I agree that in terms of reception and fan commentary, the situation is not comparable (LotR builds on elements established in THE HOBBIT but is not part of the same story per se). However, in terms of writing and structural issues there are some interesting similarities. Tolkien signed the contract for 'THE HOBBIT II' in 1937 and proceeded to experience lengthy delays, periods when nothing got done or when he wrote multiple drafts which were then junked. Obviously Tolkien was partially writing during WWII, so there were some distractions around, and during the early and closing periods of writing the book he also had his day job as a university lecturer (he also wrote other books during this time). The only people 'eagerly' expecting the book were his publishers, so the pressure was not the same.

It should also be noted that THE RETURN OF THE KING was supposed to be published 3-4 months after THE TWO TOWERS in early 1955 but was delayed until the end of the year due to problems getting the appendices finished. Even this very modest delay resulted in Tolkien getting letters, some of them even angry ones, wanting to know where the hell the book was.



Indeed, and THE SILMARILLION is not really a continuation or establishing of the plot of LORD OF THE RINGS. For 22 years people could only read LotR, not the SILMARILLION at all, and even now probably 95%+ of people who read LotR never bother with THE SILMARILLION with no problems. However, I do think reading LotR with foreknowledge of THE SILMARILLION (which Tolkien had spent decades writing before LotR) results in a different reading experience, with the context and many throw-away lines in LotR now explained and given meaning.