In answer to the question you briefly left, did the actual reviews compare it with The Hobbit, I'd have to look at them again - it's been some while since I undertook this project - but no, I don't recall that they usually did. Which is odd, since one of Tolkien's principal reader-interaction activities in the intervening years had been telling readers of The Hobbit who wrote in asking to learn more about this world that he was working on a sequel.
It's possible, though I hope not, that my comparison was influenced by my knowledge (which the reviewer would not have) that Tolkien struggled over the question of what to make The Lord of the Rings about, having agreed to write a sequel without any inner need of his own to do so, and of how to differentiate it from The Hobbit, not being able (at first) to think of anything to say about hobbits that he hadn't already said.
But I do believe the idea of the book as an expanded and deeper replay was evident to me from my own first reading.
As for whether it was marketed as a sequel, marketing of that kind as we know it today was unknown then. But the relationship between the books was made clear. Here's a quote from the publisher's catalog, announcing the forthcoming book: "Mr. Tolkien's long and enthralling tale is cast in the same imaginary period of history as was The Hobbit, and some of the chief characters, notably Gandalf and the sinister Gollum, appear again. ... It is not a children's book, neither is it necessary to have read The Hobbit first. But readers of The Hobbit of all ages will be amongst the most insistent in demanding The Lord of the Rings.
(By the way, do you see what I meant in the post about framing discussion of the book? If this blurb is not purely addressed to readers of The Hobbit, then the references to Gollum and to Gandalf, who doesn't even get an adjective describing him, are merely pointless and frustrating.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-11 02:20 pm (UTC)It's possible, though I hope not, that my comparison was influenced by my knowledge (which the reviewer would not have) that Tolkien struggled over the question of what to make The Lord of the Rings about, having agreed to write a sequel without any inner need of his own to do so, and of how to differentiate it from The Hobbit, not being able (at first) to think of anything to say about hobbits that he hadn't already said.
But I do believe the idea of the book as an expanded and deeper replay was evident to me from my own first reading.
As for whether it was marketed as a sequel, marketing of that kind as we know it today was unknown then. But the relationship between the books was made clear. Here's a quote from the publisher's catalog, announcing the forthcoming book: "Mr. Tolkien's long and enthralling tale is cast in the same imaginary period of history as was The Hobbit, and some of the chief characters, notably Gandalf and the sinister Gollum, appear again. ... It is not a children's book, neither is it necessary to have read The Hobbit first. But readers of The Hobbit of all ages will be amongst the most insistent in demanding The Lord of the Rings.
(By the way, do you see what I meant in the post about framing discussion of the book? If this blurb is not purely addressed to readers of The Hobbit, then the references to Gollum and to Gandalf, who doesn't even get an adjective describing him, are merely pointless and frustrating.)