Donald’s comment > Likes and Comments

The Silmarillion is a lot harder to read, and why read that and then spoil LOTR? I would read Hobbit, LOTR and then Silmarillion.

As I recall from reading Tolkien's biography (the Humphrey Carpenter book - it was a long time ago I read it) Tolkien wrote the "old stories" (like the Silmarillion and the other "Unfinished tales") first, but they were never intended to be published. The Hobbit started off as a childrens' story, and he was "surprised" when references to the world he had already constructed appeared in it. Then the Lord of the Rings was written, and finally he seems to have (somewhat reluctantly) started to prepare the Silmarillion for publication. I agree with Tolkien (and Cally above) that the Silmarillion would be hard going as a starting point - it is wonderful writing in itself, but I can't see anyone getting hooked on the series by reading this first. The book is low on action and high on detail / background / mythology. I still defend reading the books in the order that they were published and consequently as the author intended. So the Hobbit first!