Does Tolkien’s storytelling style change from The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings?

It seems to me that the narrative style of The Hobbit is much more folksy, for lack of a better term, more like the way Narnia is written. LOTR has a much more serious, historical tone.

This threw me for a loop the first time I read the books. I devoured The Hobbit and jumped into LOTR expecting a similar style. I quickly got bogged down and it took a few tries to get through it (keep in mind I was just knee-high to a grasshopper then).

Back to the topic at hand: I actually was introduced to Tolkien's work long before Narnia. Back in the '60s LOTR was considered by many to be part of the rebellious counter-culture, and while I was too young to be rebellious, I met Frodo and the rest when my slightly-rebellious older brother left the books lying around.

I think I've commented elsewhere that reading Narnia reminds me of sitting around the fire and hearing granddad tell a short bedtime story full of imaginative creatures and adventures, while Tolkien (especially LOTR) also has imaginative creatures and adventures, but it's much more of a detailed, historical account. One is not 'better' or 'worse' - they're just different ways of telling a story.

The Hobbit almost fits right in the middle of those two styles.

Random note: I attended a local bookstore event yesterday with friends. It celebrated the 75th anniversary of The Hobbit with readings, trivia, etc. One comment addressed the change in style between The Hobbit and LOTR and noted that Tolkien later tried rewriting Bilbo's tale in his later, LOTR style. Eventually he stopped doing this as he realized it was a completely different book.

Back in the '60s LOTR was considered by many to be part of the rebellious counter-culture

I heard about that a while ago. Honestly... I can't figure it out.

One comment addressed the change in style between The Hobbit and LOTR and noted that Tolkien later tried rewriting Bilbo's tale in his later, LOTR style. Eventually he stopped doing this as he realized it was a completely different book.

I have a copy of that re-write, actually. It's in a two-book hardback collection I bought last year. Believe me, it's a blessing that he stopped.

~Riella

Back in the '60s LOTR was considered by many to be part of the rebellious counter-culture

I heard about that a while ago. Honestly... I can't figure it out.

Perhaps because Tolkien was being critical to modern technology - or to what it could do to a village or a rural area - especially as he expressed this in one of the last chapters of LotR, The Scouring of the Shire.

I don't think he saw himself as much of a flower-power man, though

The Hobbit was very much a tale of its period, a children's adventure in the line of lots of other English writers of the first part of the 20th century. By the time Tolkien had got beyond the first chapters of LOTR he was starting to involve ideas and bits of his bigger world, and almost as a natural thing he was using more elevated language with old fashioned [and archacic] words, and giving hints of a wider world with bigger picture threats and events.
When I bought the first edition of The Silmarillion I found it hard to get into, as it was all so elevated, and it didn't appeal. The homeyness of Hobbit and the early LOTR is welcoming and friendly.

The Narnia stories are quite different; they are written for children, but don't have the homeyness - except for places such as the Beavers' home, Tumnus' cave, etc, where the human characters find unexpected safety and welcome. They are in Narnia, and Home is somewhere they came from, and will get back to when Aslan sends them. Bilbo starts off in a safe home, and it's straying out of it that leads him to adventure.

Does anyone else think that the Stone Giants of The Hobbit are strikingly similar to the Giants of Ettinsmoor in The Silver Chair? Both groups like to play games throwing stones. In fact the whole episode with the stone giants and the dwarves is very like the Ettinsmoor giants and the children with Puddleglum. Do you think C.S. Lewis borrowed a little from his friend? Or is throwing boulders just something that giants do in fairy tales?

Does anyone else think that the Stone Giants of The Hobbit are strikingly similar to the Giants of Ettinsmoor in The Silver Chair?

Yes, I do. I had it on my list of items to post about in this thread but you beat me to it. According to Wikipedia, there are English stories of giants throwing stones at each other. I assume both Tolkien and Lewis were aware of that. Lewis also would have been aware of the story in The Hobbit. It is really hard to say how much Tolkien and Lewis influenced each other and how much of the similarities came from the knowledge they both had. No matter the source the scenes are similar. As well as names of places, Ettinsmoor in Narnia and Ettenmoors in Middle Earth.

I also found other similarities between The Hobbit and Silver Chair. The dwarves end up sliding down a way when rocks are dislodged. They were above ground however. Also Gloin and Oin lost their tinderboxes (I don't remember when).

At some point Bilbo cleans his sword which reminded me of Lewis's mentioning cleaning swords (Aslan tells Peter to clean his sword and Eustace has to polish his because he neglected to clean it).

I will have to respond to the questions in the first post at another time. (I need time to think).

When I read about Lake-town and the dwarves entry there, I am reminded of Narrowhaven and the events there. What do you think? How are they similar? How are they different? (Consider all aspects of the story: setting, characters, plot, etc.)

Does Tolkien’s storytelling style change from The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings?

It seems to me that the narrative style of The Hobbit is much more folksy, for lack of a better term, more like the way Narnia is written. LOTR has a much more serious, historical tone.

This threw me for a loop the first time I read the books. I devoured The Hobbit and jumped into LOTR expecting a similar style. I quickly got bogged down and it took a few tries to get through it (keep in mind I was just knee-high to a grasshopper then).

Back to the topic at hand: I actually was introduced to Tolkien's work long before Narnia. Back in the '60s LOTR was considered by many to be part of the rebellious counter-culture, and while I was too young to be rebellious, I met Frodo and the rest when my slightly-rebellious older brother left the books lying around.

I think I've commented elsewhere that reading Narnia reminds me of sitting around the fire and hearing granddad tell a short bedtime story full of imaginative creatures and adventures, while Tolkien (especially LOTR) also has imaginative creatures and adventures, but it's much more of a detailed, historical account. One is not 'better' or 'worse' - they're just different ways of telling a story.

The Hobbit almost fits right in the middle of those two styles.

Random note: I attended a local bookstore event yesterday with friends. It celebrated the 75th anniversary of The Hobbit with readings, trivia, etc. One comment addressed the change in style between The Hobbit and LOTR and noted that Tolkien later tried rewriting Bilbo's tale in his later, LOTR style. Eventually he stopped doing this as he realized it was a completely different book.

I know this is an odd quoted post reply. I laughed about the rebellious thing. It is weird how time changes everything.

I have read the fellowship of the ring about 5 years ago, There was a reason I didn''t read the rest but I can't remember why.

would people recommend ready the hobbit or the lord of the rings first.

for narnia and lotr similarities, I guess they are both are in made up world with mythical creatures and that's about all the have the same.(thats comparing the movies and narnia books).

would people recommend ready the hobbit or the lord of the rings first.

I would recommend reading The Hobbit first since it is targeted for a younger audience, but is by no means too silly for adults. The Hobbit is more quickly read and more easily digested than LOTR, The Hobbit was written first, and LOTR would technically be a sort of sequel to The Hobbit. For all these reasons, I say go with The Hobbit.

(As you know, there happens to be a Hobbit reading group going on currently here at NarniaWeb, so now would be a great time to read it and discuss it with us!)

The Narnia stories are quite different; they are written for children, but don't have the homeyness - except for places such as the Beavers' home, Tumnus' cave, etc, where the human characters find unexpected safety and welcome. They are in Narnia, and Home is somewhere they came from, and will get back to when Aslan sends them.

That might be the case for Susan, and in her case it is fair enough and for the points C.S.Lewis made about what is 'home'. But the idea of 'home' is a tenuous one at best. C.S.Lewis drew attention to it quite properly by using in his Narnia series, unhomed British children, evacuated in World War II, due to the anticipated Nazi bombing. I wonder if he ever saw the 1939 production of 'Wizard of Oz', starring Judy Garland as Dorothy of Kansas, where the most memorable magical phrase is "There is no place like home". I remember seeing that film first as a chickenpox-afflicted 4 year old inmate of a most unhomelike orphanage back in 1952.

But since we are talking about LOTR & The Hobbit, yes, I can understand Bilbo's attachment to staying at home in The Hobbit, which I first read for Children's Literature in 1968. Whilst I, too, can see the similarities between Tolkien and Lewis, such as the way both used the term 'Ettinsmoor', I can also see different approaches to what might be considered as 'home'. 'Home' for Bilbo always remained as 'Rivendell', as a more stately version of what it might be like if he had been left alone in Bag End. But in the end of LOTR, Bilbo found it necessary to retreat to the Elves' Long Home, along with his nephew Frodo, because of the Ring. Whereas Lewis more openly attached the idea of 'home' with 'Heaven' and what it might be like beyond death.

I don't think Lewis copied Tolkien, they just had different points of view about the same things.

What common themes do you see running through both stories? What makes Narnia distinct from Middle-earth? Are there dramatic differences in storytelling style? Does Tolkien’s storytelling style change from The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings? Are there similar changes within the Chronicles?

It's funny, but we actually talked about which was better in a special topics class on the Inklings I took in college. I surprised the professor by choosing Narnia even though he had taken to calling me the Hobbit/Mr. Hobbit. Anyway, to answer the questions...

I think both series have definite themes of good conquering evil and the value of small or ordinary people. In Middle-earth, there is an emphasis on Hobbits and their ordinariness. In Narnia, this shows up in all of the human characters and in Reepicheep, who are all at some point thought too small, ordinary, or unimportant to be of use. Yet these characters are the ones who end up changing the stories (under the guidance of the Valar and wizards in M-e and Aslan in Narnia).

Narnia is distinct from Middle-earth in that its mythology is less constructed and more grown than Tolkien's. Tolkien went through multiple drafts and versions of his mythology to get it just right, but Lewis' method seems more to add whatever was needed as it became necessary.

I think that the differences in storytelling are along the lines of what stargazer said. The Hobbit and Narnia are both told in a manner that is more folksy, stories-around the fire style. LotR is very much a historical epic, and that is apparent in its style and diction. Tolkien's storytelling did change from TH to LotR, but for the better, I think. He couldn't have told LotR the way he did TH and have something as impacting as he did when he was finished.

I would say that Lewis' style matures as the Chronicles advance. It isn't so much that his style changes in the way Tolkien's does, but that he learns how better to write for children and treat his characters.

What makes Narnia distinct from Middle-earth? Are there dramatic differences in storytelling style?

Narnia is distinct from Middle-earth in that its mythology is less constructed and more grown than Tolkien's. Tolkien went through multiple drafts and versions of his mythology to get it just right, but Lewis' method seems more to add whatever was needed as it became necessary.

Tolkien never finished trying to get it just right ... although this fact applies mostly to his greater Legendarium, which never was finished in his lifetime, but edited and published as The Silmarillion by his son Christopher some years after J.R.R. Tolkien's death.

Christopher Tolkien also published (in The History of Middle-earth essays and articles and notes where his father tried to further develop the backstory of the characters (especially the Elves) of Middle-earth, in order to get things just right. He considered books that had been published, as fixed points, though, so he didn't want any drastic changes of LotR or The Hobbit.

This is rather different from the way Lewis worked with the Narnian universe. I like the description of the mythology being grown rather than constructed, and added as needed - it sounds like the way it seems to have happened, judging by what the results look like.

Also, we never hear about Lewis writing several improved versions of his texts before submitting them for publishing.

What common themes do you see running through both stories?
Both have heroes that are unlikely - the children in CoN and Hobbits in The Hobbit. Greed plays an important role in both stories. Both involve magic. And of course the struggle between good and evil.

What makes Narnia distinct from Middle-earth?
Narnia is another world. Middle-earth is supposed to be England in an earlier time.

Are there dramatic differences in storytelling style?
There are differences but not quite as made as there are between Narnia and LotR. Narnia and the Hobbit are both intended for children and that comes across in the writing style. Both authors step out of the narrator roles to acknowledge the audience. Tolkien pauses to explain about Hobbits. Lewis says things like the children had no more idea of who Aslan was than you do (not an exact quote, I'm typing from memory). The Hobbit has more detail than Narnia.

Does Tolkien’s storytelling style change from The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings?
Yes it did (as others have mentioned). The Hobbit is for children the LotR is not.

Are there similar changes within the Chronicles? The storytelling style is much the same through out the Chronicles. They all are intended for children. Throughout the Chronicles, Lewis makes little comments to his audience (Telling them the story took place when there grandparents were children, relating what Lucy told him). I do think that Lewis made some minor changes but the feel of the stories remains the same.

It is interesting to note that both Lewis and Tolkien have a bit of passing the torch feel in their stories. Aslan is the only one in all of the 7 books. Gandalf likewise is the only character from The Hobbit to have a major role in LotR. Aslan is obviously more powerful than Gandalf but they serve similar roles in their respective stories: They get things started and show up to help when things get rough. Lucy and Edmund had adventures and were there to help Eustace learn. Eustace then goes one to feature in adventures without the Edmund and Lucy. Bilbo started out with the adventure and taught Frodo a lot. Frodo then went off on his own journey.

The dwarves (dwarfs) are very similar between the books. Both tend to be cranky and greedy. They also work at mining and making things out of metals. Dwarves / dwarfs are also both tending to stubbornness. Once they get an idea in their heads they stick to it no matter the cost to them. Thorin and co made themselves a physical prison because of greed; Griffle and his dwarfs made themselves a mental prison because of their refusal to be taken in.