Lord of the rings or the Hobbit?

[elcartero227]

I am a huge fan of the Lord of the rings movies. And last year 'The Hobbit' came as a icing for me. I loved the movie and am eagerly waiting for the next one in the series.

After watching the movie, I feel like movie is not enough and I should read the books. Then somewhere I saw that Lord of the rings are just a tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of books by Tolkien, history of middle earth and all. So, I am thinking where should I start first? History of Middle earth books or Lord of the rings trilogy or the hobbit??

[Graham]

Start with the Hobbit (it's just one book, not a trilogy), and move on to Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit's a prequel to LotR and, although not as important if you've seen the films, it does set things up nicely for the grand tale told in LotR.

After reading those, move on to the other Middle Earth material if you still want more, but it's a mixed bag and can be hard going (of this, I've only read the Silmarillion).

Graham

[AnemicOak]

I'd go The Hobbit (only a trilogy when it comes to movies), then LotR.

If you decide to go further than that I'd probably go with The Silmarillion, then The Children of Hurin, then Unfinished Tales then The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien then The History of Middle-earth.

[elcartero227]

Originally Posted by Graham

Start with the Hobbit (it's just one book, not a trilogy), and move on to Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit's a prequel to LotR and, although not as important if you've seen the films, it does set things up nicely for the grand tale told in LotR.

After reading those, move on to the other Middle Earth material if you still want more, but it's a mixed bag and can be hard going (of this, I've only read the Silmarillion).

Graham

Thanks a lot Graham. I thought since there are 3 movies planned for the story, The hobbit must be a trilogy too.

[MickiTee]

I'll second Graham's reading order.

There's also a very good biography of Tolkien by Humphrey Carpenter.

[HarryT]

Definitely. Hobbit first, then LOTR. Neither The Hobbit nor LOTR are "trilogies"; TH is a rather slim volume; LOTR is a single novel sometimes published in three volumes for practical reasons, but it tells you itself in its introductory notes that it's not a trilogy.

[GlennD]

Definitely the Hobbit followed by LOTR, as others have said. If you still have an interest in more, I would start with the 'Children of Hurin', because it's a finished work. Then the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales. The Histories of Middle Earth is for diehards only - if you don't enjoy the Silmarillion (some people don't as it reads like a history) then you won't enjoy multiple versions and revisions of those stories.

[Indio777]

Originally Posted by elcartero227

Thanks a lot Graham. I thought since there are 3 movies planned for the story, The hobbit must be a trilogy too.

No, The Hobbit is only around 320 pages, depending on on which "version" you get.

I agree with the others. Start with The Hobbit and then LoTR. They are different in "tone" as The Hobbit is more of a children's book. But that shouldn't stop you from reading it. As Graham pointed out it is a prequel of sorts. Plus I think it's a good story in itself. And it's an easy read. Good preparation for lengthier LoTR

Then, if you are still interested, maybe what GlennD suggested. The "histories" are for people who are "really" into Tolkien and are interested in how he developed the whole world of Middle Earth. I have the volumes that deal more specifically with LoTR, but must confess that I have only read bits and pieces.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Definitely the Hobbit followed by LOTR, as others have said. If you still have an interest in more, I would start with the 'Children of Hurin', because it's a finished work. Then the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales. The Histories of Middle Earth is for diehards only - if you don't enjoy the Silmarillion (some people don't as it reads like a history) then you won't enjoy multiple versions and revisions of those stories.

Hobbit, LOTR, then if you want more...

Silmarillion and the Lost Tales. The lost Tales includes a big starting section which is complete and I think belongs in the Silmarillion. Both the Silmarillion and the mentioned part of the Lost Tales are complete.

It took me several attempts to get into the Silmarillion. It's a stuff start. But it's brilliant. LOTR is the tip of the iceberg that is the Silmarillion.

I'd leave the Children of Hurin till later. Only recently published. The definition of grimness, the events it describes are already the single biggest section in the Silmarillion.

[DiapDealer]

Go with Farmer Giles of Ham.

[HarryT]

It's a nice enough little story, I agree, but more of a "side dish" than a "main course".

[faltradl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

LOTR is a single novel sometimes published in three volumes for practical reasons, but it tells you itself in its introductory notes that it's not a trilogy.

correct - But the singel novel is partet in 6 books.

It was published in 3 volumes, because that time paper was still a bit rare. They gave each volume a sperate title. So many people think it would be a trilogy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by faltradl

correct - But the singel novel is partet in 6 books.

It was published in 3 volumes, because that time paper was still a bit rare. They gave each volume a sperate title. So many people think it would be a trilogy.

Yes, many people do indeed call it a trilogy, and it's entirely reasonable to do so. I was simply pointing out that the book itself says that it's not a trilogy.

[caleb72]

Just going to echo here and say start with The Hobbit and move on to LOTR. But I haven't read outside those 4 (or 2) books so I don't have much of an opinion about the others.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I read the Lord of the Rings first and then The Hobbit, but going back I'd probably read The Hobbit first.