Have you read any of the Lord of the Rings books?

[Gottsmik]

I've read The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillon and the Children of Hurin each multiple times and though I've discovered series I like better I've always gone back to the source.

 

[TheColdHeart]

I read the Hobbit in school, it was alright.

Tried read The Fellowship and really didn't like it so stopped.

For my university dissertation I scan read Fellowship and Two Towers as I needed material from them for arguments etc etc.

Not a Tolkien fan at all.

 

[McNinja]

I read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings series. My dad made me read each book before he would take me to see the movies. I loved them. And the movie was pretty spot on, except for a few parts here and there (I don't remember which, I just recall pointing out to my dad, who hadn't read the books since he aquired them in the 70's, which parts were off or not in the book).

 

[DuplicateValue]

Never got my hands on silmarillion as I heard it was more of a middle earth history book.

Actually, it's more a collection of stories that explain the creation and the time until the second age.

It's not just facts and figures - there's stories about the adventures of various characters and how they shaped the world.

 

[Caligulove]

Well, my mom read them all to me when I was around 8 or so. Then I read them all again for myself when I was in middle school.

Still love them

 

[Spinozaad]

Read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings is indeed a good book, although some bits are (from a story teller's point of view) horrible. The meeting at Rivendell being a perfect example.

The Hobbit is the superior book with its better pace, wonderful simplicity and fairy tale fun.

 

[Misaek]

I have read the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Silmarillion and am working on the Lost Road.

 

[MrDarkling]

I remember starting on the first book but I kind of stopped on the first chapter and never picked it up again...not sure why really.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Other than that, all I'll say is if you want horrible characterisation, read the Narnia books. LOTR is a veritable goldmine of Jungian psychology compared to that pile of tripe.

the funny part about comparing those two is Tolkien and Lewis gave each other ideas for each of their books. some of Tolkien's ideas that didn't fit in LOTR made it into Narnia and some of Lewis' ideas that didn't fit in Narnia made it into LOTR.

 

[redsoxfantom]

I read all three years ago, so I really don't rememebr much.

 

[Misaek]

Read the Hobbit and LOTR more times than is probably healthy for me. They are my absolute favourite books, and I will defend them until the day I die. Speaking of which:

I never get why people always try and slag off Tolkien as a writer. Sometimes I wonder if I've even read the same book as the people who criticize his narrative skills. Believe it or not, the Lord Of The Rings actually has good characterisation in it. Tolkien wasn't just a guy who could concieve a whole world in ridiulous detail, he could also write a damn good story. In order to avoid spoiling for people who've not read the book yet, I'll put a few examples in spoiler tags. Other than that, all I'll say is if you want horrible characterisation, read the Narnia books. LOTR is a veritable goldmine of Jungian psychology compared to that pile of tripe.

Also, much as I like the films, they simply don't compare to the books.

Spoiler: On Characterisation and Narration

First and foremost, the character of Gollum. The films portray him as a simplistic ghoul with laughably cartoonish MPD and, by the end of The Two Towers, no reedeming qualities whatsoever. In the novel? Well, firstly his dialogue is a lot less heavy handed. Secondly, the multiple personality disorder, whilst still there, is a lot more subtle and believable. Indeed, Gollum's psychology is, I think, one of the most interesting parts of the trilogy. Tolkien, whether he knew it or not, succesfully managed to capture and portray the character of a wretched junkie, albiet a junkie whose drug is a magic ring. Considering that the novels were written in the 1950s and marketed to children, this is a bold bit of writing on the part of Professor T. Finally, even in Return Of The King, Gollum is constantly fighting with himself over Frodo and the Ring, unable to give it up, yet also unable to murder Frodo and Sam outright. I'm sure all fans of LOTR will remember the scene in ROTK (omitted in the movies!) where Gollum almost repents, and Prof. T beautifully describes how far he has fallen, and how beneath his ghoulish appearance he is simply an old, weary hobbit.

Secondly, the scouring of the Shire. Again omitted from the films, yet to me this is the most important part of the story. The hobbits have been away on their mad adventures, far away from home, and managed to defeat evil. They come home laden with praise, and expect to return to their normal comfy lives, and what happens? They find that, whilst they were away, the Shire was taken over by Saruman, and the hobbits reduced to near slavery. From a storytelling point of view, this is the entire reason Frodo and company went away in the first place: to develop the skills needed so that they can liberate their homeland without the need for Gandalf and Aragorn. Looking at Merry, Pippin, Sam and Frodo, and comparing them at the start of The Fellowship and the end of ROTK, it's clear that they've all been to hell and back, but it's also clear that they're no longer four well-to-do gentlehobbits. Each of them is a hero, and the way they each rouse their fellow countrymen to arms is a beautiful thing to behold.

Another thing people seem to moan about is the fact that the books are so long, and it takes a while for the main quest to get going. Again, I don't see why this is a problem. It isn't until the second book of The Fellowship that the quest proper starts, but in the build up to that, Tolkien has managed to lay out the world and the context in which it takes place. We learn about the Shire, the western realms of Middle Earth, the history of Sauron and the Ring, and the terrifying nature of the Nazgul. Then the quest proper starts, and we now know why it mustn't fail. If Frodo had simply headed straight to Mordor from his own front door, we wouldn't have a clear idea of who Sauron is, who the Nazgul are, or why it's really all that important. As well, Tolkien builds up the quest in the best possible way: in stages of gradually increasing magnitude. Frodo's first task is to simply make it to a pub in a not-too-distant village. Once there, the stakes are upped, and he has to slog it cross-country to Rivendell. Once he's there, the story has built enough momentum for the true quest to begin. There's been enough adventure already so that the story doesn't hot the ground running, but the scale of the quest is such that it eclipses what has come before. Again, if Frodo had simply made straight for Mordor, the pacing of the series would have been ruined.

I'm sorry if this has turned into an epic rant, but I'm getting fed up of people trying to make Tolkien out as a lousy writer. If he doesn't do it for you, that's fine, but the man wasn't just a gifted world-builder, he was a skilled author too.

What you said about the build up of the story and establishing the quest and the Nazgul etc. is pretty much exactly what a person I know once did, he started reading The Fellowship of the Ring, and stopped about a quarter of the way through because "IT WAS SOOOOOOO BORING IT WAS JUST WALKING FOR LIKE A BILLION PAGES, NOTHING-EVEN-HAPPENED!!!" and I swear I wanted to kill him and I pretty much said exactly what you did that it is a three book series so obviously it needs to establish a lot and it can't just be BOOM we are in Helms Deep then BOOM oh were in Pelleanor Fields.

 

[Victoria Scofield]

I was introduced to LotR when we got FotR on video when I was 8 or 9. I've read all the books and The Hobbit twice. I got about halfway through Silmarillion when I was 13 before losing focus.

I like LotR, but I prefer watching the movies. I like to actually see the places and watch the action since I'm not good at conjuring mental pictures. Besides, it doesn't take forever and there's music. They're what got me started in the first place.

 

[GundamSentinel]

All of them. Eleven times.

And the Hobbit about 9 times, the Silmarillion 10 times (favo book ever) and several other unfinished story books.

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

reeding iz 4 n00bz

JK, but no. Why read the book when you have the movies and the game?

Because the movies and games do not have Tom Bombadil, which is a phenomenal crime.

 

[Quad08]

Yep, I've read them all. Good times, good books

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[zacattack14]

I saw the extended cut of the first movie, read the Twin Towers, saw the regular version the third one, and before all that I saw the animated Hobbit

 

[TheGreenManalishi]

Funnily enough, I'm part of the way through The Two Towers.

Also, death to anyone who calls Lord of the Rings a trilogy. They are three books, yes, but were originally one volume.

I thought they were six books and an Appendix.