Tolkien was actually a devout Catholic, but that is not far from the beliefs of high Anglicanism.

Peter ref: Gandalf's "death"

I hate to split hairs, but when Gandalf recounts his battle with the Balrog, he never says that he died. Since Gandalf was actually one of the Ainur (lesser archangels of Illuvitar -- "Oloren I was...") he should be virtually immortal. However, "sent back by Manwe" works, too. My sense is that Gandalf was no ordinary anything, but always a Great Light.

If Illuvitar is anything like the God I believe in ( and I'm pretty sure that Tolkein was a good Anglican), he allows his servants only limited powers so that he can show his will through struggle and circumstance, as his other (human, dwarf, and elf) servants also realize their destinies in his service.

Also, no one but the Valar can control Gwahir the Windlord and the great eagles. They are completely autonomous beings, and of a great age, rank, and dignity in the history of Middle Earth.

We really don't know. The Creator is only mentioned briefly at the beginning of the Silmarrilion, where he is the central character.

Lochaber, Mission Accomplished... your work helps a lot.

PS. Not sure which The Silmarillion edition should I get tho. I'll figured it out anyway. Thanks.

Peter, it's nice to see such an accurate detailed knowledge of Middle Earth. Lot's of folks don't even know who Gandalf really was.

However, to me the movies are great because of Tolkien's story. They sometimes diminish and at other times reflect the books very well, but LoR as a story holds up to the changes, and Tolkien's voice still echoes through the movies,

Cody. My strong recommendation to you is that you read the books in the order that they were written. I did not (I read the Silmarillion first, and it spoils the ending of LOTR, predictable as it is). So, here is my recommended reading order (I have, like Peter, read the books multiple times, including Unfinished Tales, and the twelve-volume History of Middle Earth).

1. The Hobbit. This is the story of the quest to defeat Smaug, the dragon who inhabits the Lonely Mountain (Erebor) and to restore the dwarves to their last ancestral home (not Moria, which is their first ancestral home). Along the way, we find out about Bilbo and the One Ring. A must-read before LOTR.

2. LOTR. Much better than the movies, as Peter said, but I am not as down on the movies as he is. Aragorn's character was one of the ones badly assasinated. In the movie, he is a reluctant king. In the book, he is anything but, and is much stronger personally. Also, he would never say "Let's hunt some Orc!"

3. The Silmarillion. This includes a number of parts, including the Music of the Ainur (the angels, for lack of a better word), the story of the creation Middle Earth (akin to Genesis in The Bible), and then the Quenta Silmarillion, which is the story of how the elves go to war with Morgoth. Also includes the story of Numenor, which is where the ancestors of Aragorn came from, and a summary of the third age (Hobbit and LOTR).

4. Unfinished Tales. This includes a lot of stuff Tolkien worked on for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ages of Middle Earth. Also includes a corrected map of Middle Earth (JRRT made a few boo-boos that his son Chris fixed).

5. The Children of Hurin. This expands one chapter of The Silmarillion to book length (a short book). Get it in hardcover. Beautiful book, tragically beautiful story.

6. The History of Middle Earth. Only if you must, and are scholarly and interested in how Tolkien developed his works over the 50 years he was creating them. This is for the Uber fan only, not a casual reader, and as I said, this is a scholars' collection of books. Explains how all the fiction of Middle Earth from The Silmarillion to the Return of the King was developed, and even a proposed new book in the 4th Age, that JRRT quickly abandoned.

There, Cody. I hope that helps.

Peter and Terence,

I am having little trouble picking out "The Silmarillion" that have 3 different edition from The Mystery Guild website. Which one should I get? I saw one of the descriton saying this,

"This new edition of what Tolkien considered his most important work includes textual corrections and, by way of introduction, a letter written by the author that details his conceptions of the earliest Age of Middle-earth. Maps."

You may have to be member club to search it without giving you "no result." However, amazon.com might work well...

Also, there is another book called "THE CHILDREN OF HURIN" with descrption said,

The Children of Hurin is the first complete book by J.R.R.Tolkien since the 1977 publication of The Silmarillion. Six thousand years before the One Ring is destroyed, Middle-earth lies under the shadow of the Dark Lord Morgoth. The greatest warriors among elves and men have perished, and all is in darkness and despair. But a deadly new leader rises, Turin, son of Hurin, and with his grim band of outlaws begins to turn the tide in the war for Middle-earth -- awaiting the day he confronts his destiny and the deadly curse laid upon him. The paperback edition of The Children of Hurin includes eight color paintings by Alan Lee and a black-and-white map."

Which I am more interesting into those first. I love start with the beginning of the story before anything happen. So that it will be more understanding its history and better interesting, hopefully...

Here is another one "THE ROAD TO DUNE" which said that "is a companion work comparable to 'The Silmarillion'"

So far, I am getting more confusing and my brain is about to explode. I wish they just 'sort' the order from Old ages to New ages or whatever.

Can you guys help sorting the book order that you might suggest?

Alright.. I tell you what, I'll start with The Hobbit because of the 'story' year of ages set early beginning before The Lord of the Ring came out or set after The Hobbit, I think. I remembered that my aunt said I should read The Hobbit after I watch the LOTR movies. However, she didn't like the movies, but she like the story at the most. I remembered something about the author and the author's son which I didn't understand in their personal past history, which I didn't care about it. I'd rather to read their Biography later on because I'm feeling more mature and more respectful to any author's work. I was inspiring their work since I became 20 years old, lol. I used to careless of all the author's work since I was in school and little bit after I graduated, I guess. Right now, its more understanding to myself and love to continue to read anything that will inspire me. Part of the hobby I guess.

Thanks for all of your advice, I'd glady to keep in touch with you guys. You guys are amazing. Goodreads rocks!

Cody wrote: "So, should I read the Hobbit book first before the three Lord of the Rings books? ..."

@Cody - if you're willing to accept another opinion, I'd start with LotR since you seem to be easing into Tolkien via the movies. The Hobbit, as Peter points out, is very different in style and audience.

The rest of this post is directed not so much at Peter's comments but at the thoughts they've stirred up:

1. While I won't go so far as to use the word "loathe" to describe my reaction to the movies, I will say that the more I watch them, the more I find to object to (sigh). I liked the first one. Jackson seemed to "get it" and the changes he made were reasonable in my opinion - yes, Bombadil & the Barrow Downs had to go; and replacing Glorfindel with an expanded role for Arwen was a canny, if politically correct, move. Alas, while very attractive, Liv Tyler just didn't have the "presence" to carry off the role.

Movies 2 & 3, unfortunately, just got more and more irritating. Please, don't get me started on what they did to the Ents, to Denethor or to Faramir, or to the awful bastardization of the encounter between Gandalf and the Mouth of Sauron.

On the plus side, Ian McKellan, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean and the actors who played Faramir and Theoden were quite good.

2. Why not send Eagles to drop the ring into Orodruin? I agree with all of the reasons put forth for not asking Gwaihir to do it but also wanted to bring up these points: Namely, that ME was entering the Dominion of Men (Hobbits being a subset of that species) and the Ring was Man's responsibility - to destroy or to use. Also, the Eagles (as opposed to "eagles") were the spies and messengers of Manwe and, like the Valar, not active agents in ME's history.

3. Descriptions. Tolkien was very parsimonious about describing his creatures. Nowhere, for example, is an Elf ever described with pointed ears. Physically they're much like Men but fairer and usually taller, with an alien presence most noticeable in their eyes. The same goes for an Orc. I mean, if two Hobbits can pass themselves off as Orcs, how different can they be from a Man? Or Ents. A close reading of Treebeard's description in The Two Towers reveals a very human-like creature, not a walking tree.

4. Christopher Tolkien. I think Christopher's "secret" is that he isn't writing his own novels. He's working from the notes and drafts left by his father, and he's meticulous about remaining true to his father's vision.

PS: I'm w/ Peter all the way on the Dune sequels.

Cody wrote: "So, should I read the Hobbit book first before the three Lord of the Rings books?"

That's a good question! You know...it's funny, I really can't remember which I read first. Either way, it was a very long time ago - and I've read both many times since then.

The Hobbit is definitely more juvenile than TLOTR. Much more juvenile. If that puts you off, perhaps you should save it for later. But personally I think it's best to read The Hobbit first.

I'm suddenly reminded of the Narnia books, which have been horribly abused by their publisher and C.S. Lewis' stepson; they've been renumbered into an order which flat-out spoils many delightful surprises. But I digress.

I guess I'd recommend reading The Hobbit first, then The Lord of the Rings, and then The Silmarillion. After that, there are other works - but they're not of the same caliber, being the heavily-edited scraps of Tolkien's notes.

I think better of Christopher Tolkien than I do of most authors' sons. The aforementioned stepson of C.S. Lewis deserves nothing but contempt; Hugh Lofting's son (or was it his grandson?) should have been soundly thrashed for authorizing the censorship of the Dolittle books; and as for Frank Herbert's son Brian, he should have had his hands chopped off the moment he first got near a keyboard (as should his remarkably talentless collaborator, Kevin Anderson). Christopher Tolkien, on the other hand, did a fine job on The Silmarillion. I believe he was unhappy with the Jackson movies, although I'm not 100% sure of that.

Peter wrote: "Cody wrote: "Wow... You guys are awesome.. I agreed. I need to read The Hobbit, which I still have it and never starting read it yet. What's wrong with me? "

Nothing! But I would certainly recom..."

No kidding! Well, honestly, I haven't read The Lord of the Rings books yet, but I watched the movie over, over, over, and over again. I just do damn love the movie! However, which one should I read first. I've decided to start reading those after I read "The Law of Nines" by Terry Goodkind. That book is amazing scary and so mystery, and I'm only on chapter 7. So, should I read the Hobbit book first before the three Lord of the Rings books? Your advice would be great, Peter, Thanks to you a lot.

David wrote: "What the heck were the Nazgul riding? I'm only half way through with it, and I didn't see it specified anywhere. I apparently made the wrong conclusion that it was dragons."

They're definitely not dragons:

"...it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank. A creature of an older world maybe it was...." - TLOTR

Some have interpreted them as being pterodactyls, but Tolkien was a bit unclear on that point. Of course Peter Jackson had to change them a bit for the movie, giving them teeth instead of beaks. Jackson is a classic example of how Hollywood deals with the classics. As Robert A. Heinlein once said in a different context (and I'm paraphrasing here), they pee in it because they think that improves the taste.

What the heck were the Nazgul riding? I'm only half way through with it, and I didn't see it specified anywhere. I apparently made the wrong conclusion that it was dragons.

Cody wrote: "Wow... You guys are awesome.. I agreed. I need to read The Hobbit, which I still have it and never starting read it yet. What's wrong with me? "

Nothing! But I would certainly recommend reading The Hobbit, if you get the chance. I'm currently reading it to my son. Of course I re-read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings every six months or so; that's one of the advantages of having a three-hour daily commute by train.

If you enjoyed reading the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings, you might also enjoy reading The Silmarillion. It's generally considered to be written in a drier style than TLOTR, but if you think of it as the Bible of Middle Earth, it's a fascinating source of information.

For example, it tells you who (and what) Gandalf really is. There are also some very interesting stories, and even a bit of memorable poetry!

Wow... You guys are awesome.. I agreed. I need to read The Hobbit, which I still have it and never starting read it yet. What's wrong with me?

David wrote: "Cody wrote: "However, Gandalf doesn't have that magic to control over the eagle yet. He was just regular wizard who have lot of experience than being in White Robe himself. After he had fallen with..."

For the record, I loathe the movies. That was the whole point of post #3. It's my hope and belief that the LOTR books will still be read and loved long after those idiotic movies are forgotten. The movies stood many of Tolkien's themes on their heads, and replaced some of his most memorable and beautiful dialog with ersatz idiocy. They represent a profound disrespect of Tolkien, although I believe that Peter Jackson was too self-important (and possibly too stupid) to realize that he was crapping all over a work that he wasn't qualified to read, much less film.

The Eagle was Gwaihir the Windlord. He was sent to Orthanc by Radagast the Brown, one of the Five Wizards and a particular friend of animals, at Gandalf's request - to bring news. Radagast had been misled by Saruman, but was not a traitor. Gandalf had certainly had dealings with the Eagles before, most notably in The Hobbit. Gandalf did not control Gwaihir, ever - the eagle helped him out of friendship. As far as I know, the only living things that Gandalf ever controlled were Grima Wormtongue and Saruman - and in both cases, only for a few moments at most.

Gandalf did die in his battle with the Balrog, and was "sent back" to take Saruman's place. Presumably, it was Illuvatar who sent him back. Or possibly it was Manwë, the Vala. Tolkien never specified.

As for an eagle taking the Ring to Mount Doom, there are several problems. For one, the Ring (or the lust for it) can corrupt even an angel - and the eagles, though exceptional creatures in Middle-Earth, are no angels.

Also, Sauron commands many creatures, including flying ones. I'm not at all sure that he had any dragons left, however. Smaug may have been the last one. But he certainly commanded many other flying creatures, and surely had enough "air power" to destroy any eagle who approached Mordor. The flying mounts of the Nazgûl may not have been "ready" when the Council met at Rivendell and formed the Fellowship, but it seems certain that several (perhaps many) of the aerial mounts were alive and living in Mordor at that time - under Sauron's control.

And in any case, an eagle flying towards Mount Doom would have been terribly obvious. Sauron would have been aware of it quite quickly, and would have taken action. A major point of the Quest was that hobbits were small and unnoticeable; naturally quiet and stealthy, when they wanted to be. They were, in fact, so insignificant that Sauron wasn't aware of them for an Age or more:

'To tell you the truth,' replied Gandalf, 'I believe that hitherto - hitherto, mark you - he has entirely overlooked the existence of hobbits.'

In comparison, the Eagles were actually rather mighty among the mortal races of Middle-Earth - when they chose to be involved, that is. The Eagles were the deciding factor in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, for example.

Cody wrote: "However, Gandalf doesn't have that magic to control over the eagle yet. He was just regular wizard who have lot of experience than being in White Robe himself. After he had fallen with the Shadow monster, he was learning a stronger & better skills to call for eagle in the end of the movie. Or else thing will not be connecting and might loose the interest. It's the masterpiece anyway. I love the movie. All timer favorite. :)
"

Well, I have to respond. THat may be the way it seems in the movie, but it is a totally wrong description of events based on the book. The eagle is not something he calls or controls, but is rather a friend of Gandalf's, a friend I believe he made in the Hobbit (or perhaps before). In neither of the movie does he learn "stronger and better skills" after falling with the monster. He dies in both. When he comes back to life he is given more powers, presumably by the various gods that exist in their world.

In the movie the eagle would have had a hard time simply disposing of the ring by dropping it into the lava, as one had to enter the volcano through a tunnel. And Sauron undoubtable would have been able to see the Eagle coming and had it killed by one of his dragons, anyway.

Cody wrote: "Lochaber wrote: "Sometimes, you just have to keep your mouth closed. And your keyboard, even when you really, really, really want to respond to something.

You really do.

"

who are you talking a..."

Myself.

Lochaber wrote: "Sometimes, you just have to keep your mouth closed. And your keyboard, even when you really, really, really want to respond to something.

You really do.

"

who are you talking about?

Sometimes, you just have to keep your mouth closed. And your keyboard, even when you really, really, really want to respond to something.

You really do.

Oscar wrote: "Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring?"

Robert wrote: "LOL, someone's been watching too much "How it Should Have Ended"."

Haha! Robert got you, Oscar.. I believe in him that you watched "How it should have ended"

However, Gandalf doesn't have that magic to control over the eagle yet. He was just regular wizard who have lot of experience than being in White Robe himself. After he had fallen with the Shadow monster, he was learning a stronger & better skills to call for eagle in the end of the movie. Or else thing will not be connecting and might loose the interest. It's the masterpiece anyway. I love the movie. All timer favorite. :)

Again, How it should have ended is hairlious.

Lochaber and Grimward

I so totally agree with you both about Children of Hurin. In this, Christopher has finally stepped boldly into those enormous family shoes. Yes, J.R.R. would, indeed, be proud.

Yes, the characters were all fully rounded and individualized. A fine read.

Peter wrote: "Who does this "J.R.R. Tolkien" (what a fake-sounding name!) think he is, screwing up the novelizations of Peter Jackson's magnificent Lord of the Rings movies? Couldn't they have gotten a decent wr..."

Peter, that is brilliant and hilarious! Thank you for giving me a great start to the day!

Lochaber wrote: "I finished The Children of Hurin recently. A beautiful, somber, tragic book. It really should be an opera, in the Wagnerian tradition. And I am not joking about this, because the story is so bea..."

Don't know about the opera (how to sing Andróg's part, for example?), but agree with you on the rest, my good axeman. Of all the offerings I've read released by CHRISTOPHER Tolkien, this is the best so far. I dreaded encountering a dry historical review, replete with his musings about his father's notes, and instead found a tale that is true to J.R.R. in every aspect of its crafting and presentation. If anything, the story here surpasses its roots in The Silmarillion. I particularly liked how the peripheral characters in the story (Beleg, Mablung, Finduilas, etc.) take on life of their own in the re-telling.

I finished The Children of Hurin recently. A beautiful, somber, tragic book. It really should be an opera, in the Wagnerian tradition. And I am not joking about this, because the story is so beautiful, expanded as it is from the Turin Turambar chapter of The Silmarillion, that it deserves to be set to music.

The Legend of Sigurd and Gundrun is not set in Middle-earth nor is it stickly speaking a work of fantasy. It is Tolkien's translation of an old Norse text.

Of Tolkien's work, I think The Hobbit is my favourite, even more now that I read it in English: Tolkien is very good at word cadencing, it's like listening to a bedtime story.

I also enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, but I think this story is better put in perspective when you read The Silmarillion, as it's only the last struggle with the big bad's underling.

The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales read like ancient myths, that's why I liked them, especially The Silmarillion. It's really fascinating to see all the History (not only of Middle Earth) progressing from the creation of the world to the war at the end of the Third Age.

The Children of Húrin should be my next stop in Middle Earth.

Peter, excellent! (is your last name Jackson?)

I have read The Hobbit and LOTR 26 times since the unauthorized Ace editions, back in college. I have replaced the deluxe edition once. I also have a 3 volume boxed set and a 6 volume boxed set (hardcovers).

I have also read all the re-constructed works, which seem more like reading primary sources of ancient literature. My favorite non-novel JRR works are The Father Christmas Letters, and Farmer Giles of Ham/The Adventures of Tom Bombadil

Has anyone read The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun? I have yet to receive this.

I live in Middle Earth!

I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings trilogy in one entire weekend when I was 13 and it remains my favorite story to this day. Nothing else comes close - it is a masterpiece!

Oscar wrote: "Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring? "

The story is about the coming of the Age of Man. There weren't any other race that helped in the war. The Ents were tricked to help. Its not surprising that the Eagles wouldn't help as well. In fact, Gandalf didn't have any control over the Eagles. Radagast the Brown was the wizard that was more friendly towards that race. Gandalf watched over the race of Men and Hobbits (who were also related to Men).

There could have been other problems with using the Eagles to just fly there. The crebain could have easily spotted the Eagle carrying the Ring and it wouldn't have been long until the Nazgûl would intercept them. It was safer to take it to Mount Doom with more secrecy.

We also have to remember that The Lord of the Ring only talked about certain battles during the War of the Ring. It did mention that there was battles occuring all over the lands of Middle-Earth. The Eagles might have been tied up elsewhere fighting the Enemy.

I find it cool that in the Middle Earth World, the Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and LotR were all written by different people; Bilbo, Random Historian, and Frodo respectivly. There are large differences in the tones of all three stories, yet all the off shoots (like Children of Hurin) still maintain the tone of their respective story. Brownie points to Tolkien, most authors have the same tone book to book world to world.

Yeah, it was a real break from the hopeful optimism of LoTR and The Hobbit. It was a little refreshing to see.

Children of Hurin was a book I read last year to take a break between huge Wheel of Time volumes....it was a good story. Bleak and dark at times, but I like that....

I loved The Children of Hurin. I keep hoping I'll be able to mooch a hardcover edition. :)

Thanks Robert!
Now that I know I can jump right in, maybe it'll be my next book to read.

Like Brian said, CoH pretty much stands all by itself. From my understanding, takes a section of the Silmarillon and retells it in an expanded form, so there is no need to re-read Silmarillon to understand CoH. In fact, CoH even gives a brief history of the important past events that you DO need right at the beginning, then goes into the story.

I've read The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit Or There and Back Again and The Book of Lost Tales, Part One, The Book of Lost Tales, Part Two. All quite interesting, IMO.
I have The Children of Húrin but haven't gotten to it yet.
I'm not sure if I should re-read The Silmarillon before or after CoH since it was so long ago that I read it, I've forgotten most of it.

There's no need to read or reread the Silmarillon before reading CoH. But I thought it was interesting to go back and reread the Sil afterwards. Then again I'm a Fantasy nut and I really enjoy Tolkeins' style of writing.

Brian wrote: "I thought the CoH was a pretty decent read. The story told in the CoH is an expanded version of a story explained in the Silmarillon, although it is not nearly as dry as The Silmarillon. The CoH is..."

I saw CoH on sale at B&N I think I will pick it up. I thought Silmarillon was dry - but do you think I should re-read it before COH?

Oscar wrote: Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring?

Oh yeeeeah! That WOULD seem to have been a much easier and better plan! But then, there wouldn't have been much of a story left.

I've read LOTR at least 3 times, I own a 13-part BBC audio play version (the actor who plays Gollum is absolutely superb, btw)and I own all three movies, so it's safe to say I'm a fan; however, the last time I read the series, I realized I no longer liked Tolkien's writing style as much as I had in the past. It felt a bit dated, and I found myself wishing for some stronger female characters.

I've read The Silmarillion and have no intention of reading it again. Once was enough.

I thought the CoH was a pretty decent read. The story told in the CoH is an expanded version of a story explained in the Silmarillon, although it is not nearly as dry as The Silmarillon. The CoH is a complete story so you don't need to read the Silmarillon first.

LOL, someone's been watching too much "How it Should Have Ended".

Peter's thing made me lol...I am a lotr nerd, but kinda get annoyed in parts of the books.
It is possibly one of the few novels which i prefer the film to the book...Tom Bombadil is a big mistake imho. Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring?
I respect tolkien's pioneering work, however for me he rips too much off mythology, and i prefer the works of later authors who use darker themes and wacky characters e.g. michael moorcock and robert jordan.

I thought Children of Hurin was pretty good. I have a comment about it up earlier in this thread. I really enjoyed it.

I can see where maybe people didn't like it. Turin makes many decisions that I found myself asking "Are you kidding me? That's so stupid!", but I think that's part of why I liked it. Turin and I were so at odds with our opinions and what was happening that it felt like I was experiencing the world through the eyes of a stranger. I liked it!

Brian wrote: "I've read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy several times and The Silmarillon three times. I trudged thru The Silmarillon the first time. Reread it a couple of years later and enjoyed it a little mor..."'

Brian - did you like Children of Hurin? I've been avoiding it - I saw a number of people really didn't like it. Was wondering your opinions...or the opinions of others on this subject for that matter.


--
Wife of fantasy author: Michael J. Sullivan | The Crown Conspiracy | Avempartha (April 2009)
Reviews: Fantasy Book Critic | Odysssey | Amazon | MidWest Book Review | Huntress Reviews

Elise wrote: "I enjoyed The Hobbit, but I could never could get into LOTR even though I tried several times. It was too over descriptive for me. I know shouts of blasphemer and tomatoes are going to be thrown my..."

Elise, I think a lot of people felt that way about LOTR you shouldn't feel that you are a blasphemer. I liked them both - but there were times in LOTR where I was ....Okay okay let's just get on with it.

I've read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy several times and The Silmarillon three times. I trudged thru The Silmarillon the first time. Reread it a couple of years later and enjoyed it a little more. It didn't seem as dry the second time around. I read it the third time after I had read The Children of Hurin. To me, it was interesting to reread The Silmarillon after having just read The Children of Hurin.

Hehehehe....I've never read the The Silmarillion, but I've completely exhausted the entire LoTR tree on Wikipedia! LOL! As a result, I got pretty much the same information, just not as written.

Idle time at work can be sooo much fun!

Yeah Terence, I know about those, but have never read them... I did try to read the Book of Lost Tales (which I understand is part of the "History Of Middle Earth" you mentioned, right?) but, being that I am not such a huge fan of reading verse (I even skim the lays in LOTR), I never finished it. I'm not even sure if it was the 1st or 2nd, but I think it was the 2nd.

I do want to read The Children of Hurin, and one day would like to revisit the "History Of Middle Earth"... I think I just have to be in the right frame of mind.

I'm off to look at your reviews now... :)

I hate to bring this up but The Silmarillion is only the tip of the iceberg :-)

There's Unfinished Tales as well as the 12 volumes of Tolkien's notes in the History of Middle Earth (edited by his son Christopher).

And, not to toot my own horn, I have reviewed both The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin on this site:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77673...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59779...

That's alright Elise, we all have different preferences. I personally prefer LOTR to The Hobbit, but that's just me.

I would recommend steering clear of "The Silmarillion" though if you couldn't get into LOTR! ;)