Lord of the Rings sequel

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

In the early '60s, JRR Tolkien began work on a sequel to the Lord of the Rings, which would take place about 100 years after--but abandoned it:

"On May 13, 1964, J. R. R. Tolkien wrote a letter to Colin Bailey about his unfinished story "The New Shadow." The story began about 100 years after the fall of Mordor (the dominion of the villain Sauron in "The Lord of the Rings"), thus in presumably happy times. Tolkien told Bailey, however, that he did not finish the story because it was too "sinister and depressing." One would think that, after the fall of Mordor, things would be looking up. Tolkien's reason for not continuing such a story was that things might be even worse than they were before. What was behind Tolkien's hesitation to finish his story? The title of the story, "The New Shadow," may have come from Plato — the shadows in the cave — or from the shadow cast upon the earth by Satan's part in the fall of man. Tolkien gives this reason: "Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good." It's like saying that the good is not "good enough" for us. We might wonder why."

JRR Tolkien, concerning the plot of the story: "I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing."

He wrote around 13 pages of this sequel, and the 13 pages of it were released after he died by his son Christopher in the book The Peoples of Middle Earth.

[Baggins]

The '13' pages (more like 20-30 edited/formatted, iirc) appear in The People's of Middle Earth, Volume 12 of the History of Middle Earth series.

[dark-daventry]

I actually have to read the original trilogy and see the movies... I'm so very behind

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

I actually have to read the original trilogy and see the movies... I'm so very behind

You've never seen the movies?! I could understand not reading the books but the movies were like a cultural event.
I recommend reading the Hobbit first--it's much more in tone with KQ, so you might like it. It's more of a classic fantasy tale and makes for an easier read--it's fun. LOTR is more serious and it's prose is weighter--it's a classic but not as accessible as the Hobbit.

Then you have to decide whether you want to see the live action films--which were amazing--or the animated films. They're generally considered subpar but they do have a really great, '70s charm to them.

[dark-daventry]

I actually have to read the original trilogy and see the movies... I'm so very behind

You've never seen the movies?! I could understand not reading the books but the movies were like a cultural event.
I recommend reading the Hobbit first--it's much more in tone with KQ, so you might like it. It's more of a classic fantasy tale and makes for an easier read--it's fun. LOTR is more serious and it's prose is weighter--it's a classic but not as accessible as the Hobbit.

Then you have to decide whether you want to see the live action films--which were amazing--or the animated films. They're generally considered subpar but they do have a really great, '70s charm to them.

Now that you mention it, I think I *did* see one of the animated movies a VERY long time ago. I barely remember it though. I most certainly plan to read the books and see the movies, I just need to find the time.

[Baggins]

LOTR is more serious and it's prose is weighter--it's a classic but not as accessible as the Hobbit.

Despite, Perceval's slightly dramatic description of the LOTR series (here and in another thread?). It's not actually much different than the Hobbit. It too started out being written primarily for adolescent scholarship (only slightly older than the Hobbit was directed at)...

Fellowship of the Ring, and most scenes with hobbits are written in a more casual style of The Hobbit (Humans are a bit more serious). The first book of Fellowship of the Ring for example pretty much reads like "The Hobbit" part II. Even into the Two Towers, the hobbit scenes are filled with humor and mirth, even though things around are growing darker! There are tantalizing references to dark events happening behind the scenes with The Necromancer and White Council.

Hell, even many of the scenes with Gimli and Legolas are not particurarly that serious by The Hobbit standards. Since they spend much of their time cracking jokes at each other's expense, and competing with each other in a friendly manner.

Mind you even the Hobbit grows progressively darker until it culminates with the Battle of the Five Armies. The dwarfs become greedier, etc. Some of the people of Dale show jealously, the elves of Mirkwood seem quite a bit darker and suspicious (willing to kill intruders), etc.

If you read many of the letters of Tolkien, he saw LOTR as basically a children's book. Not anywhere near as sophisticated or mature (or 'adult' as he called it) as his cycle (that would become the Silmarillion). He saw them as a kind of divergence from the works he really wanted to do. While he was alive, he had a hard time convincing his publisher to take anything related to Silmarillion. They kept on asking for the 'children's books' with the 'hobbits', and didn't think his other work would have mass appeal.

I'm still working my way through Return of the King, so I can't make any judgement if the style changes dramatically from previous books to more sophisticated or mature style. What little I've read, doesn't seem to be much different than the previous two though (especially the hobbit, and dwarf scenes).

I'm not sure if it as blatant as Harry Potter growing darker and more mature with its audience. Because the darkness seems to build much slower in LOTR and the Hoobbit, or is more punctuated (interspersed between far more whimsical sections of the book).

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

LOTR is more serious and it's prose is weighter--it's a classic but not as accessible as the Hobbit.

Despite, Perceval's slightly dramatic description of the LOTR series (here and in another thread?). It's not actually much different than the Hobbit. It too started out being written primarily for adolescent scholarship (only slightly older than the Hobbit was directed at)...

Fellowship of the Ring, and most scenes with hobbits are written in a more casual style of The Hobbit (Humans are a bit more serious). The first book of Fellowship of the Ring for example pretty much reads like "The Hobbit" part II. Even into the Two Towers, the hobbit scenes are filled with humor and mirth, even though things around are growing darker! There are tantalizing references to dark events happening behind the scenes with The Necromancer and White Council.

Hell, even many of the scenes with Gimli and Legolas are not particurarly that serious by The Hobbit standards. Since they spend much of their time cracking jokes at each other's expense, and competing with each other in a friendly manner.

Mind you even the Hobbit grows progressively darker until it culminates with the Battle of the Five Armies. The dwarfs become greedier, etc. Some of the people of Dale show jealously, the elves of Mirkwood seem quite a bit darker and suspicious (willing to kill intruders), etc.

If you read many of the letters of Tolkien, he saw LOTR as basically a children's book. Not anywhere near as sophisticated or mature (or 'adult' as he called it) as his cycle (that would become the Silmarillion). He saw them as a kind of divergence from the works he really wanted to do. While he was alive, he had a hard time convincing his publisher to take anything related to Silmarillion. They kept on asking for the 'children's books' with the 'hobbits', and didn't think his other work would have mass appeal.

I'm still working my way through Return of the King, so I can't make any judgement if the style changes dramatically from previous books to more sophisticated or mature style. What little I've read, doesn't seem to be much different than the previous two though (especially the hobbit, and dwarf scenes).

I'm not sure if it as blatant as Harry Potter growing darker and more mature with its audience. Because the darkness seems to build much slower in LOTR and the Hoobbit, or is more punctuated (interspersed between far more whimsical sections of the book).

I didn't mean to make them sound bad or anything--It's just I figure with Tolkien it's better to read The Hobbit first if they're going to take a first step into his world. I love LotR, it's just to some his style in it might come off long winded--That is a complaint I have seen; I've seen some compare it unfavorably to The Hobbit in this regard.

I had no idea the LotR was written with children in mind. I know The Hobbit was something he'd read to his young children at night as it developed and THAT was designed with children in mind but I always thought he generally looked down on children's books--Or was it simply fairy tales along the lines of Disney that he disliked? I've not read his letters but fan discussion of them in the past. I was once a BIG TIME Tolkien fan, though--I used to post over at theOneRing.net, but that's nearly a decade ago so I'm a bit rusty.

BTW, fun facts (You probably know these Baggins, but for those who don't know): The Lord of the Rings was never, in Tolkien's mind, a trilogy. It was one whole book which the publisher broke down into three parts due to a paper shortage after WWII. Also, Tolkien wanted to release The Silmarillion alongside the LotR, but the publishers didn't understand the work and turned him down. I do wonder what a 1953-1954 version of the Silmarillion looked like--if it was anywhere near finished.

I've always wondered too when his last work on the Silmarillion was done. He died in September 1973; I wonder if he still worked on any parts of it in the late 60s or early 70s. Or was it simply he'd abandoned by then? He spent about 50 years working on it...I wonder why he could never finish it.

[Baggins]

Tom Bombadil for example was based on a character and doll that Tolkien used to tell stories about to his kid.

Tom Bombadil also received his own book of poetry verses, that tell further adventures about him traveling to visit hobbit lands and Farmer Cotton. The backstory for the book , Adventures of Tom Bombadil, is suggested to be a book collected by Sam Gamgee to add to the Red Book of Westmarch, and to read to his children.

Or was it simply fairy tales along the lines of Disney that he disliked?

He absolutely hated Fairy Stories... i.e. fairy tales.

He was not against telling children stories. He wrote several, some which may have been published posthumously including 'Roverandom'. There is also Leaf and Niggle, and a few others. But in general the children's stories he liked to tell were tied more into ancient mythology or medieval myth (very different than fairy tales).  

He just felt that Hobbit and LotR were distractions that got in the way for him finish Silmarillion. Which he felt was his true epic.

BTW, fun facts (You probably know these Baggins, but for those who don't know): The Lord of the Rings was never, in Tolkien's mind, a trilogy. It was one whole book which the publisher broke down into three parts due to a paper shortage after WWII.

And its actually a six books in one! When split into a 'trilogy form, two books each were put into each part.

He spent about 50 years working on it...I wonder why he could never finish it.

He was a perfectionist. He rewrote several of the stories several times. Changed characters, changed events. Wrote the stories in different forms. Sometimes he told the stories in alliterative poetry style, etc. The released Silmarillion for example is not really 'stories' in prose but more of a series of short descriptions of each event.

He had intended to take each of those descriptions and write full and complete prose stories. A few of these were nearly finished, many are half-finished. Most are outdated as far as continuity of his later works.

For example the Fall of Gondor story is largely finished, but doesn't fit the later works. As dwarfs for example are evil characters in his earliest works as an example, and cause part of the fall, IIRC. It maybe possible to take what exists and edit into a complete story based on Tolkien's later notes (and has unofficially been done) by removing sections or changing character races to fit the later notes, but there is still a question on if it would be the way Tolkien would have done it. But this is always one that could be posthumously released for public consumption later on I think.

Another example is the Children of Hurin, which was largely finished. Chris Tolkien was able to edit it into a complete story (with removal of one or two parts, such as the lead up into Fall of Gondor).

You can find the earliest but oudated 'more complete prose stories' in first five books in the HoMe series btw. Book of Lost Tales 1 & 2, Lay of Belierand, The Lost Road, etc.