The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
Should I read this before the LOTR trilogy?
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Nov 04, 2013 01:04AM
I read the Hobbit a long, long time ago, and now I really want to read it again. I also want to read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I was wondering whether I should read the Hobbit first or should I start with 'The Fellowship of the Ring'...What would you suggest?
reply
|
flag
Thank you! I think I'll start with The Fellowship then, since I haven't read it yet...:)
You can if you want to but it's a spoiler for the Hobbit. I'd read The Hobbit first if given the choice. Also that is how Tolkien expected them to be read.
It doesn't really matter.
It isn't required but can help - but why not just read it, you will gain some insight into the bigger story. By volume The Hobbit will take a couple of days to read whereas the Trilogy is a much greater committment.
I say absolutely. That's what I did and then when I saw the movie it was just so amazing to see those characters returning and it sets you up nicely for the story.
You don't have to read The Hobbit first, but I would certainly recommend reading it first so that you get more enjoyment out of the LOTR.
Not necessary at all.
Bookworm wrote: "I read the Hobbit a long, long time ago, and now I really want to read it again. I also want to read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I was wondering whether I should read the Hobbit first or should ..."I would sugest you do
While LOTR definitely stands alone, my opinion is that the background provided by the Hobbit is worth having fresh in your mind. However, it's not necessary to your understanding and enjoyment of LOTR.
you should,i found it difficult to read it first without reading LOTR
Bookworm wrote: "I read the Hobbit a long, long time ago, and now I really want to read it again."Do it then. It's a pretty short novel (at least compared to LotR), and it does take place before The Lord of the Rings.
Read the Hobbit first in my opinion. It does take place before LOTR, so it makes sense to read it first. But it doesn't really matter with the storyline or anything.
I think you should read The Fellowship of the Ring first. The Hobbit was written as a children's book in a completely different style than LOTR and you may be disappointed with it.
The Hobbit will you give you a back story of hobbits but I find it more interesting to read the trilogy first and then go back and find out what happened to Bilbo. They do make several references to The Hobbit in the trilogy but it'll be okay if you haven't read it yet.
Yes, do read The Hobbit first! A wonderful prequel to LOTR! http://www.bookmenus.co/2012/11/the-h...
You could go either way, but I myself would like to read The Hobbit first. It could be a refresher for you, as you said you have already read it, before you go on ahead to LOTR.
I would read The Hobbit first, but you can Fellowship of the Ring if you want to do that.
please do it! I think is much better!
You don't need to but I think it would make the story richer if you did. You would understand the characters that the Lord of the Ring refers to. Then again you could say the same for reading the Sillarillion as well but that book will drive you mad trying to read it so just stick with the four. OK,my bantering is over.
I think the overall consensus stands...not necessary, but might miss a wonderful read if you don't. I too, as others have said, read the Hobbit a long time ago, jumping into the LOTR series years later. I'd forgotten about Smaug (sp) and the other dwarves, even a lot of Bilbo's journey, but it didn't matter. I was swept away all the same.
Even though I found the Hobbit tedious, I'd say yes, so you can get the whole picture. It almost put me off reading LOTR, but thank goodness I persisted and from page 1 of LOTR I was utterly hooked and glad I had read the back story. Of course, talking back stories, you can go further and read Silmarillion.
YES, ABSOLUTELY. I READ IT SO MANY YEARS AGO AND STILL FIND IT SO MAGICAL. I UNDERSTAND SOME NEW CHARACTERS HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR THE HOBBIT MOVIE, THAT IS SO WRONG!
I don't know why anyone wouldn't read this first; it is part of the same story. Would you skip to the middle of a book?But since you say you have already read it, I guess you don't need to do it again.
I would definitely prefer to read The Hobbit first.
I'm not gonna read all the other comments, so I might repeat what someone has said.I would read the Hobbit first. It was written first, so it is not exactly a prequel as much as Lord of the Rings are a sequel. (Way to pull a complicated sentence...)
But the stories are so different that I wouldn't say it spoils too much if you read the Lord of the Rings first.
I read The Hobbit first, and then I liked to find references to it in The Lord of the Rings, lige the trolls and the fact that Gimli is Gloin's son.
I would say definitely!I think that it does a lot to help you understand the characters, the writing style, and the setting and everything. Plus it's just a great story :) So I would RECOMMEND reading it first, however it's not essential if you're really just looking to get right into the LOTR series
I would recommend reading the Hobbit before the Lord of the Rings. It IS a prequel after all.
especially if you have seen the movies at all... it won't matter. really even tho the hobbit is a prequel, it is also the book bilbo is writing to frodo. (according to the movie) I read LOTR long before the hobbit. So.. if you know the story already, well... then go with the book you haven't already read. But... Hobbit pt 2 is out next month... so... you could re-read the hobbit and watch part one before the next movie comes out :) oh my... so many options. :)
It's a dilemma as old as time. A group of friends go into a restaurant and start to read the menu..."Is anyone having a starter?" someone asks. This is usually (a) a man who (b) really wants to have a starter, but (c) doesn't want to be the only one ordering a starter in case it looks greedy.
The other men in the party normally look at their shoes at this point. This is because (a) they don't want to look greedy and (b) they don't want to say no in case everyone does have a starter because then they would not be able to.
The usual fallback at this point is "I will have one if you are." This strikes a diplomatic balance between out and out pigginess and male-bonding, supporting a fellow in need sort of sharing.
But you have to squeeze this in before someone in the party (usually a woman who is as thin as a rake) says something like ... "oh, no, I couldn't possibly. That would be too much."
At which point all the other women in the group feel obliged to agree with her because they wouldn't want to be seen startering if someone else was on a diet, especially if that someone else was thinner than them, which she invariably is.
And anyway your significant other is kicking you under the table and give you a weapons-grade glare, which means that you don't want a starter, even if you really do. Otherwise you will be placed on what is diplomatically known as a relationship diet.
The Hobbit is a starter for LOTR. It's a tasty little morsel. An amuse-bouche. A prawn in a puddle. It's pan-fried scallops on black pudding served with a pea puree.
If you like starters, if you are a completist who absolutely has to do everthing in the right order, then by all means read the Hobbit first. If you are on a diet, skip the starter and go straight to the main course.
Either way works, but starting with the Hobbit would be my preference. Then again, I like starters too (when my wife lets me).
Most people seem to think I should read the Hobbit first, since I just bought it yesterday, I think I'm going to do that...it shouldn't take too long, and I really can't remember much of it...Time is really not an issue, since I'm a very fast reader, so I think it'll be worth it. Thank you all for the help, I've never seen the movies, any of them (gasp!) but my little brother said the hobbit is better if you watch it first...that's why I was wondering about the books...Either way, I can't wait to read all of them! Everybody should read them at least once according to every website dedicated to these things so...I think it's time I do just that! :)
I don't know that it matters, but I wish I would have read the Hobbit first.
Bookworm wrote: "Most people seem to think I should read the Hobbit first, since I just bought it yesterday, I think I'm going to do that...it shouldn't take too long, and I really can't remember much of it...Time ..."I hope that you enjoy reading the book.
i think reading the lotr first makes the hobbit more intresting because it all connects up.
It isn't essential reading "the hobbit" before the LOTR trilogy, but Tolkien wrote it before the LOTR and I think it's interesting to see, read, the growth the author made, how he changed or, more correct, developed his wonderful world that is represented in his book. Accordingly, responding to your question, absolutely yes, you should read "the hobbit" before the LOTR trilogy.
Sara wrote: "It isn't essential reading "the hobbit" before the LOTR trilogy, but Tolkien wrote it before the LOTR and I think it's interesting to see, read, the growth the author made, how he changed or, more ..."Bookworm wrote: "I read the Hobbit a long, long time ago, and now I really want to read it again. I also want to read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I was wondering whether I should read the Hobbit first or should ..."
As Sara said, above, it isn't really necessary, but after seeing the first movie, I decided to indulge in the whole series, including The Hobbit, and I was glad I did. I found some of it a little strange, and never connected those parts to the other three books, but that could have just been me. I would say yes to reading The Hobbit first.
Yes.Read the hobbit first. Smaller, faster, wittier book.
Personally I like the hobbit more than the LOTR trilogy :)
I would it's a good introduction.
In my opinion, yes. It makes the Fellowship of the Ring easier to understand especially the Council of Elrond as well as the fact Tolkien made some rather sly references!
I like Will's response! That is egg-sackly how it is! Anyway, I first (finally) read The Hobbit as a senior (in High-school) because my English Teacher gave it as an assignment, which of course immediately made it anathema in my book. Anyway, when I finally did read it (I think the night before finals) I couldn't put it down. I eventually went and translated the language written round the inside of the book. It was written in Tolkien's "Elvish" and I decoded it; that's how smitten I was. And was delighted when it made sense and I could read it! The copy of the book I had wrote the author's name in Elvish script, so in my book report I referred (to the author) as Irr Tolkien and that wonderful teacher didn't even laugh.
I think it is better to read The Hobbit first only because the first chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring will make more sense and you will understand more deeply why Bilbo is the way he is.
It's about time I read the series again...I do so about every 10 years, and every time I enjoy it more.
So go ahead and have the starter. Hang what everyone else thinks!
anyway you do it... I hope u love it
Well, I'm half way through The Hobbit I'm actually doing an audio book this time and noticing things I did not before. It starts off very light and amusing, but after they reach Rivendell it gets darker and darker. I'm now in the forest of Mirkwood. They have less food to carry but to off set that they have to carry Bombur, and it takes 4 dwarfs to do it. (he's in an enchanted sleep)and carrying him is a "poor exchange" for their food bags! I love the understated humor!Speaking of food, it seems to be quite an important point in this book, describing it, enjoying it or missing it. I was wondering if it had to do with rationing and people being generally hungry, until I remember that The Hobbit was published in 1937, before the war. (WWII) I don't think they had rationing then; does anyone know?
Yes you should. The Lord of the Rings comes after The Hobbit. To understand the backstory of The Lord of the Rings, you need to read The Hobbit.
Definitely start with The Hobbit.
Will wrote: "It's a dilemma as old as time. A group of friends go into a restaurant and start to read the menu..."
You're funny! B
Erin wrote: "I was wondering if it had to do with rationing and people being generally hungry, until I remember that The Hobbit was published in 1937, before the war. (WWII) I don't think they had rationing then; does anyone know? " J.R.R. Tolkien fought in WW1. He might have had rationing and short supplies while stuck in the trenches.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
The Lord of the Rings (other topics)
The Fellowship of the Ring (other topics)
The Silmarillion (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Travesuras de la niña mala (other topics)The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
The Lord of the Rings (other topics)
The Fellowship of the Ring (other topics)
The Silmarillion (other topics)
More...
