General / Off-Topic Books of the Middle Earth universe. Should I start with "The Hobbit"?

[Deleted member 110222]

Hi guys. Some people seem to reckon that it's better to read "The Hobbit" before the LotR trilogy. I'm not arguing against this. As a total novice in the book world, (I have only just got back into reading. I clearly like it, as I'm gaming a lot less), but as a total novice, I'm not arguing anything. I simply have questions.

In your opinion, do you think it would be worth reading "The Hobbit" first?

Also, a good friend on Xbox mentioned a fifth book in Middle Earth? Sermillion? (Typing this from vague memory)

Was wondering if this fifth book has any bearing on the LotR universe. Believe me, I really want to get into this. That's why I'm seeing if there's an "ideal" way to read. If it helps the experience, we'll, I'm all for it.

I really appreciate any help you can offer this here knucklehead.

 

[lifeschool-amiga]

Hi Un1k0rn!

I would say start with LOTR book 1 first. The Hobbit is a kids story and not very well flashed out. Its a novella which has aspirations, but its not anywhere near as good as the Trilogy.

The Silmarilion is a collection of thoughts and back story to the main books. Its more a reference book and some bits are quite hard going and not at all fun unless you are a huge fan.

The main trilogy is going to take a while to read, especially if you like to imagine the scenes and song the songs, and it has a lot more depth and wonder than the films managed to capture, once they get to Bree at least in the first book.

The Hobbit is not really something which you need to read to get into the Tolkien books.

 

[seko]

Hi guys. Some people seem to reckon that it's better to read "The Hobbit" before the LotR trilogy. I'm not arguing against this. As a total novice in the book world, (I have only just got back into reading. I clearly like it, as I'm gaming a lot less), but as a total novice, I'm not arguing anything. I simply have questions.

In your opinion, do you think it would be worth reading "The Hobbit" first?

Also, a good friend on Xbox mentioned a fifth book in Middle Earth? Sermillion? (Typing this from vague memory)

Was wondering if this fifth book has any bearing on the LotR universe. Believe me, I really want to get into this. That's why I'm seeing if there's an "ideal" way to read. If it helps the experience, we'll, I'm all for it.

I really appreciate any help you can offer this here knucklehead.

The Hobbit is a childrens story. Start with the LOTR, then read the Silmarillion, which tells you all about the lore (which is in fact my favourite). All my ships are named after characters from the Silmarillion

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Thanks guys. Yeah, like I said, I wasn't claiming to know anything on this subject, hence my asking.

 

[the100thmonkey]

The central premise of LoTR is somewhat retconned from The Hobbit.

The Hobbit will take you a day to read. There's no harm starting with it. Think of it as a limited taste of what Tolkien can do. LoTR, on the other hand, should keep you engrossed for a week - it's a massive tome.

 

[Manticore]

I would definitely start with The Hobbit.......... if you have never read anything about how Tolkien came to write these books you will soon realise that starting with The Hobbit is the right way to go.

My opinion..........

 

[Deleted member 110222]

The central premise of LoTR is somewhat retconned from The Hobbit.

The Hobbit will take you a day to read. There's no harm starting with it. Think of it as a limited taste of what Tolkien can do. LoTR, on the other hand, should keep you engrossed for a week - it's a massive tome.

Aye. I'm starting to get that impression.

Screw it. I have Fellowship right next to me. You guys have psyched me up. Later guys, I have words to gorge on.

I would definitely start with The Hobbit.......... if you have never read anything about how Tolkien came to write these books you will soon realise that starting with The Hobbit is the right way to go.

My opinion..........

Ninja damn it! I hate being an impressionable youth.

 

[Jenner]

I read the Hobbit first. Therefore, you should too.

 

[daman]

in my opinion you should really read the hobbit first - without it you will be missing out on context, characters etc. for LoTR.

 

[Geraldine]

I think it's great your getting into such a classic series. If I recall I read LOTR series before the Hobbit. It didn't hurt my enjoyment of the books one bit.
Oh! And after you have finished that lot, and would like to try some sci-fi, please consider the Culture Series.

 

[jamieboo]

I reckon start with The Hobbit.
Not necessarily essential for correct narrative navigation, but it will provide some contextual bits and pieces. And as it's basically a childrens book those little nuggets are presented in an endearingly innocuous way - which I find makes for a fascinating sense of development when you later get into LotR and those little bits and pieces suddenly adopt enormous significance and mythic weight.
Also I just find it interesting following the development of Tolkien's style and thematic proclivities.
For me it all adds to the sense of a broad cultural mythology - some treatments of part of the mythology are childlike, others are operatic.
I went Hobbit > Lord of the Rings > Silmarillion.

Have fun!

 

[damon8r351]

I'd start with The Hobbit, because as I said previously, you get to witness first hand the setup for the events that set The Lord of the Rings into motion. Events late in the Lord of the Rings have a lot more impact when you realize things could've been a lot more hopeless for the good guys had Gandalf not started playing the long con the day he showed up on Bilbo's doorstep. You can get away with not reading it first, since its events are continuously referred to during the Fellowship of the Ring, but the Lord of the Rings is a lot more rich an experience when you see where it started.

As for the Silmarillion, it's a straight up mythology textbook. It's not fun to read unless you're into reading things like Beowulf and the Iliad, but it's informative. It's interesting in that you see the things that are only obliquely referred to in the text of the four other books, like what the Undying Lands are, what do people mean when they mention the Halls of Mandos, and the full import behind the idle comment "We're Exiles" that an elf in The Hobbit makes. If you plan on reading the Silmarillion, it should be something you read last, and very slowly in small bites.

 

[Zieman]

I'm also in the "read The Hobbit first" camp.
Gives some background about what the Lord of the Rings is about, and you can delve on the wider scope later with Silmarillion.

After THe Hobbit, getting into the Lord of the rings, you might want to consider this:
If you've seen the LotR movies, you'll find some differences. Some inevitable (like omission of Tom Bombadil), some less jarring (like omission of Glorfindel) and some more jarring (like turning the Aragorn/Arwen story into a cheesy Hollywood mush) - these to name a few.

And after you've read the books (and read them again, and watched the movies again), some humour might be in order:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612

Sometimes I think all too many folks posting in these forums and especially at Reddit are just like those hack'n'slashers of DM of the Rings...

 

[EISENHORN01]

When you’ve finished LoTR (still the greatest books of the genre) read LEGEND by David Gemmell and after that if you want to get into an immense series of books you’ve 2 choices.

first for me would be Magician by Raymond E Fiest the follow on books get better and better and better, which is not easy as the first three are brilliant.

the next is the Wheel of Time saga by Robert Jordan. It’s 14 huge books long and unfortunately Jordan died before he could finish them but luckily the writer brought in to finish them from his notes did an excellent job.

(take note you you might want to continue with DG his portfolio of books is fantastic and there’s a reason the preeminent Award for New fantasy writing is named in his honour.

 

[DaggerSnake]

I'd agree with the Hobbit first If you are just getting into fantasy reading. It's light and easy to read and sets up the world and acts as a nice prelude to the Fellowship of the Ring.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty hardcore. Once you get the cadence down though you'll be flying through them. If you seen all the Extended movie adaptions, it's going to add to the visualizations pretty nicely. They did a great job really studying the source material for the look of everything.

The Simarillion is the story of middle earth right from the beginning. the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy is a portion of a chapter of the whole thing. It's pretty epic in scale and a tough read. It's more like a Middle Earth bible. God creates the arch-angles (Valar including Morgoth, saurons master), they create the lesser angels (Sauron, Gandalf...), there's jealousy, betrayals, lusts for power, middlele earth is created, man comes...battles happen. It's very epic. I would recommend that one as an audio book. There is a British narrator unabridged version that is amazing, I'll have to look it up but assume it's the only one. I got it from my local library and ripped it. I've listened a couple times doing chores, hobbies and commuting to work.

 

[Bladefeather]

I would personally read the LOTR books first, read the Hobbit next, then read the Silmarillion and perhaps unfinished tales if you are very engrossed in the series.

 

[damon8r351]

Tom Bombadil is typically omitted from most visual forms of the Lord of the Rings, usually to cut down on run time. His part of the story has little to no bearing on the rest of it, and it plays out like a strange minor side quest. Also, Glorfindel is probably one of the most quietly bada** characters in the whole legendarium; he appears multiple times throughout, it's always the same elf, and he's always doing something superhumanly heroic.

 

[Alien]

I say don't even bother with The Hobbit ... The truth is there are only three characters (Gandalf, Bilbo and Gollum) in it that are in LoTR, and only two references ("The incident with the dragon" as Gandalf refers to it, and Bilbo mentioning how he found the ring) and that's it. That's all you're going to get from having read the Hobbit first before LoTR.

 

[krylite]

If you want to go completely chronological, then I would do a swap around reading order. First the Silmarillion up to the point before it summarizes what happens in the 3rd age (hobbit & lotr). Then, optionally, perhaps some of the "Lost Tales" particularly the Numenor part. Then the Hobbit. Then LOTR. Then after, the "behind the scenes of Hobbit & LOTR" stories from Unfinished & Lost Tales which would be spoilerish if not read after. If you read and remember all that, you'll get every spoken and visual reference detail in the Jackson movies and the dvd extended scenes. ( which to their credit in general they were very fanatical to reference the source material to a point except where one or two of the three writer team had the gall to "improve" on Tolkien in certain parts of the trilogy and far moreso in the newer hobbit movies)

The Hobbit was for children but considering it was written in the 1930's , its prose suggest kids were far more literate in "proper English" at least than today's "dumbed down" but hyper internet-mobile-teched kids. "ADHD" types would have a hard time even getting past the first few pages of the Hobbit in my estimation. The Hobbit is also a great well written book on its own. Many of the characters may not re-appear in LOTR, but most all of them and the "npc" background characters and settings are in the overall lore of Middle-Earth which is the vast fantasy created world that predated and was the progenitor of the fantasy column in bookstores and Gygax's "Dungeons & Dragons". i.e. also the progenitor of the history of RPG's. video game rpg's. later mmorpgs, etc. You may not realize the extent of the lore until after your reading, but it's greater and vaster than ED + StarCitizen + HarryPotter and many other genre lores, etc. ,combined, with several invented languages. LOTR (books) significance is so great it had surpassed its supposed pulp fantasy genre into "top literature" with its own yellow CliffNotes(cheat) book long before the Jackson movies.

 

[amigacooke]

'In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit', bet not many people can remember the first line of the Lord of the Rings offhand.

I was was fortunate enough to have had the Hobbit read to my school class at the right age when I was ten, and I'd suggest reading it first as it's a taster in Tolkien's style, even if the tone is much lighter than LotR.