Lord of the rings or the Hobbit?

[DiapDealer]

I rarely recognize any valid reasons to read related books (series, sequels, etc) in any order other than the publication order (for a first time reader). In fact, the only reason I would break that rule would be because the author said; "No, don't do that. Read them this way."

Just my opinion, of course.

[SouthernSun]

I'm going to commit an act of treason and suggest that you skip The Hobbit altogether. It's a bloody terrible book.

[carld]

What do people think of The Children of Húrin as a direct followup to LOTR? I admit it's still on my To Be Read list. I've heard that it's the most readable of the historic books, even though it's supposed to be much denser material than the earlier works.

[crich70]

The Hobbit 1st definitely as it sets up a key part of LOTR and the histories are mostly background stuff that shows how Tolkien's imagined world evolved over time.

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a part of the book which grows on your with re-reading, but yes, it's a struggle for many on the initial read. It's really not very long, though; just skip the "In the House of Tom Bombadil" chapter if it gets too much.

Thanks for the tip. I've been wrong before. For example, I really thought Henning Mankell's Wallander mysteries were irredeemably dry and boring - glad I gave them another shot because I'm really enjoying the series now.


If certain books have lofty reputations, and it's something I really expected to like & didn't, I tend to think it was me that was the problem and want to give them another shot. LOTR certainly qualifies for another go. Then again, I gave the Jasper Fforde Thursday Next series another try, and still hated it :-)

[Lili819]

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

Seconded.

Though honestly, if you aren't an avid reader or really that much into epics surrounding mountains, orks, and goblins that go on forever and ever and ever...

Read the Hobbit. Love it. Read it twice the year after. Maybe three times over a few years. You'll enjoy every minute (really)

Watch the LotR movies. The Extended, super duper editions in leather bound dvd boxes.
12 times if need be. (That's roughly the equivalent of two months worth of uninterrupted viewing pleasure.

Save yourself the pain of walking through Middle Earth for what is apparently the length of 10 hobbit years or something from what I remember reading- and can literally feel like 10 human years to take to read the whole epic.

[Ansileran]

Hmpf... I absolutely hated "The Hobbit"... I guess the characters didn't do anything for me. I'm really not into hobbits and dwarves. "The Lord of the Ring" was... a bit better (maybe I just had a crush on Aragorn ^^). All in all, I love Tolkien's world but I hate the way he writes. To me, he was a better historian and linguist than writer...

[HoopyFrood]

I read LOTR first and "The Hobbit" a couple years later. IMO you could skip "The Hobbit' and never miss a thing. You can tell "The Hobbit" is a kid's book, whereas LOTR is for adults.

I'd skip over "The Hobbit" altogether and go straight to LOTR.

[WillAdams]

The Children of Hurin is a straight-up tragic adventure tale along the lines of Wagner's Ring cycle, or Poul Anderson's _The Broken Sword_ --- highly recommended.

[morriss003]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I get so tired of LOTR being referred to as a trilogy.

[morriss003]

If you don't mind a bit of a slog, begin with the Silmarillion, then read the Hobbit, and finish with LOTR. By doing so, you will discover than the professor could easily have titled his story, The Tragedy of the Elves, and you will appreciate just how far back in history was the beginning of story Frodo found himself a part of.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by morriss003

If you don't mind a bit of a slog, begin with the Silmarillion

For goodness sake don't do this. I can't imagine a worse idea. Besides which, it contains a "spoiler" for LOTR.

[Istvan diVega]

I couldn't agree more: it really is an awful idea. The Silmarillion and all the other "historical" material should only be read after you have determined that you are a bona fide Tolkien fan.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

I couldn't agree more: it really is an awful idea. The Silmarillion and all the other "historical" material should only be read after you have determined that you are a bona fide Tolkien fan.

Yep the "Silmarillion" is a good book to read if you want more of the background history of Middle Earth but it's better to start with "The Hobbit" and then LOTR 1st.

[WillAdams]

For the first time, always read any author in publication order.