Tolkien books aside from LOTR and The Hobbit said they put some stuff that belonged in the other books in it, so I suppose that explains some of the added length. And speaking of this if you have not watched it I recommend the old animated version of The Hobbit, it has great music and the artwork is actually kind of nice...I had a copy on VHS but I cannot find it.

Indeed, comparable to The Chronicles of Narnia as far as writing style....I mean still can hold interest but its written in a way to make it easy to understand for children. Whereas LOTR is a much more complex story with a lot more depth and complicated language.

You too? I wondered how a book that is about the length of just one of the three Lord of the Rings books could justify a three-episode series. But, I then read that Christopher Tolkien had found his father's post-Hobbit notes which had expanded some of the Hobbit background. Thus, Peter Jackson apparently felt compelled to include some of the discovered facts into his movies. And, yes, I love the Ralph Bakshi animated version of The Lord of the Rings, even if it ends abruptly halfway through the story. Funny thing is that Bakshi gets royalty payments from Jackson because the Tolkien family sold their movie rights to Bakshi, not Jackson. Ka-ching!

I read the hobbit again recently and thought it was brilliant. The last time I read it I was about ten.

One of the brilliant things is how the story continues after the main mission is over
instead of ....they all lived happily ever after.....

It's ...the gold was recovered and after arguing over it, everyone had a big battle

I think Christopher Tolkien refused to cooperate with the movies being made because he is against it (and any other adaptations as well). He hasn't seen any of them. The movie people had the rights to The Hobbit and LotR, nothing else. Much of the Dwarves vs Orcs stuff they added into the movie came from the appendices of LotR. They are not allowed to use The Silmarillion or any of the other books besides Hobbit/LotR. And some of the stuff (Tauriel etc) they made up themselves.
From the people involved with the movies the only people to have met Tolkien are his great-grandson who had a role as an extra, and Christopher Lee who played Saruman.

This question is like arguing over which chapter is best. I see them as parts of a single story.

They are going to offer Chris Tolkien a LOT of money to make silmarillion movies!

When he passes away, the person who inherits the franchise will be offered the money and they might accept.