Leave a comment

Comments 4

nymundra November 10 2012, 01:21:20 UTC
I suppose I should read the book. I read the entire LOTR trilogy, but always thought The Hobbit wouldn't keep my interest as much. Either way, I'm definitely going to see that in the theater when it's out. :D

Reply

sinistertim101 November 10 2012, 03:21:17 UTC
Totally different book by a longshot.

The history of The Hobbit (writting aspect) is a book written for children. He wrote it for his son who turned 13 as a present. He had sketches and maps of middle earth and random notes about mythical creatures for years based on old english legends. The hobbit was his way to describe it. If you watch the animated film which is free on youtube you can tell "Once upon a time long ago in a hole in the the ground there lived a hobbit .."

You would not see such language in LOTR. The Lord of the Rings was written for abunch of colleages at Oxford who wanted to see his notes and material for the Hobbit. As a result it is chaotic mess. It explains why the Hobbits are walking and all of the sudden they pass a ruin and it goes offtopic for 15 pages describing history etc. He also wrote part of it in Welsh and ancient english to make it pure and converted it back to modern english which ruins part of the translation and flow. The hobbit is more straightforward but also has songs like this.

Reply

nymundra November 10 2012, 18:19:05 UTC
Yes, that was one of the first things I noticed when I read the first several pages of The Hobbit. It was a concern of mine as I'm really really picky when it comes to writing style. My copy of the book was accidentally destroyed and I have yet to replace it, but I didn't read enough to determine if I could finish it with as much gusto as I did the LOTR ones.

Reply

nymundra November 10 2012, 18:19:53 UTC
Also, that song is wicked! XD

Reply


Leave a comment

Up