Better or Worse?

[Fimbrethil]

Sometimes I think the Hobbit is better than LOTR but then sometimes I also think that LOTR is better than the Hobbit. Is it just me or does it seem like Tolkien takes a more personal feel to the Hobbit? Your thoughts?

[Bombadillo]

Definately not. THe Hobbit was a simple children's book. He wouldn't put in much secret or deeper meaning because they probably wouldn't understand. LotR, he poured his self into it. All of his anti-technology/machinery beliefs, his morals, and his ideas about the world, his thoughts on society, even some of his most personal memories (Tom Bombadil).

Obviosly, I can't elaborate in one post, or day. But I definately think LotR is both better and more personal.

[Shadowfax]

Originally posted by Bombadillo
Definately not. THe Hobbit was a simple children's book. He wouldn't put in much secret or deeper meaning because they probably wouldn't understand. LotR, he poured his self into it. All of his anti-technology/machinery beliefs, his morals, and his ideas about the world, his thoughts on society, even some of his most personal memories (Tom Bombadil).

Obviosly, I can't elaborate in one post, or day. But I definately think LotR is both better and more personal.

Well said, I agree completely. With the Hobbit it was also I think, more like he was "testing the waters" in writing about his imaginary world, if you get what I mean. When it came to LotR, it started off as a light-hearted sequel to the Hobbit, but ended up taking a darker twist. I hope this makes some sense.

[durin's bane]

I agree entirely with Bombadillo. Tolkien poured a bit of himself into The Lord of the Rings (sort of like Sauron and the One Ring, huh? ) His love of nature and dislike of machinery was showed through the Ents destroying Isengard. Tolkien put his morals, beliefs, and experiences into The Lord of the Rings.
The Hobbit was targeted towards children, and so Tolkien couldn't make it go too deep or put in things that little kids wouldn't understand.
So in my opinion, The Lord of the Rings is more personal and better than The Hobbit (don't get me wrong, though; I love The Hobbit).

[kiwi52291]

Originally posted by Bombadillo
Definately not. THe Hobbit was a simple children's book. He wouldn't put in much secret or deeper meaning because they probably wouldn't understand. LotR, he poured his self into it. All of his anti-technology/machinery beliefs, his morals, and his ideas about the world, his thoughts on society, even some of his most personal memories (Tom Bombadil).

Obviosly, I can't elaborate in one post, or day. But I definately think LotR is both better and more personal.

I think that they are both equally good: LOTR is good because it is "more personal" and the hobbit is good because it is "a simple children's book" which makes a more "light-hearted" adventure story than LOTR, being much less darker.

[The Gaffer]

I reckon that The Hobbit is better in many ways, and is less susceptible to the sorts of criticisms levelled at LOTR (pompous, flat characterisation, apart from those based on gender or ethnicity, etc).

But it ain't got me in it, so it be no good to man nor beast.

[hectorberlioz]

Yeah, the hobbit was meant to be for the younger audience. lotr had "heart'

[Tuor of Gondolin]

The Hobbit is an excellent introduction to the world of middle earth for a middle/upper elementary school audience. When I taught fourth grade I read it aloud to a class (the way Tolkien wrote and then read it to his children). By luck, more than anything else, I picked a boy to be Bilbo who was perfect for the role. Since I was the teacher (and bought nine or ten paperbacks for the class to share) I got to be the narrator and Gandalf. And three guys in the class got to be bad guys and got killed several times over, (as the trolls, spiders, and orcs). It's a pity there aren't roles for women in The Hobbit, but girls in the class liked reading parts for dwarves, elves, etc.

[IronParrot]

The Hobbit, to me, is clearly what J.R.R. Tolkien was aiming for in the first eight chapters of The Lord of the Rings, before the latter unveiled itself to be a much bigger and more ambitious project.

Mind you, I find that the sense of high adventure in The Hobbit - and the elements thereof that are present in The Lord of the Rings - appeal to me a lot more than the kind of thing Tolkien writes in, say, Appendix A of LOTR or The Silmarillion. I find that Tolkien writes country bumpkins better than he does kings and queens, princes and princesses, lords and ladies.

One of the reasons why LOTR works so well, I think, is that Tolkien doesn't get too consumed by the grand epic world that he's created. He roots himself firmly to what he's best at: writing the story according to the hobbits.

So no, I don't think it's better than LOTR by any means, but it's certainly underappreciated due to its status as a "children's book".

[Ainaromenel]

I know that Tolkien spent the most amount of time on the Simarillion, starting it first and working on it all through his life. I think that he does a good job of telling stories through many perspectives, because it is not just the hobbits perspective that is mentioned, but also many others. I think LotR is telling the story of the ring, not just Hobbits, though he focuses on them a lot. I think Tolkien liked his different works for different reasons, because all of them are different, and all have a different perspective. I don't think he would have said that one is better than the other. I like both the Hobbit and LotR, and I think to have one without the other would not have worked as well.

[Rosie Gamgee]

I believe I read once (I think it was in 'The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien') that when Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit', he didn't realize it was part of what he created with the Sil. It was just another book to him, like Farmer Giles of Ham. Then because it was such a success, his publishers asked him to write a sequel. He started out writing a children's book, but since the obvious link between the two books would be the Ring, he ended up making a darker book, fit for an older audience (which the children who loved The Hobbit were by the time LOTR was published). On top of that, he fit it into his Silmarillion (spl? [boy that's a doozie]), and all of a sudden it was part of a bigger whole.
In my opinion, neither book is 'better' than the other. I personally would rather read LOTR because of its depth, which is merely because I am old enough to appreciate it. A person younger than me would certainly want to start with 'The Hobbit' (especially since that book makes no confusing references to people and places which do not really exist and play no relevant part in the plot, such as "the cats of Queen Bethruiel (spl?)").

[Anadriewen]

I think Tolkein put more heart into lotr because of the way its written. The hobbit is a lot shorter than lotr. I don't think tolkein would write a heartless book that is...really long. So the hobbit was just a small book, and intro to lotr. Not a book that tolkein will be famous for. He's famous for lotr.[FONT=arial][list]
[COLOR=blue]

[hawaiidevil]

Originally posted by Fimbrethil
Sometimes I think the Hobbit is better than LOTR but then sometimes I also think that LOTR is better than the Hobbit. Is it just me or does it seem like Tolkien takes a more personal feel to the Hobbit? Your thoughts?

Apples and oranges.

One as has been mentioned, is a childrens book, albeit a good one (sorry IR). LOTR is a HISTORY! A novel meant to be the preface to the SIL and the History of Middle earth

[Goldberry1]

hmm... tough. i prefer LOTR to The Hobbit, but that's just my opinion. The Hobbit seems to take so long to get into the story, i put it down about 20 pages in and didn't get back to it for about 6 months. LOTR seemed to get right into it. they're both amazing works of literature - and far more than i could ever hope to achieve to write - but i think LOTR is better.

[Silpion]

I enjoyed both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I prefer LOTR more.
As a little kid, The Hobbit grabbed me with Bilbo who stumbled into this rollicking adventure. The book was up and down like a roller coaster. It was rip-roaring fun, like a theme park.
LOTR just sucked me into it's universe. It had adventure, yes. But, there is just so much more to it. That first time I read it, I felt there was so much going on that I wanted to know about.
I like both books for different reasons. LOTR stands out more to me than The Hobbit does.

[zinnite]

The Hobbit was the first book I read "on my own" as a kid, so it will always be a bit more special to me than LOTR. However, LOTR is much more fulfilling emotionally and thematically. They're both so different though, and I don't see one as better than the other.