Young Writers Society

I don't know if this really belongs here but I just got The Lord Of The rings books and read about a sentence of "The Fellowship Of The Ring" I didn't unterstand much of it, is that because I didn't read "The Hobbit"? Should I read "The Hobbit" first?

what was the sentance?
the hobbit, despite being set pre-lord of the rings, biblo discovering the ring and all, does not have much to do with the trilogy.

Yeah. It's good to read the hobbit before hand. You can appriciate LOTR better if you know that story, but everything you NEED to know from The Hobbit is explained.

Well, actually, I suggest to read The Silmarillion first, but its really, really, really hard. I mean really hard. It tells you some stuff about the roots and stuff of LotR, but not much about the Fellowship and stuff, so you actually don't really need it.

Just read some pages off of The Fellowship, you'll get it soon. Its really quite fun at some parts, but at some its highly boring.

It is very hard to read Lord of the Rings, any of it, it took me about 3 years and im a good reader, I would say, yes, read the hobbit first, its a break in to Tolkiens style, even if it's far shorter than LOTR, its just an easy way in, and besides, its a very good story. Don't worry if you dont understand much the first time you read LOTR, there is too much there to take in all at once, if you dont understand, go on anyway and most likely it will come to you what it means sooner or later.

I love LotR... we read all of them (not the Simillarion, but including The Hobbit) as secondary readings in my Omnibus (history, literature, theology) class. I don't think they're too terribly hard, but we were reading them at the same time as stuff like Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, and Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, so that might just be in comparison, LOL.

The Hobbit can be a fun read, but it's really more of a kid's story than the other books and I didn't enjoy it as much. You can read it as a precursor to the Trilogy, but it's not neccesary.

The Hobbit will make you more accustomed to Tolkien's style of writing.

The Trilogy took me about 9 months to read. For some reason I read The Silmarillion faster. I think the language of The Silmarillion is exsquisite. It will broaden your vocabulary to a great extent. I wouldn't recommend reading it before LOTR, but it is worth reading if you like the study of speech.

I'm actually not a big Tolkien fan anymore. Read waaaaaaaay too much of it.

I agree. While The Hobbit isn't necessary to read before the "trilogy" (I read it after), it is kind of interesting to see the recent history of the Ring. If you have trouble understanding Fellowship of the Ring, you can always watch the movie to get an idea of what's going on. That might make it a little easier to keep track in the book, although several parts were cut out. Peter Jackson did an excellent job of keeping true to the book for the majority of the three movies, so go ahead and use those to learn the direction the books are going in if you need help. Anyway, because you have a copy of the books, you can always put them down and pick them up again later if you just can't get through them now. I should reread them myself..

I haven't been able to get through The Silmarillion yet, though, mainly because I found it too difficult to keep track of all the names! It's been a few years since I've tried reading it, though, and I decided to buy a copy for when I had the time to read it. Maybe I'll try reading it now that it's summer.

I read the Hobbit first, at around year 4 or 5. Then I watched Lotr movies last year, and read the books pretty quickly. I started reading Silmarillion last year but I was tired and got a headache :P
I'm reading Unfinished Tales right now.

actually you dont have to read anything prior to the LOTR trilogy, but I suggest reading the Sillmarillion and also the Atlas of Middle-Earth.

My friend is visiting and had to say that. If you don't understand that sentence, you probably just don't understand Tolkien. Which isn't very hard to have a problem with.

That's true. He was a genius, but his writing style was very unique. There are not a lot of writers like him, which is unfortunate, because though it is a different (more primitive, really) way of speaking he used, it is beautiful.

Ahh, an excellent way of starting in a new forum! Let me just say first of all, You do not have to read The Hobbit to understand the LotR TRILOGY, thats why its called a Trilogy, three books naught more. The Hobbit is a great book, though a childrens book it may be, not an epic like the trilogy but fun and understandable. The Silmarillion which I have now read thrice, is an excellent work, and I must say it contends with my love of The Trilogy, for I love History, and stories in such a format, The first time I read it, I will admit I was nearly lost, for at that time (grade I had just finished watching the third and final movie (i had watched the hobbit the year previous and in that same summer the first two movie which i had rented/bought, for the hobbit movie in grade 7 is what began my involvment in the myth) and had just read the books for the first time. Apart from the little knowledge I had gained and remembered, I was very new and innexperienced. The second time I understood it, and the third, well lets just say give me any name from The Silmarillion, and Place, etc etc. And I'll explain who it is, where it is, why it is, how its etc. An excellent read to those who like the sort of thing, and who don't moan at the style, names, and such. I too have read The Unfinished tales, which expands, the tales in The SIlmarillion. In all, their all excellent reads, I will admit though, the Silmarillion is for those who wish further indulgence, or who enjoy that type of thing.

Erethror!
Although I'm not here for such a long time and I haven't posted much yet: Welcome!

Hello Unknown!