An Experiment for J.R.R. Tolkien fans.

[Sibeling]

The Hobbit is a really nice book, but it is quite different from LOTR. It will not prepare the reader for LOTR, it is more entertaining than serious.

There is all the necessary information about the events of The Hobbit in LOTR, so one does not have to read both books to understand the events.

And I know some people (rather young people ) were disappointed with LOTR because they expected the same jolly book about adventures where nothing really bad will happen, and got a serious book about life and death and duty instead.

[Moogle]

Well I think what a few of you are neglecting to mention about The Hobbit is that it is a children's book. Though complex by today's standards of education, The Hobbit is a freewheeling quest story for children. I first experienced it as a young kid when I saw the old (from my persepective ) cartoon film which in turn inspired me to read the book. So while The Hobbit technically takes place before The Lord of the Rings, it is a more whimsical story intended for a younger audience.

Now the main reason to read Lord of the Rings is just to experience someone who had utterly mastered the English language.

[thecommabandit]

I would say that you should read it because it's one of the classic novels, right up there with 1984, Brave New World and Neuromancer. Though I'd advise unless you are INCREDIBLY word-savvy (no amount of emphasis short of it being written in mountains on a continent does justice here) you need to keep a rather comprehensive dictionary around whenever you read it. That Tolkien does like his words. Also, pay attention, he gives extremely detailed description of the land's features and my mental depiction has got caught out numerous times for not knowing exactly what geological features he's talking about. It's difficult to get into at first, but it's very rewarding.

[areader]

Read the first chapter.

I got sucked into the story. I read it at 12, my sister who never read anything, bought it with all the money she had for me at a jumble sale, she didn't get anything for herself...and she was a mean elder sister! I took the books...but I thought they would be pretty awful. She wasn't into reading.

I read it through. And I read it two consecutive times after that and I still read it and probably will at least once a year. Has someone else replicated it for me...nope...that was the year my Mum started shouting, "Get your head out of that book" and "You are not reading that at the dinner table."


if you've ever been to the family gathering from hell and had relatives you've disliked, if you've ever had a secret, if you've ever wondered who your friends really are,if you've ever felt burdened by something, if you think some things in life are worth saving even at a personal cost, if you've lost something to gain something, if you've found help when you least expected it ...if you've ever wondered if in a dire situation whether you'd meet the challenge.... Its a great story...and things ring true all the way through it right to the very ending.

No one writes like this...devils advocate...well it has lengthy descriptions, pages of poetry, words galore...and a hefty appendix. And I remember throwing a full scale tantrum and howling tears. I had a long conversation with my mother about how I wanted to know what was going on with Frodo and should I skip ahead to find out as it was taking too many chapters...my mum had no idea...so I showed her by marking with my fingers how long it had taken...and she said you might miss something important...so I didn't.

Someone told an eight year old I know, that he could see the movie if he read his way through the three books (a bit violent for a kid his parents thought)...Nan and Gramps provided them... So there he was sitting there and reading them. I got lost in the covers...they were the original books that I had read and long since fallen apart. When I saw those covers, I knew he would read it to the end....the books were 33 years old. That's a long time to be keeping them on the bookshelf. It took him a while, but not quite as long as his parents hoped it would take him. Somewhere along the way he had a bit of a conversation with me, about skipping pages...I kid you not.

Some books stay with you. This is one of them.

[Nesacat]

The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings are very different in tone. I think they go very well together because of that. And therefore, reading the one before the other does, in a way set the stage as it were.

In the Hobbit there's an adventure that for the most part is light hearted. A couch potato finds that he has an adventurous streak after all. There's a dragons and barrels tumbling down waterfalls and men who are bears. Yes there is also danger and many tense scenes but the fate of the known world does not hang in balance.

You also meet and get to know many who will play larger and darker roles in the Lord Of The Rings.

And then you get to the Lord Of the Rings and you see the difference. Now the fate of the world and the fun loving hobbits is at stake. And it all might rest in the hands of a hobbit very like the one who went rushing out of his house without pipe or handkerchief in the Hobbit.

They are good reads although many have followed in Tolkien's footsteps. He created a whole universe and took his time is describing it. The pace is slow a lot of the time but in the end you know exactly what everyone and everything looks and sounds like. And when later awful things happen you feel the hurt all the more for having been steeped in what was.

And again the same when you come out again into the light it's a huge weight lifted off your shoulder for having totally understood what the dark was all about and walked in it along with all those in the story.

[Naryaló S dú]

How about, it's one of the most famous and well-written books in all history?

[judithavory]

1) As far as the Hobbit, it's probably good advice but I'll note that I'm a huge Tolkien fan, have read Lord of the Rings several times as well as the Silmarillion and am now amassing a collection including the Unfinished Tales and all twelve books of the Histories... and have never read the Hobbit. I tried when I was about 12 and didn't like it. I will try again as an adult, but it's never been a top priority for me because I'm less into the story aspect and more into the language/history/etc.

2) I think that's why the Lord of the Rings is so excellent. It combines a narrative drive (yes, slow at times, but I don't think ever to the point that you really don't care what happens to the characters) with the weighty mythos of a universe that comes to full fruition in Tolkien's other works, but may be too much for the casual reader without the pull of that narrative. If you are someone who is interested in history, languages, literature/poetry, or myth, you will love the Lord of the Rings. When I started the books I didn't expect to like them, but they really drew me in. I'm also a student of languages, have a degree in history, and am a professional writer and hobby literature buff, though. Even without those credentials, I think you'll find that you become thoroughly immersed in Tolkien's world, and there's a power in some of his words that defies simple description. I know those who are really into Tolkien are considered big fat nerds (and I'm fine with that!) but I have found great comfort in difficult times, whispering the short verse that goes with Aragorn's name to myself. Furthermore, I think reading the books makes the films so much better, because as you watch you understand the great significance of moments the films can only just touch on. Similarly, if you ever do tackle the Silmarillion, it suddenly gives the Lord of the Rings so much more meaning.

Good luck!

[Marcus15]

Actually, I think you should first read the Hobbit, then the Simarillion (The history of Middle Earth) and then the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

You'll see the classic good versus evil but I think you'll see that the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is the everyman. The little guy who doesn't comprehend what he can contribute until he is called upon to participate in extroardinary events.
Gollum is a sort of everyman as well but sadly he gives in to his baser desires and is consumed by his greed until a final chance for redemption comes his way.
The Simarillian will explain why Middle Earth is the way it is in the LOTRs. You'll have an easier time understanding who Treebeard is as well as Tom Bombadil.
The trilogy is the bringing together of all the elements Tolkien envisioned. It has love and friendship, war and death as well as rebirth and vindication.
You will never regret your visit to Middle earth!

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Marcus15

Actually, I think you should first read the Hobbit, then the Simarillion (The history of Middle Earth) and then the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Bear in mind, though, that the last bit of the Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age, is basically a prècis of The Lord of the Rings, and is in effect one giant spoiler for the book.

[Grimward]

Also, while Tolkien actually wrote what he did of the Silmarillion (his son Christopher took it to publication after his death) after The Hobbit, the first part of The Silmarillion is a bit of a chore to read if you are not a historian, or have a inclination along such lines. I know that I would have put The Silmarillion down in high school somewhere around the descriptions of the Valar and probably not finished (at least at that point) had I not already read The Lord of the Rings, known the significance of the foundation stories of Beren and Luthien, Turin and Tuor, and Numenor, and had the full introduction to Tolkien's writing style that only came with The Lord of the Rings.

Regarding the challenge that is the basis of this thread, I cannot put it more elegantly than Areader did above (especially the 3rd paragraph), and so will simply point those seeking motivation to read The Lord of the Rings back in the direction of Areader's post (good job!).

[Yawning Gulf]

Get em to watch the films!

[j. d. worthington]

From experience, I'd say that's at best a chancy proposition, as the two are quite different in many ways, often leading to disappointed expectations, with preference for the films coming out ahead because it was their first experience with the concept. (The same can be said for quite a few book-to-film adaptations, for that matter.) If you're trying to introduce them to Tolkien's work, the films really aren't the way to go, IMO, as (for all their good points) they simply lack the depth of Tolkien's vision, and give a false idea of several portions of it....

[Mary Hoffman]

I read LOTR when the books came out and I was 9 and 10 and loved them so much that I had to re-read them every year. I read all three aloud to my family of husband and three growing daughters and it was the most popular choice for family reading ever (no, I did not abridge).

When the films came out the girls were all adults and we went to see them together, every Christmas, pkus my sister (another fan). We boughtthe extended DVD boxed set and have seen them several times in that form as well as in the cinema.

So I guess you could say I'm a Tolkien fan - and I'd certainly back him to take C S Lewis any time.

But - and it is a huge but - you're better off reading him when you are young because I find the quality of the writing simply doesn't stand up to an adult reading. The world-building is second to none and I really believe in Middle Earth.

But the presentation of women is abysmal, sex and religion absent (Philip Pullman adds humour to this list of what is missing but I don't agree - although some of it is excruciating).

I re-read the trilogy after each film and the endless linguistic inversions really got to me; don't let all this talk of "classics" mislead you: old J R R was no stylist.

But if you love fantasy, particularly High Fantasy, and are young and have yet to read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight or see Wagner's Ring cycle and don't know much mythology already, then do read it. (As long as you can get past Bilbo's "eleventy-first" birthday in the first chapter!)

It will enrich your life.

Mary

[j. d. worthington]

Can't quite agree with you there, Mary. I'd say religion permeates LotR -- just on a more subtle level than one usually finds. It is so much a part of the fabric of life there that it isn't "discussed" as it is in so many books -- especially fantasy books, where each culture's religion is made somewhat blatant, almost like an analog of fundamentalist religions -- but it is present throughout the book, in songs to the Powers, various mentions of them, and so on....

Nor can I agree that Tolkien was no stylist. He was of a school which didn't draw attention to stylistic peculiarities, but he has a very rich and textured style, nonetheless, and capable of considerable subtlety and variation, adapting the voice to varying purposes, such as conveying the differing feel of both the surface and the underlying aspects of various societies.

As for his depiction of women... it has its faults, definitely, but it is often more nuanced than most of his contemporaries, and especially those in the fantasy field; nor are his women flat or two-dimensional characters -- though, like so much of this book, the characterization below the surface is quite subtle and done with a light, unobtrusive touch....