Rings of Power

[Halfmiler2]

I think they made it abuntantly clear both with his statements and his backstory..

I think you are correct but they picked wrong. For various reasons, I think it would be a better fit for him to be the character that the movie skipped over in The Fellowship of the Ring.

[Halfmiler2]

I first read the Hobbit as required summer reading going into freshman year in high school. I read LOTR in full during three weeks of Holiday vacation while in law school. Most recently, I read both (The Hobbit first) to my older son (when he was a young teen) as bedtime reading over a period of months. It was before he saw the movies - The Hobbit first in its initial release.

[Steele]

Hobbit, then LOTR. Movie last. Yes, gh, you have blasphemed.

[Atticus]

Hobbit, then LOTR. Movie last. Yes, gh, you have blasphemed.

Absolutely. You must read LOTR before seeing the movie trilogy because
A. The movie will 'ruin' the full impact of the books.
B. If you see the movie first, your imagination will be limited to what the movie showed you.
C. Books first will increase one's appreciation of what P Jackson accomplished.

[Steele]

Agree on all three points. Also, there is a LOT more in the books than the movies.

[gh]

Lonewolf didn't express any interest in getting a PhD in Tolkienology; he was interested, as I took it, in being brought up to speed on a cultural phenomenon. The best answer to that is the movies, not months (and months) of reading.

[Atticus]

Lonewolf didn't express any interest in getting a PhD in Tolkienology; he was interested, as I took it, in being brought up to speed on a cultural phenomenon. The best answer to that is the movies, not months (and months) of reading.

He said

This is all Sanskrit to me. I have never read nor viewed anything LOTR. Is it too late to start?

If you want to start, do not begin at the end. Since he will obviously live for quite a while, start with The Hobbit, end with the movies. If after The Hobbit, one is not captivated, skip the books and go to the movies. I never reread any of the books, because I already knew the story, and the movies were a fresh perspective.

[scottmitchell74]

He said



If you want to start, do not begin at the end. Since he will obviously live for quite a while, start with The Hobbit, end with the movies. If after The Hobbit, one is not captivated, skip the books and go to the movies. I never reread any of the books, because I already knew the story, and the movies were a fresh perspective.

When did you read The Hobbit?

Poor Lonewolf; getting all of this contradictory advice. I still say The Hobbit is very childish (written for a child) and the proper starting point is reading FOTR. Although not in @gh's realm, I have read the Books 13X but have only felt compelled to read The Hobbit 2-3 times as it's just not the same solid read the LOTR are.

[Atticus]

When did you read The Hobbit?
Poor Lonewolf; getting all of this contradictory advice. I still say The Hobbit is very childish (written for a child) and the proper starting point is reading FOTR. Although not in @gh's realm, I have read the Books 13X but have only felt compelled to read The Hobbit 2-3 times as it's just not the same solid read the LOTR are.

Yeah, ya got me there. If you start with The Hobbit (which I did not . . . and I never even finished reading it) you may never get to LOTR.
OK, re-sort - LOTR, movies, Hobbit (if you need more).

[gh]

He said



If you want to start, do not begin at the end. Since he will obviously live for quite a while, start with The Hobbit, end with the movies. If after The Hobbit, one is not captivated, skip the books and go to the movies. I never reread any of the books, because I already knew the story, and the movies were a fresh perspective.

using the "start at the beginning" logic, one should then begin with The Silmarillion

[Atticus]

using the "start at the beginning" logic, one should then begin with The Silmarillion

And, if you finish it, you will indeed have a PhD in Tolkeinism.

[Halfmiler2]

using the "start at the beginning" logic, one should then begin with The Silmarillion

Garry, I am curious. Have you read it nearly as many times as LOTR? I confess to only have read parts of it and never all the way through.

[scottmitchell74]

Garry, I am curious. Have you read it nearly as many times as LOTR? I confess to only have read parts of it and never all the way through.

It's like the Old Testament: a much harder read that bogs down at times with names and places, but the high-notes are incredible.

[gh]

Garry, I am curious. Have you read it nearly as many times as LOTR? I confess to only have read parts of it and never all the way through.

probablly no more than a half-dozen times, but it's instructive to note that I had probably read LOTR 20 times before Silmarillion was even published. In all truth, I think I gave up on it the first time I started it and had to go back several months later. It's a dense read, to be sure. It's more like a textbook than a read-for-pleasure exercise. But if you claim to understand the trilogy, it's a must.

[jeremyp]

Finished "Rings of Power" and moved on to "House of Dragons." It was like going from "House on the Prairie" to "Breaking Bad."