The Fellowship of the Ring
discussion
Do I have to read The Hobbit first?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Emma
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jul 11, 2017 06:20AM
I really just want to jump into the main series. Is there anything really essential in the Hobbit that I'll miss if I skip it? I mean, non-readers were made to watch the Hobbit movies years after the main series came out. I'm confident I'd read it one day anyway. :/
reply
|
flag
While I would really recommend reading the Hobbit first, it's not essential. Though there are a few references you would understand better, you can read LOTR without it. I believe the book does enough explanation to make it understandable.
You definitely don't need to read The Hobbit first, I've not read it until years after I've read and seen Lord of the Rings. It only gives you some of the backstory but you can easily skip it if you want. I've actually enjoyed reading the Hobbit afterwards rather than before and just extending my knowledge of Middle - Earth :)
I did read the hobbit first, but you don't really need to, you eventually learn the few things you learn in the hobbit that you need to know.
I didn't read The Hobbit first. The best reason to start with The Hobbit is that it's shorter and more accessible. It's a good warm-up. Anything you need to know to follow along in LOTR you will pick up along the way. If you're at least familiar with the story in The Hobbit, you shouldn't have much trouble. Thankfully, The Silmarillion isn't a prerequisite.
I would, only because that explains how Bilbo, and in turn, Frodo inherited the One Ring, which sets the whole series in motion.
I first read the Hobbit, now (a few years later) I am reading the LOTR, but don't think it is essential to read them in this order :)I am a big fan of the movies, but really the books are better. Read them both in the order you like :)
The first book has a small introduction to the series and the lore, it's definitely not required to read the Hobbit. The only relevant parts of the Hobbit are mentioned and explained in this book.
I did begin the series before I've read the Hobbit. Now, I've just finished the Two Towers, and I definitely plan to read the Hobbit after the series. And I found out the first book does tell you the info of relevance from the Hobbit you need to know before the main series, so it's all good. Thanks for your advice everyone, annoyed I didn't get any notifications for this thread and only saw this by chance...
I think you will probably find "The Hobbit" a bit of a culture shock when you get there. It's definitely written for a younger audience than LotR. But you'll enjoy it nonetheless, if you like the trilogy.
Kevin wrote: "I think you will probably find "The Hobbit" a bit of a culture shock when you get there. It's definitely written for a younger audience than LotR. But you'll enjoy it nonetheless, if you like ythe t..."Im aware its a kids book, Ive actually read half of it before but that was years ago and Ive forgotten it anyway.
No, but you MUST read it although) It's very kind book for me even I'm not a child.
I read the Lord of the Rings before I read the Hobbit and I was fine, but if you want to know every in and out of the story, you should probably read the Hobbit first.
The only problem with not reading the Hobbit first, is that you might not appreciate it as much after reading Lord of the Rings. It's so much more light-hearted and a bit silly in comparison. Lord of the Rings has this grand, complicated plot with many players each doing their part. In contrast, the Hobbit has a more episodic plot where one adventure simply follows on the last, until all the adventures are done.
No you don't have to read it first to understand lord of the rings.
Emma wrote: "I really just want to jump into the main series. Is there anything really essential in the Hobbit that I'll miss if I skip it? I mean, non-readers were made to watch the Hobbit movies years after t..."Read LOTR first. Getting the grander scope and imagery of LOTR gives you the proper perspective on The Hobbit. My two cents.
Thanks, I did read TLOTR first, and then started on the Hobbit and I cant even read it because its just too kiddy for me. The other books were so dark and serious, the Hobbit just doesnt feel the same.
The Hobbit does give one that kiddy feeling. Blood and gore are studiously avoided. But it may a reflection of milieu under which it was written or of the traumatic experiences of the author. He did serve during World War One. A conflict for which the words "bloody" or "meatgrinder" are severe understatements.
I would highly recommend reading the Hobbit first. The Hobbit is definitely 'lighter' reading material than the LOTR series. It does provide some solid background though.
Most definitely not. I have a friend who didn’t get to the joy of LOTR because somebody gave him this advice. Imagine, 20 years not reading LOTR because you didn’t like the Hobbit. The Hobbit is a lovely children’s book. Eminently readable, but nothing essential is revealed in it.
It provides some solid backstory. I’d say to read it first but you don’t have to.
The Hobbit was written for a younger audience so it is an easier read to digest. I would recommend if you enjoy both the 'LOTR' trilogy and 'The Hobbit' to perhaps read 'The Silmarillion' as it delves into events that took place long before them.
Tolkien did not mean for the Hobbit to be a children's story. I believe the idea came from the fact that an animated movie was made from it. A child could never understand or make it through the family trees. The first part of the Hobbit, is set up like reading the begats in the Bible. The Elvish language is given thought also. Other books that Tolkien wrote have the complex family history's also.
No you don't. I read The Lord of the Rings first and years later The Hobbit. It doesn't make a difference.
The Hobbit is a good introduction to Tolkien's world. I didn't start with The Hobbit, I dive-bombed into The Lord of the Rings first then went back to The Hobbit later in life, and I don't regret it. I think you should do the same.
You do not need to read the Hobbit first. When I first started reading LOTR I just started in on the main series and then went back to read The Hobbit later. One thing of note is that The Hobbit is more of a children's book and the main series is more YA or adult. As such, you may not like it as much as the main series. It is still a good book though.
David wrote: "I didn't read The Hobbit first. The best reason to start with The Hobbit is that it's shorter and more accessible. It's a good warm-up. Anything you need to know to follow along in LOTR you will pi..."Me too. I read it after I read the lord of the rings
The librarian will not let you check out LOTR until you show proof of having completed the hobbit. It provides some solid backstory that helps define what he works of lotr
Emma wrote: "I really just want to jump into the main series. Is there anything really essential in the Hobbit that I'll miss if I skip it? I mean, non-readers were made to watch the Hobbit movies years after t..."You don't have to read "The Hobbit" first, but, honestly, I have always found it more "fun" to read. It doesn't have the thematic heaviness of "The Lord of the Rings," it has humorous elements, and it moves along pretty quickly.
While you do not have to read the hobbit first, I would recommend it. Definitely be sure to read the forward of The Fellowship Of The Ring; I skipped it and wished I hadn't.
I would say that you defiantly should read The Hobbit first. The Hobbit was written before The Lord of the Rings, and it shows. It is kind of expected that you have an emotional attachment to a few characters already at the start of LotR, especially Bilbo. The Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit, though you will understand the plot fine if you don't, the plot might just not matter as much emotionally to you.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
