Shoudl I read The Hobbit then LOTR, or LOTR then The Hobbit?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Having read neither (and thinking I'd probably enjoy both), I'm not sure where to start. PLease help!

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Start with David Eddings he's much better!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

You are a very bad man, Tom.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, start with Stephen Donaldson.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Hobbit first, Lord later. Don't leave a 15 year gap between the two like I did though.

― Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Start with LOTR it is a much more rollicking yarn. (On so many levels I am deluded).

Are any wags going to suggest the Silmarillion?

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, you don't *need* to read The Hobbit in order to get LoTR -- at the beginning of the trilogy you get a thorough explanation of the Hobbits and their funky, lovin' ways. Having said that, The Hobbit is a great background story for many things that happen in LOtR and its universe.

And you know what? When faced with the dilemma of reading and not reading something, reading it always wins. So go read The Hobbit and then LoTR.

― Miggie (Miggie), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

The Hobbit is a children's story and quite obviously so. So, if you enjoy childrens' stories, read it first, and then read LOTR. I think there are too many spoilers in LOTR for the Hobbit, so it might be a bad idea to read it first if you want to maintain the air of excitement.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

beowulf
then harry potter

― enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

All the secret origin of Gollum stuff in LoTR is more exciting if you read the Hobbit first.

They're both kids books Kate!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned wept

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Did the Hobbit come out after Lord? If so, I have a feeling that reading the Hobbit first would be like starting Narnia with anything other than Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe.

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but the Hobbit is a *little* kids' book, while TLOR is more an "early teens" book.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I STILL do, Stevem. *cries* Anyway, various good takes but I like both of Kate's the best. The Hobbit is far more self-consciously a kid's book in comparison (so there, Tom) and should definitely be read as such -- think of reading it as the equivalent of reading it out loud to a young relative. LOTR is the rollicking yarn with surprising depths that steps it up a bit and which can keep showing more in more rereadings that both supporters and detractors might guess...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Did the Hobbit come out after Lord?

No.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Hobbit came out before.

Kate that kind of attitude is taking away children's precious childhood as surely as Cosmo Girl and Bratz! [/handwringing Guardian layMoR]

Ned I cannot begin to guess how many re-readings you are talking of!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Did the Hobbit come out after Lord?

The Hobbit was published in 1937, 17 years before The Fellowship of The Ring.

Go read the damn book already.

― Miggie (Miggie), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned I cannot begin to guess how many re-readings you are talking of!

You are wise.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

If you're going to read just one, read LOTR. (But if you're going to read both, read The Hobbit first for the back story and to avoid spoilers!)

Kate that kind of attitude is taking away children's precious childhood as surely as Cosmo Girl and Bratz!

What attitude? Huh? There are things in The Hobbit that scared me when I was 6 that I laughed at when I was 12. I tried to read LOTR when I was 6, and was too over my head (and scared by the Black Riders) to get very into it. Certain books are more suitable for certain age groups, what's Guardian reader about that?

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry it was a rub joke based on the 'who will protect our early teens from the nasty adult world' flap I was reading about this week.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

read the hobbit, don't bother with lord of the rings. it's long-winded and devoid of magic in comparison. so there.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Wah you're mean.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

6? I was an early reader, but that's *freakish*.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

the hobbit is a fanciful adventure suitable for all ages.

lotr is a long-winded bore suitable for people who lurk around elementary schools in long coats and black socks.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

And no shoes?

― Miggie (Miggie), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

No, no sideburns.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

2nd weird book-synch of the day with Kate - I tried LoTR at 6 too after enjoying the Hobbit a couple of years before, but I had a nightmare about Gollum and was put off it until I was 8.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I started reading when I was about 3, Barry!

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i think my dad read the hobbit to me when i was small, then i read LOTR myself a few years later. it felt like a chore in comparison to the THRILLING hobbit.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I suggest you start with the Silmarillion as in a way it's the first work. It may however cause you to just say fuck it to the rest of it.

― Wag (Bryan), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Read Hobbit at seven or eight, LOTR at twelve. Worked for me! Read The Silmarillion at thirteen...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

IRON LAW of EVERYTHING: never start with a book the author couldn't finish

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Silmarillion is only for die-hards. Seriously. (Which I was when I was 13, but that's another story.)

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

ha ha read as: silmarillion is for hard-ons only

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Read The Silmarillion at thirteen...

WTF? HOW?

― Miggie (Miggie), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

No, the die-hard books are the collections of manuscripts published in the 80s and 90s which I don't have oh know what could you be talking about I wouldn't have read them and reread them either.

ha ha read as: silmarillion is for hard-ons only

So that's what Gil-galad's spear is all about

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

ned, you're like one of those guys who can speak klingon arent you?

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

(I was so die-hard that I read Tree and Leaf or whatever and all the linguistic treatises and stuff like that... which I didn't understand a word of at the time.)

(And then I discovered Duran Duran and pop stars and BOYS and I got a life!)

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Klingon...Dear god, that was a path I never went down. And I thank myself for it.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

WTF? HOW?

Very carefully.

And then I discovered Duran Duran and pop stars and BOYS and I got a life!

Hm...I discovered Duran Duran and pop stars first and then read LOTR after it. That must be the answer.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Silmarillion at 10. I thought it sucked.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

this is like the nerdy preteen version of showing each other your bits

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

My friend Steve Gonzalez once summed it up this way: "I love LOTR and all that, but the Silmarillion just seemed like a bunch of white guys running around with swords."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Story of a setback:

Madchen learns to read aged 4. Madchen starts school as a rising five. Madchen's teacher makes her start again at Peter and Jane book 1a!!! Hence I did not read the Hobbit until I was 11. (Enid Blyton addiction may also have held me back)

― Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I was thinking about Tolkien not finishing The Silmarillion while watching some of the bonus stuff in the extended "Two Towers" and I think I can't agree with the notion that it wasn't finished. I don't think Tolkien ever really considered anything finished and was/would've been perfectly happy to go on rewriting things forever. As was stated in the documentary, he was not a proper writer. The Silmarillion as published (yes I know Christopher Tolkien edited it, possibly substantially - Ned would know more about this than I would) seems perfectly finished to me! There are certain sections of it (IMO) that are better than anything else he wrote.

― Bryan (Bryan), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Hobbit at seven, LOTR at eight, I think. Silmarillion when I was nine or ten. I loved all of them.

I think liking the Silmarillion might be more evidence that I had a very narrow escape from gothdom.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

The Silmarillion is really, really heavily edited from about three major revisions.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

okay, serious question: should i bother re-reading this?

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

(lotr that is)

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I started to read the Silmarillion shortly after LOTR, and hated it, thought it was boring dreck. I waited a year or two, and I thought it was great. They are well spaced from childhood to teenage gothdom.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

should i bother re-reading this?

Hell, yeah.

― Miggie (Miggie), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Jess: nah.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm so conflicted!

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

The Silmarillion as published is indeed a stitch and tuck editing job by C. Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay (a Canadian! the influence is everywhere!) from over fifty years worth of manuscripts that Tolkien often rewrote and restructured and revised. I agree it actually sits pretty well for what it is though much detail has been lost and can only be found if you want to plow through those manuscript collections (plus Unfinished Tales). The fact that he worked away at the whole overarching structure for over half a century (sometimes in fits and starts, obv, and LOTR took up nearly fourteen years) impresses me on a creative level -- it was a private obsession, one he recognized as such but didn't stop from carrying out. Also, reading the attempted revisions towards the end of his life finds him working out a series of sometimes unsettling theological and philosophical questions where you can almost sense him wondering if the whole background shouldn't be trashed in favor of a new conception. Striking stuff, really.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

i found a whole box of unrread books in the attic (i re-bought the big one with the cheesy filmstill cover when the first movie came out) and this was in there

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Rereading it again -- if the recent movies make you happy and you don't want to go back for fear of the book not living up to them, don't.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned you're geekier than me. I kiss you.

― Miggie (Miggie), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:46 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a reason I have the bookcase which is almost completely and solely dedicated to Tolkien books! I geek thusly.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Jess: maybe. It's very difficult for me to give a more definite answer. Years of re-reading have addled my brain to such an extent that I no longer trust my own opinion.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I re-read it a few years ago and it was fine but it was more because I had happy memories of it being my favourite book when I was small - I think without those memories I'd have lost patience, yes it is a good adventure romp but it's a very long adventure romp too.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Look, I know the names of the two blue wizards. I AM NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, clearly the book isn't for everyone and that includes previous fans. I've specifically told people who liked the movies but either never liked what Tolkien they've read or have said that they just can't stand works of fiction along those lines not to bother, simply because they've made it clear they'd rather spend their time enjoying other books or pursuits they're more in tune with. Personally I'd love it if everyone read it at least once but not everyone will think it's worth the time and effort and I don't blame them at all.

Look, I know the names of the two blue wizards. I AM NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

Haha! You are my brother in arms.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Even though I'm not sure if I even like the damn thing sometimes?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

silmarrillion not finished bcz tolk never solved the prob of revising it to adjust to his substantially changed worldview (changed by writing the hobbit and LoTR)

silmarrillion stays true to adolescent values, hence unreadability, finished books - cf also farmer giles of ham and ESPECIALLY smith of wootton major - gradually realise that small-and-now-cookery is better than BIG-BACK-THEN-HERALDRY

jess you have to read it in time to understand my book abt him!! (ie by 2045)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

The Hobbit was read to us in primary school. Veeerrrry slowly and I can't remember if we finished (I knew "we (teenies ie HOBBITS!!!) won" hurrah). However I got so bored waiting that I shunned it, and LOTR, utterly - bear in mind BOYS like yourselves were reading it and being such dorks I decided not to.

Then I saw the movie and came out of it going HOLD ON tell me about those elves what is that big ball what are the wizards is that thing about trees telling how did aragorn get there what what what and then read the books pretty much instantly. And the Silmarillion!

Unfinished Tales is lined up. I can't believe I even devoured the APPENDIXES to the Silmarillion and still found the hobbit a bit of a trial. I blame bad childhood associations - same for goodnight mister sodding tom but that's another thread.

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

like rickyt i only like it sometimes also but it is part of my relationship to my dad who adores it, and cried as he watched FotR: he gets tTT for this xmas

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't believe that you managed the appendices to the Silmarillion and gave up on The Night Land Starry!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark S is wise. The shift from Massive Myth to gentle quiet focus is essentially the story of all his writings -- The Hobbit was the fluke success that specifically was separate from all the legendarium, LOTR the attempt to fuse it, many of the scattered and heavily detailed retakes on the backstories following LOTR an attempt to transform the legendarium into something else.

As for me and my family, I ended up making my mom a huge fan -- though really the credit goes to Orlando Bloom riding in on the horse in FOTR in particular.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't give up on The Night Land! I've read it TWICE! (Appendices, I KNEW it was different). And lo did the Master word go beating across the still night as I bent the naughty wench over my knee with my arm which is massively muscular ie Henry Rollins in space.

There is a part of the Silmarillion which is like the bit in the bible where he lists genealogies of Kings (AM I USING THE RIGHT WORD?!) - am I a bad person cos I skipped it in the bible but read it in Tolkein?

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I'd read any of them again as an adult. For the simple reason that I LOVED THEM SO MUCH as a child. But I really don't like the fantasy genre any more, I find it tedious. (As evidenced by the fact that I haven't been bored enough to get more than a page into Northern Lights yet.) So I don't want to spoil the memory of something I loved due to adult prejudices and jadedness.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Sarah, even if God shies away from you, Ilúvatar will still love you.

― Miggie (Miggie), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Hold on does the Night Land get all spanky-spanky later on?? I gave up on it v.quick myself naturally.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

"spanky-spanky"?

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Where did you get up to? After he finds Mine Maid (My Own, My True... ~~my preccciouussssss~~) and attempts to take her back to safety there's a lot of "And she did look at me with a naughty eye and I was forced to ~~give her a chinese burn~~ admonish her for she was a Naughty and Wilful Maid".

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

And

"OH NO! MONSTERS!!! LUCKY I AM VERY BIG AND STRONG WITH A BIG CHEST!!!"

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I am sorta kinda thinking about reading LOTR, but my problem is I do most of my reading on the way to and from work and I am not taking that EMBARRASSMENT on South West Trains, except perhaps in a paper bag.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Cutting the eyeholes in the bag might be a pain.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

If you had kids, would you read Tolkien to them, or would you let them read the books themselves? Would you suggest they read them, or would you casually leave them lying around to be discovered?

― Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Jesus Mark, it's not like it's Harry fecking Potter!

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Cover up the title with a sticker Barry and then people will think it's a cool book about Northern Soul records.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

gah i broke my dad's heart by demanding that he STOP reading me LoTR so i cd read it MYSELF please: he had been looking 4wd to reading it to his children since he wz a teenager and read it himself

i still feel bad abt this (i wz 10 i guess)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

just use your pseudonym, on the train, and no-one will know that it's you.

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Fuck, I called Barry by his old name!

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

You're trekking for a decking.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes Barry, have a badge saying "Mark C" and no-one will know it's you!

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

These various theories do not seem to help Mark C, alas. I propose he instead cover himself in creosote, so his identity will be hidden.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

RickyT - it so is EXACTLY like Harry Potter.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Them's fiteing words, Barry!

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't fight over something so piffling, Ricky.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Barry! No! Leave him alone! He's not worth it!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

LOTR = more than 50 years old = LITERATURE!!!

So it's not as bad as Harry Potter, which is just childrens' books.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

read a battered paperback copy w. post-it notes sticking out = you are writing a book abt it

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Or else, you are even more MAJORLY SAD.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

My family took turns each night reading it to each other, but I pulled a mark s and started reading ahead because I was frustrated with our pace. This if course helped immensely when it was my turn to read (yes, I was competitive even w/family reading!!)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

You read to each other every night!? Is your last name really WALTON?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

read a battered paperback copy w. post-it notes sticking out = you are writing a book abt it
-- mark s (mar...), November 27th, 2003.

Or else, you are even more MAJORLY SAD.
-- Citizen Kate (masonicboo...), November 27th, 2003.

Or
1) u r a student (u lucky bastard)
2) you are enrique and thinking about writing something at an ill-defined point in the future

― enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

enrique your #2 is the very definition of "writing a book" from what i understand

Ricardo yes we were very cute, my dad always wanted us to be like the Swiss Family Robinson or something, cheerfully doing chores and coming up with brilliant gardening ideas

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 27 November 2003 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 27 November 2003 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, rough luck there.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 27 November 2003 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Aw.

My semi-little-known secret -- my first NaNoWriMo entry, Complex, very specifically borrows a general structure from The Hobbit. The eventual sequel which I've been toying for some time will indeed be modelled on LOTR in turn. However, I couldn't actually ever attempt to write an epic fantasy straight up.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

this thread is sick

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 28 November 2003 05:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Like dog, yes.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 November 2003 06:35 (twenty-one years ago)

that tolk language translator on the documentary on the extended two towers kinda rocks

― Pablo Cruise (chaki), Friday, 28 November 2003 06:42 (twenty-one years ago)

The Crying of Lot 49 ~THEN~ Gravity's Rainbow

― weather!ngda1eson, Friday, 28 November 2003 06:46 (twenty-one years ago)

that tolk language translator on the documentary on the extended two towers kinda rocks

David Salo -- I love that guy! He's Mr. "Yeah I'm a Nerd and I Don't Care" -- he's actually happily married and is either studying or has his PhD now, so I'm all for him.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 November 2003 06:50 (twenty-one years ago)

the epic of gilgamesh - THEN - everything else

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 28 November 2003 07:03 (twenty-one years ago)

ever lovin' marmaduke then marmaduke...again

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 28 November 2003 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I started Unfinished Tales on the train this morning. So far it is good and only a bit about ELVES. Sadly I think it will start going all pervy-elf-fancying pretty soon chiz.

― Sarah (starry), Friday, 28 November 2003 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

if he had worked out a full-on gollum-style character for the beren/luthien story, he wd have "solved" the silmarrillion, but wd then have had to rewrite LOTR (the way he had to rewrite the hobbit a wee bit after finishing LOTR)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 28 November 2003 12:11 (twenty-one years ago)

My honest advice is read 'A Glastonbury Romance' by John Cowper Powys insted. Same imaginative storytelling, but using real archetypes in the real world. It's also the same length as LOTR so you won't feel short-changed.

― Pete S, Friday, 28 November 2003 12:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned - if you're going to write a 2,000 page meisterwork, my advice is NOT to base it on an already existing book but, like, come up with your own structre and ideas and stuff.

― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 28 November 2003 12:25 (twenty-one years ago)

However everyone should read at least the first half of The Hobbit, preferably when they're eight.

― Pete S, Friday, 28 November 2003 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Why are "real archetypes in the real world" a good thing Pete?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 28 November 2003 12:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely there aren't any archetypes in the real world.

― Sam (chirombo), Friday, 28 November 2003 12:32 (twenty-one years ago)

My opinion is that if you're going to spend your time reading almost 2000 pages of text it helps if, like in Powys, the symbols apply directly to your conscious (+ unconscious) mind, rather than, as in Tolkein you have to learn a whole new mythology/language of understanding his creation, which is pretty nigh on useless when it comes to living in the real world.
I like LOTR, i've read it 5 times, but i stopped thinking it meant anything after the age of 17.
There are allegories of real life there (though yes JRRT denied that), but you have to disentangle them yourself. If you have a busy life and want to know more about the world we live in, rather than one guy's head, you should see the movies and forget the book.

― Pete S, Friday, 28 November 2003 12:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Of all the reasons I read LOTR, "usefulness" never occurred to me. I actually do think it was useful for me, though, to imagine there could be a place Other than This (possibly a consequence of growing up in a Christian household).

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 28 November 2003 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned - if you're going to write a 2,000 page meisterwork, my advice is NOT to base it on an already existing book but, like, come up with your own structre and ideas and stuff.

Yay! In my case it was only the 50,000 (now 75,000) words and the reason I did the borrowing of the structure was because I am terrible at coming up with basic structures of my own (though NaNoWriMo experiences since have given me more practice at it). As for it being a bad idea in general, I'm hardly James Joyce but I refer you to Ulysses.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 November 2003 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

So you're plagiarising Joyce too??

― Markelby (Mark C), Friday, 28 November 2003 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

No, Barbara Cartland.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 November 2003 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Bill Cartwright?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 28 November 2003 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)

And many more!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 28 November 2003 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

If you had kids, would you read Tolkien to them, or would you let them read the books themselves? Would you suggest they read them, or would you casually leave them lying around to be discovered?

Read them "The Hobbit" when they're little, casually tell them that LOTR exists later on.

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 29 November 2003 01:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"if he had worked out a full-on gollum-style character for the beren/luthien story, he wd have "solved" the silmarrillion, but wd then have had to rewrite LOTR (the way he had to rewrite the hobbit a wee bit after finishing LOTR)"

Elaborate plz Mark

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Saturday, 29 November 2003 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

About the Silmarillion 'solving' or the Hobbit rewrite?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 29 November 2003 02:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't believe there's been 123 messages on this board. Read "The Hobbit" first, of course! Don't you people believe in chronology?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 29 November 2003 03:17 (twenty-one years ago)

tim: he retroactively changed the riddles chapter of the hobbit so that gollum didn't just hand the ring over and let bilbo go => ie he realised he needed for consistency he needed to stress the rings AND gollum's tenacity (it's a fairly small change, one or two paras at the end of the chapter)

LOTR had declared that hobbit-types were relatively new to the world, so a small cosy people couldn't anyway be written into the tale of beren wresting a silmaril from morgoth (haha could he be any more morgoth?)'s crown in thangorodrim

you can tell by the feel of the writing that he has come to love and prefer the small cosy (or anti-cosy) people in LoTR *more* than all their high noble elf-betters: the dialogue relaxes, the situations are funny and much more psychologically perceptive (ie i take ned's line abt aragorn's deep doubts and all but you have to fish for it more); the entire section of conflicted gollum with sam and frodo is leagues ahead of all the rohirrim stuff, for example

writing the silmarillion with a craftsmans's joy - being true to the nature of his skill - meant either pursuing this small-people aspect, the angle he realised he had a mastery of, or mastering something else (High Prose Edda Rip-off, which I think by thes 50s he deep down realised WASN'T his metier, tho he deeply loved it still and carried on trying... he WAS a modern man not a 10th century norseman)

contrast the tale of years sections of the LoTR appendix with the actual text where hobbits and gollum appear: for LoTR to come to life it had to stop being "tale of years"-like, and did... but the silmarillion never did, because he couldn't find the gollum/hobbit-element that held him close to vivid storytelling

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 29 November 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago)

the entire section of conflicted gollum with sam and frodo is leagues ahead of all the rohirrim stuff, for example

OTM, and compare to how in the second film all the running around and surfing down stairs in Helms Deep comes in second to the simple betrayal of Smeagol by Frodo. Er, in my opinion.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Sunday, 30 November 2003 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark S's explanation is sound, and Tolkien was not unaware -- nor is his son Christopher, keeper of the archives and estate. At the start of the 12-book manuscript sequence, CJRT (to use the fan's acronym) quotes a very appropriate letter in the mid-50s from his father that sums it up nicely:

I do not think (The Silmarillion) would have the appeal of the L.R. -- no hobbits! Full of mythology, and elvishness, and all that 'heigh stile' (as Chaucer might say), which has been so little to the taste of many reviewers.

I was just thinking about the movies, since the world premiere of Return is tomorrow, and it occurs to me that Jackson's decision to prioritize the close-up and personal interaction is his own equivalent to Tolkien's focus on the 'small' if you like. The films could have been pure spectacle but they they would be nowhere near as good, I'd guess, and that close-up focus is precisely why the Smeagol/Gollum confrontation scene both works and makes cinematic sense in the story as filmed.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 30 November 2003 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

three months pass...

Well, I'm sure you'll all be pleased to hear that I've just finished The Hobbit.

About 1/3rd of the way through the book, I thought "My god, this is twee." Then it gets weird, then it gets good, then it turns into ye old stylee language, then it goes twee again. I gave it 4 stars out of 5 in Amazon.

All in all, I'm glad I read it before LOTR. Good work, ILXors!

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Thursday, 11 March 2004 08:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Rah!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Rah! indeed.

You're a funny chap, Neg Raggett.

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Thursday, 11 March 2004 18:59 (twenty-one years ago)

It's been said.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 March 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

nineteen years pass...

reading the hobbit to my 7 yr old, worried it would be too old timey and slow but it really does zip along, dwarves to trolls to elves to goblins to gollum to wolves to eagles to beorn with scarcely a pause. it does slow down a bit after that. (i read it enough times in my youth but couldn't recall the pacing.) a thousand times more pleasurable to read than bloody potter.

A children's bookshop owner mentioned this as a possible follow-up and apparently an inspiration - never heard of it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marvellous_Land_of_Snergs

― crutch of england (ledge), Thursday, 17 August 2023 08:23 (two years ago)

Intrigued to know how you get on with the last quarter - obviously the Smaug bits are great, but I struggled with the bits after that, which get a bit RPG sourcebook. I’m guessing it’s much better in smaller bedtime doses.

Unrelatedly, I’m just reading Charmed Life which I bet would be fabulous for a 7-year-old, and obviously better than Potter too. My three year old knows Harry Potter is a thing, but not what it is, she just likes randomly shouting “Harry Potter!” when she’s trying to avoid bedtime.

― Chuck_Tatum, Thursday, 17 August 2023 08:40 (two years ago)

was Tolkien anti-TERF

― Stevo, Thursday, 17 August 2023 10:53 (two years ago)

If people are rejecting Rowling on the basis of TERFness were Tolkien's politics any better.

― Stevo, Tuesday, 22 August 2023 08:28 (two years ago)

Luckily we will never know how much he would have doubled down on his possible prejudices when pressed on social media. I also reject rowling on the basis of her books being shit.

The last 1/4 was certainly less fun, no 7 year old could be interested in the Phantom Menace opening crawl of the post-smaug politics; we then read the siege and battle in one go which was probably too much. She was playing around as I was reading and I normally try and put a stop to that but this time I thought eh can't blame you. The battle is a slog to read, especially as Tolkien goes full on 'ere long' olde englishe, not only in reported speech but as a narrator.

― crutch of england (ledge), Tuesday, 22 August 2023 08:38 (two years ago)

Just read Gormenghast and forget Tolkien

― beamish13, Tuesday, 22 August 2023 18:43 (two years ago)

im usually a why not both kind of guy but gormenghast was a slog until i threw it away, quite early into it and all

― close encounters of the third knid (darraghmac), Tuesday, 22 August 2023 20:57 (two years ago)

xpost hey now.

Glad she had a (mostly) good experience! As for Tolkien's politics, yeah, kinda glad he's safely in the past on the one hand (can imagine him and Brexit; then again he also died before the UK even joined), but on the other, when it comes to TERFness, my podcast cohosts and I honestly delight in remembering that the angelic powers of Middle-earth, the Valar, are pretty much explicitly stated to have utterly plastic 'true' forms that aren't even gendered; they take on gendered shapes just to make things easier for Elves and Men rather than anything innate. This doubtless comes more from Tolkien's tradCath ways about angels in general, but it's a nicely accidental point of distinction from Rowling's fuckery.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 August 2023 23:18 (two years ago)

I’ve been reading Beatrix Potter for my (much younger) daughter, and she is somehow an infinitely more tedious and longwinded writer than Tolkien, even while operating at a much lower level of complexity. So everything’s relative. I don’t know if she was a TERF but she sounds like she was a piece of work.

― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 22 August 2023 23:49 (two years ago)

Poor use of commas. I mean Potter is a tedious writer, not my three year old.

― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 22 August 2023 23:54 (two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.