jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) (06/14/85)
[...] > > Saying sequels are automatically bad is silly...remember that > Lord of the Rings is a sequel to the Hobbit (and I refuse to > listen to anyone who says the Hobbit is superior, much as it's > a nice story). > Actually, TLotR is not a sequel. When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit he intended it as a children's story, and its success caught him off-guard. When his publishers asked him for a sequel, he refused, and offered them a couple of other stories, including, I believe, the Silmarillion (I know, I spelt it wrong). But, the publishers wanted something to follow the hobbit, and so...Tolkien started on TLotR. Unfortunately, The Hobbit was not suited for a sequel. The original version had a Bilbo being given the ring by gollum, for winning the riddle game. In order to establish a link between The Hobbit and TLotR, Tolkien had to change later versions of The Hobbit to have Bilbo steal the ring, setting up the 'We Hates Baggins, Forever' sub-plot. It was at this point that Tolkien made the ring, the ONE ring. Before it was just a magical ring. By making it the ONE ring, the bond between The Hobbit and TLotR was firmly established. So, to say the TLotR is a sequel to The Hobbit is not quite true, it depends on how you look at it. Jim Sullivan (I stole the above from an essay I did 8 months ago for an University of Waterloo english course, Forms of Fantasy, Engl 208A i Believe )