I have the 3 lord of the rings books and im about to start reading them. But I also have the hobbit. should I read the hobbit first, or should I start with the fellowship of the ring?
Horrible advice. It's like reading a history textbook, except the history isn't real.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-17 0:32
However, do start with the Hobbit. It's a nice, short, fun book, and it sets up the story for the Fellowship of the Ring.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-17 0:41
yeah i decided on reading the hobbit first. thanks guys.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-18 23:01
Read Lost Tales because its linear composition compliments the story of relevant characters.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-19 0:37
Don't read any of it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-19 12:16
Read everything Tolkien wrote before September 1939 (up to when they find Balin, certain Frodo & Sam parts of RotK) and then burn the books. The innocent magic of it's all replaced with a crappy allegory for WW2 & nukes after that point anyway.
Tolkien has said a thousand times over that he fucking hated allegory and any allegory a reader thinks he sees in the books is completely unintentional.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-19 19:26
Hobbit is actually a really good adventure story, while Lord is badly written, porrly composed, but thoroughly, truly epic - in the actual, true meaning of the word. It's grand and fels real. But it also is very dull, because Tolkien wasn't a very good writer.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-20 23:20
hobbit is a standalone and a good read. i tried LOTR 1 but couldn't get past the first 12 chapters describing them leaving the shire (i.e. 10 minutes in the movie)
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-21 0:55
lol can I join the Tolkien Circle-Jerk too?
Oh wait, no thanks... it's lame.
Go read the Dune series instead, you'll thank me
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-21 3:57
>>13
Haha yeah don't read this fantasy book. Read this science fiction book instead. It's' like a million times better/
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-21 5:38
>>14 Implying those books' genres have any bearing on which is better.