KidLit Forum

Does “The Hobbit” stand or does it need “The Lord of the Rings” to be a complete story?

The heroic figures of The Lord of the Rings are Aragorn and Frodo. One is a greater man, noble and powerful, who fights epic battles and the second is a childlike hobbit wondering why he was chosen to destroy a "wicked" ring, a question which will increase his burden on his shoulders until he will pass through all sorts of dark experiences, eventually reaching the level of a "magic hero".

On the other hand, The Hobbit is the story of Bilbo Baggings, who was again chosen to take part in an adventure, the pursuit of happiness (because all that glitters is gold). I don't see it as a prelude for the famous trilogy, even if the ring is mentioned here and there. It's power is not so well emphasized. All that we know is that it makes you invisible and made Gollum run astray.

This book is a simple "bildungsroman" type of novel and when everything is done the life gets back to normal. Of course you can feel that there must be a sequel to such an enjoyable book, but the trilogy really stands alone. It's very complex and it all happens around the ring, it goes in circles and drives you mad until you reach the bottom of it and redeem yourself along with Frodo.

I think "The Hobbit" stands alone, but "The Lord of the Rings" books need "The Hobbit" to explain some things like:
- how Bilbo got the Ring
- how he got to write his book about the journey
- his close friendship to Gandalf and also the elves

Also the two things Bilbo gives Frodo at the beginning of "Fellowship of the Ring"" his sword Sting taken from the trolls and his chain shirt made of Mithril (taken from Smaug's treasure).
Gandalf takes another sword from the trolls (Glamdring), it is the same sword he uses to break the flaming sword of the Balrog in Khazad-Dûm in "The Lord of the Rings".