JRR Tolkien..

jcf

I have read The Hobbit and am re reading The Lord of the Rings
after being put in the mood for it after watching the trilogy

Anyway, reading this makes me interested in other Tolkien novels -
but are his others a bit heavy ?

What one is best to start with ? - after reading the 2 most famous of his.

Thanks

BlaasForRafa

If you've read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings then the next one you should read is The Silmarillion, in my opinion its a must read as it tells the story of middle earth from its creation up to the third age and sets the scene for the other two books.

Theres no doubt that the Silmarillion is a harder read than the Hobbit of LOTR but its an immensely rewarding one I think. There are a few reasons that the Silmarillion is harder, the first is the vast number of characters and also that it dosen't focus on a few characters like the Hobbit and LOTR so you can get lost amongst the Hurins and Turins if you don't concentrate on it and keep a grasp of who's who.

Also the Silmarillion isn't one book but a sequence of five smaller books that grouped together tell the history of middle earth up to the third age. The first book is the Ainulindalë which is where I'd bet a lot of people give up. Its the story of the creation of the heavens and the world and the creation of the Valar and Maiar (basically the demigods of Ea). It reads a lot like the bible rather than a modern novel but stick with it.

The second book is the Valenqenta which details the various Valar and Maiar and their powers and motivations. Again its a tough enough read but its important as it is where the motivation for Melkor and Sauron comes from.

Where the book really starts rockin is the third (and longest) part, the Quenta Silmarillion which is the story of the pre-first age and the First Age of middle earth. Its tells the story of the rebellion of Melkor against the other Valar, his theft of the Silmarils from the elves of the Undying Lands and the elves war against Melkor and his hosts of Balrogs, Dragons and Orcs...even thinking of it makes me think of the wonders in this book and inspires me to go back to it. It also tells the story of coming of men to middle earth and even though they aren't immortal like the elves, the stories of Beren, Turin and Earendil are pretty amazing.

The fourth book is the Akallabeth, which is the story of the rise and fall of Numenor in the Second age. The Numenorians were the ancestors of the Gondorians and of the Dunedain from whence Aragorn came.

The fifth book is Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age and is sort of like the appendices to the Lord of the Rings, it gives the backround to what went on in middle earth in the second and third ages and leads up to the LOTR. Its not essential but fills in a lot of the backround info of the main characters.

Its definitely a heavier book than the Hobbit and LOTR but definitely worth reading to greater understand what happens in LOTR, just stick with it through the first 2 parts till you get to the really good stuff. I got the hardcover a few years ago with illustrations by Ted Naismith which are beautiful. Also the audiobook read by Martin Shaw is excellent.

mcgovern

I'd second BlaasForRafa, go with The Similarion, but stick with it. I found the first part horribly tedious, but it does get better!

me-skywalker

Dang BlassforRafa, will re-read it straight away! It has now up-jumped 4 other books just because of your brief but excellently concise synopsis. Thank you!

BlaasForRafa

me-skywalker wrote: »

Dang BlassforRafa, will re-read it straight away! It has now up-jumped 4 other books just because of your brief but excellently concise synopsis. Thank you!

No worries man, its a book I reread every couple of years and dip in and out of from time to time as well. Its a book that gets a lot of criticism, mainly from people who think its going to be the same experience as LOTR or the Hobbit and then give up early because its not what they expected.

Demeyes

I bought the Silmarillion a while back with the intention of reading it but I didn't get around to it yet. I might give it a go soon as I just re-read the hobbit and did a marathon viewing of the 3 extended Lotr films. That breakdown of the book was interesting as I'd heard it was a bit of a slog but didn't really know anything about it.

ancapailldorcha

jcf wrote: »

I have read The Hobbit and am re reading The Lord of the Rings
after being put in the mood for it after watching the trilogy

Anyway, reading this makes me interested in other Tolkien novels -
but are his others a bit heavy ?

What one is best to start with ? - after reading the 2 most famous of his.

Thanks

I'm reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time and I'm really struggling with it. I've no idea how this can be considered to be anything other than a dull, padded out pile of tosh. I enjoyed The Hobbit making this all the more disappointing.

keane2097

The Silmarilion is one of the most rewarding books I ever read. Very moving in parts. Actually must give it a spin again.

RecordStraight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time and I'm really struggling with it. I've no idea how this can be considered to be anything other than a dull, padded out pile of tosh. I enjoyed The Hobbit making this all the more disappointing.

The Hobbit was written for children. LOTR was written for adults.

Dades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time and I'm really struggling with it. I've no idea how this can be considered to be anything other than a dull, padded out pile of tosh. I enjoyed The Hobbit making this all the more disappointing.

I assume you've seen the movies?

I'd never got farther than Rivendell (as a teenager) in TFOTR when I heard the movies were coming out so I dusted it off and read the trilogy. I knew nothing about the story, so I really enjoyed the books and the "journey".

If I'd seen the movies I might well have thought like you, however.

ancapailldorcha

Dades wrote: »

I assume you've seen the movies?

I'd never got farther than Rivendell (as a teenager) in TFOTR when I heard the movies were coming out so I dusted it off and read the trilogy. I knew nothing about the story, so I really enjoyed the books and the "journey".

If I'd seen the movies I might well have thought like you, however.

I haven't. I saw the awful Hobbit films and decided to give the book a go as it was only 300 pages. I moved onto this afterwards. I might push on a bit but I just finished the Lorien bit and it was so tedious.

RecordStraight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I haven't. I saw the awful Hobbit films and decided to give the book a go as it was only 300 pages. I moved onto this afterwards. I might push on a bit but I just finished the Lorien bit and it was so tedious.

It's possible that you just don't like the style. I gave up on Crime and Punishment - which I acknowledge is a great book - for the same reason.

ancapailldorcha

RecordStraight wrote: »

It's possible that you just don't like the style. I gave up on Crime and Punishment - which I acknowledge is a great book - for the same reason.

Style? It's crammed full of useless info and it's more childlike than the Hobbit ever was.

RecordStraight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Style? It's crammed full of useless info and it's more childlike than the Hobbit ever was.

Nonsense. The 'useless info' is the history of Middle Earth. If you just want to read about people fighting orcs and climbing hills, there are plenty of books out there to cater for you.

Tolkien's world is a whole mythology; if you regard the historical detail, references and echoes as 'useless info', you should give up on it right now.

keane2097

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Style? It's crammed full of useless info and it's more childlike than the Hobbit ever was.

I'm confused as to whether you think you've rumbled a book widely considered the amongst the greatest ever written and that everyone who has read and loved it before you has been taken in by some con?

It seems likely there's something you are missing.

ancapailldorcha

I'm not having a dig at anyone, just expressing my opinion. The characters for the most part are 2 dimensional at best, the "lore" is flat out uninteresting and the story in general is far too simple.

RecordStraight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not having a dig at anyone, just expressing my opinion. The characters for the most part are 2 dimensional at best, the "lore" is flat out uninteresting and the story in general is far too simple.

But you enjoyed the three-dimensional characters (and complex story) in The Hobbit?

ancapailldorcha

RecordStraight wrote: »

But you enjoyed the three-dimensional characters (and complex story) in The Hobbit?

The Hobbit is a kids story so it isn't a fair comparison.

RecordStraight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Hobbit is a kids story so it isn't a fair comparison.

LOTR is a mythology, not a novel. It's more like the Bible than...well, a typical novel. If you don't like that, that's fine. It's your dime.

Dades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I haven't. I saw the awful Hobbit films and decided to give the book a go as it was only 300 pages. I moved onto this afterwards. I might push on a bit but I just finished the Lorien bit and it was so tedious.

The Hobbit films are shameful cash cows. It's possible they have spoiled for you the world Tolkien spends so long building.

But as others have said, if you don't buy into what the LOTR books are trying to achieve in terms of backdrop then maybe it's too late for you.

ancapailldorcha

There are things about the novel I really liked, don't get me wrong. I knew what the premise was from the get go. I just found certain parts such as Tom Bombadil and the white forest of elves to be tedious. The exposition is just full on. I might have a completely different opinion if I finish it as I hate leaving books unfinished.

Regarding the films, I agree completely. Smaug was the sole enjoyable factor. The battle of the five armies is skipped over in the book ffs.

keane2097

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are things about the novel I really liked, don't get me wrong. I knew what the premise was from the get go. I just found certain parts such as Tom Bombadil and the white forest of elves to be tedious. The exposition is just full on. I might have a completely different opinion if I finish it as I hate leaving books unfinished.

Regarding the films, I agree completely. Smaug was the sole enjoyable factor. The battle of the five armies is skipped over in the book ffs.

I think you are mistaking what Dades said about what LOTR is trying to achieve, with the premise of the story.

Tolkien's goal in writing this book was to develop a mythology for England in the style of the old Norse legends and others.

As a scholar of medieval literature and a lover of Germanic and Finnish mythologies in particular, J.R.R. Tolkien was "grieved by the poverty" of legend and myth in his own beloved culture. Inspired by works like Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Tolkien's fiction relied on both pagan epic and Christian legend to create a mythology for England evident in both his major works of fiction like the Lord of the Rings trilogy and his minor stories and critical essays.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien%27s_Art:_A_Mythology_for_England

The useless info, uninteresting lore, 2 dimensional characters, far too simple story etc etc are all products of a style which I suppose you either get or you don't.

ancapailldorcha

I just think it's a bit full on. If there was less of it then it'd be more likely to pique my curiosity and spur me to find out more. It must be me then....

HivemindXX

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm confused as to whether you think you've rumbled a book widely considered the amongst the greatest ever written and that everyone who has read and loved it before you has been taken in by some con?

It seems likely there's something you are missing.

There is no doubt that amongst fantasy fans there are plenty of people who consider LOTR to be the greatest books ever written but I think that's an important distinction.

I read fantasy on occasion but I wouldn't consider myself a fan. I think the LOTR is a decent read but massively overrated. Detailed analysis of history, mythology and society is interesting to me when based on reality but pointless when it is just an invention. This is why I found the Silmarillion to be awful. If you are going to put so much effort in to studying something I think it would be a lot wiser to do so in relation to the mythologies and legends that Tolkein drew from instead.

AnLonDubh

Anybody who enjoyed the Silmarillion, I'd really recommend "Morgoth's Ring". The Silmarillion is the human mythological version of the ancient histories, while Morgoth's Ring is the object truth (e.g. Morgoth didn't destroy the lamps, there were no lamps, he actually poisoned the Sun's interior, e.t.c.)

I read fantasy on occasion but I wouldn't consider myself a fan. I think the LOTR is a decent read but massively overrated.

I've actually come to the opposite conclusion. I don't like fantasy in general and only began to read Lord of the Rings recently, eventually going through most of his works. I found a lot of Lord of the Rings to be extremely well written, especially some of Gandalf's dialogue.

The "Histories of Middle Earth" material contains genuinely original philosophical thought.

Although overall, I found the most interesting thing was the Elven languages, which he created not to be spoken, but as an artistic "account" of the most beautiful features of European languages, sort of a grammatical work of art (it sums up a lot of his thoughts on phonological theory). Not many people try to make art of something like that, i.e. "What is linguistic beauty". Funny guy, but unique.

Evac101

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I just found certain parts such as Tom Bombadil and the white forest of elves to be tedious.

And to me Tom is one of the most fascinating characters in the books - he's unaffected by the ring and it's powers, seems confident that he'll be all right regardless of the outcome (or at least seems apathetic to the ring quest) and can effortlessly vanquish some of the more terrifying creatures in Middle Earth. He's referred to as the eldest of beings by Gandalf and his elvish name means "Eldest and Fatherless". Nowhere is his position in the lore or his origins clarified - he's a genuine enigma and it's left as that. It's one of the common links between Tolkien and Eriksson for me and I love that shared sense of a need for some things to remain enigmatic and unexplained.

david75

Im a huge Tolkien fan and tbh my favourite of all his books is Smith of Wooten major..look it up. it's a lovely little story.

galljga1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you've read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings then the next one you should read is The Silmarillion, in my opinion its a must read as it tells the story of middle earth from its creation up to the third age and sets the scene for the other two books.

Theres no doubt that the Silmarillion is a harder read than the Hobbit of LOTR but its an immensely rewarding one I think. There are a few reasons that the Silmarillion is harder, the first is the vast number of characters and also that it dosen't focus on a few characters like the Hobbit and LOTR so you can get lost amongst the Hurins and Turins if you don't concentrate on it and keep a grasp of who's who.

Also the Silmarillion isn't one book but a sequence of five smaller books that grouped together tell the history of middle earth up to the third age. The first book is the Ainulindalë which is where I'd bet a lot of people give up. Its the story of the creation of the heavens and the world and the creation of the Valar and Maiar (basically the demigods of Ea). It reads a lot like the bible rather than a modern novel but stick with it.

The second book is the Valenqenta which details the various Valar and Maiar and their powers and motivations. Again its a tough enough read but its important as it is where the motivation for Melkor and Sauron comes from.

Where the book really starts rockin is the third (and longest) part, the Quenta Silmarillion which is the story of the pre-first age and the First Age of middle earth. Its tells the story of the rebellion of Melkor against the other Valar, his theft of the Silmarils from the elves of the Undying Lands and the elves war against Melkor and his hosts of Balrogs, Dragons and Orcs...even thinking of it makes me think of the wonders in this book and inspires me to go back to it. It also tells the story of coming of men to middle earth and even though they aren't immortal like the elves, the stories of Beren, Turin and Earendil are pretty amazing.

The fourth book is the Akallabeth, which is the story of the rise and fall of Numenor in the Second age. The Numenorians were the ancestors of the Gondorians and of the Dunedain from whence Aragorn came.

The fifth book is Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age and is sort of like the appendices to the Lord of the Rings, it gives the backround to what went on in middle earth in the second and third ages and leads up to the LOTR. Its not essential but fills in a lot of the backround info of the main characters.

Its definitely a heavier book than the Hobbit and LOTR but definitely worth reading to greater understand what happens in LOTR, just stick with it through the first 2 parts till you get to the really good stuff. I got the hardcover a few years ago with illustrations by Ted Naismith which are beautiful. Also the audiobook read by Martin Shaw is excellent.

It has been many moons since I read The Silmarillion and I also found it extremely tedious. Parts of it were almost like a history text book which were extremely hard to get through.

galljga1

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are things about the novel I really liked, don't get me wrong. I knew what the premise was from the get go. I just found certain parts such as Tom Bombadil and the white forest of elves to be tedious. The exposition is just full on. I might have a completely different opinion if I finish it as I hate leaving books unfinished.

Regarding the films, I agree completely. Smaug was the sole enjoyable factor. The battle of the five armies is skipped over in the book ffs.

Yeah, Tom Bombadil: Tolkein's Jar Jar Binks.

ancapailldorcha

He got cut from the films though, unlike Jar Jar.

galljga1

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He got cut from the films though, unlike Jar Jar.

Mesa thinks dat goode idea. Okeeday?