Who else hasn't read this?

[Lilac]

I tried to read it but I got bored after the first chapter.

[Hannah]

You have to keep going. The style is not for everyone but I can see how to some people the first chapter would be boring.

[Melissa]

I started Fellowship AFTER reading the Hobbit when I was really young, and when I started it I was sad because it was so dark and I had been expecting more of the same adventurous fun. It took me years to get back to it, and when it did, it was difficult to get going on it. Once I got more than halfway through, though, I was hooked. I will admit that it's a labor of love at first.

[Chaya]

I only read some of it, and didn't like it.

[Kelly Brigid ♡]

Chaya wrote: "I only read some of it, and didn't like it."

✿Lilac✿ wrote: "I tried to read it but I got bored after the first chapter."

How can you guys rate it 1 star after only reading a little bit of it? The beginning is a little slow, but after several chapters it gets really good.

[John (Taloni)]

This reminds me of Donaldson's "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" series. I thought the first book took 350 pages to get going and that I was among the few people who would get that far. Fortunately I was incorrect - the trilogy turned out great. On second read I could see where Donaldson was simply setting up the slow burn rather than the traditional "start with action" sequence.

[[deleted user]]

I've loved the trillogy since I was 12 and think it's definitley worth trying, thought it takes a little time to get into. Please don't give up without giving it a chance!

[Renee E]

Really, this is a work of literary fiction that is also fantasy. If you go in with that expectation, rather than the standard fantasy genre, it will make a difference.

[Allan]

Granted Tolkien's writing can be a bit ponderous at times, after all he was a philologist. I took it slow and just took it the scope and range of this epic achievement.

[Tim]

Maybe the issue is mainly about pacing - that modern novels are written for modern attention spans that are generally much shorter than they were in Tolkien's day?

[Renee E]

I had a somewhat opposite experience. I found "The Hobbit" to border on tediously trite and almost did not read LotR because of it, but once I did decide to read them, I went through all three books in a matter of days. Didn't sleep much!

[Tim]

Renee wrote: "I had a somewhat opposite experience. I found "The Hobbit" to border on tediously trite and almost did not read LotR because of it, but once I did decide to read them, I went through all three book..."

I read the Hobbit first (it came free with a copy of The Hobbit computer game that our Computer Studies teacher had bought, and he lent me the book). I finished it practically in one sitting. I then discovered that LOTR existed and read each of the three books pretty much in a week each. I'd not read too many other books before Tolkien - I had no pre-exiting conception of what to expect and therefore no inhibitions to overcome.

[Anthony]

I tried, I really did, But I just could not get past Bilbo's birthday party.

[Catskill]

You have to be willing to suspend disbelief and enter another world entirely. Not everyone can or wants to do that. To my sadness, since I was a total trilogy fan for whom these books changed EVERYthing, my mom just did not have that bent. She couldn't get past the description of the Hobbits; couldn't accept them as "people" in the sense that they could be the fully developed main characters. Fantasy is not for everyone.
After LOTR, The Hobbit realy does come off as a children's tale. A fine adventure story, but not nearly as weighty or emotionally impactful as the trilogy.