12/19 LOTR question. I want to read the book before I watch the movie.
I know it's a trilogy. But does it have to be read in order?
Is one book better than others? I'm asking if it's like Star Wars.
You don't have to watch it in order. And I liked return of the jedi
better than the rest. Thanks.
\_ You have to read them in order or it won't make any sense. --dim
\_ The Lord of the Rings is one title composed of many logical books.
It was published as three physical books. You need to read them
in order. If you want to dip your toe in, start with the Hobbit
which is the prequel to the Lord of The Rings
\_ 6 "books", 3 "volumes"
\_ 6 "books", 3 "volumes". But, indeed, if you haven't read any
of them and want to read something, read the Hobbit, see
fellowship of the ring, then read the 3 volumes. --scotsman
\_ read fellowship of the ring.
\_ read fotr or mein kamph, same difference, same content.
"Numenor fell for the Numenoreans mingled their blood with that
of lesser men." ... "Southrons were dark and evil."
\_ boy that's clever. -tom
\_ I'm sorry, your liking Return of the Jedi best has nullified your
worthiness for Tolkien. Exit on your left.
\_ I would not discourage anyone from reading the books. However,
having seen the movie last night, I can safely say that you do
not need to read the books to enjoy the movie. In fact, if
you're the sort of person who gets fanatic about this sort of
thing, DON'T read the books before seeing the movie, as there
are plenty of differences between the two. I enjoyed the movie
immensely. --erikred
\_ I'd agree. Read the series many, many times, saw the movie,
liked it, but kinda wished I'd never read it (surprises would
be more surprising, wouldn't be constantly analyzing differences,
etc, etc) I'd just read the Hobbit then go see it (or not even
that, you don't have to, but it would be fun). --dbushong
\_ I'm a big book fan who really liked the movie. I've known
a few non-readers who've seen it and been confused, but the
resounding consensus on them is that they are stupid. So
\_ or think seperate books should have individual endings.
\_ But they *aren't* separate books. It's all one book,
that was split into three volumes by the publisher.
\_ Just saw the movie today. At the end, one woman said
aloud, "What? That's it?" -geordan
consider the movie an informal IQ test. The first book is
450-500 pages long, and not a quick read the first time
though, though I just finished it in three days cuz I've
read it before. Anyway, you might also start with The Hobbit,
which is more for kids, and Silmarillion, which has a lot
of backstory to the Lord of the Rings. Origionally the
trilogy of books was one book. They divided it into three
parts for publishing reasons.
\_ The Hobbit was *really* boring. I'd skip it.
\_ Everyone has an opinion. You're in a minority among
those who've read it.
\_ We may be a bigger minority than you think. Hated it.
\_ Relax. It's a kid's book. -fab
\_ LoTR is also a set of kids books.
\_ LoTR is also a set of kids books. But thats okay
since most sodans are kids (at heart, if not in
age).
\_ The Hobbit In A Nutshell by O'Reailly: Wizard drags
hobbit out of hole. Goes on adventure. Hobbit saves
everyone. Hobbit saves everyone again. Hobbit again
saves everyone. Hobbit saves group. Group is saved by
hobbit. Hobbit rescues everyone.... etc, etc, end. I
stated my opinion. "boring" is obviously an opinion.
You state your opinion as a fact. Your opinion is only
an opinion until you survey a sufficient number of The
Hobbit readers to do a proper statistical analysis. I'd
like to see a breakdown by age when you publish your
results. The Hobbit was *really* boring. I'd skip it.
\_ uh, Bilbo did very little saving of anyone. Could
you provide some examples? -tom
\_ well, there was that spider, and then the
dragon, and then that stuff in the forest...
\_ Don't bring facts in to this.
\_ The Silmarillion is an... acquired taste. For advanced
Tolkien fans only.
\_ "The third is enormous, mad, unreadable"
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n22/turn2322.htm |
http://csua.com/feed/