Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvax!jims
From: jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Sequels, The Lord of the Rings, Random Information
Message-ID: <1828@hcrvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 09:47:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: hcrvax.1828
Posted: Fri Jun 14 09:47:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 00:24:26 EDT
References: <2188@topaz.ARPA> <242@azure.UUCP> <15015@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 30

[...]
> 
> 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 )