Lord of the Rings didn't hit the spot. Should I read The Hobbit?

After about a month of reading (I'm a slow reader and probably only read it an hour or so a day on average), I have come to the second last chapter of Lord of The Rings and will probably finish it tomorrow. The parts that were about Frodo and Sam or The Siege of Gondor were great, but I found a lot of it rather dull.

My question is, is The Hobbit any different? It appears Lord of The Rings was intended for rather experienced readers. And I was wondering if The Hobbit was any easier or faster paced.

Both. I stalled out on reading LOTR about a half-dozen times from teenhood until the first movie came out; I always started with The Hobbit, which I finished and enjoyed every time. Very different experiences.

Thank You. :)

As I know things happen faster in the Hobbit. Great read anyway. :D

I just got to the end of the third chapter in the hobbit. It appears that there is some inconsistancy between The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings.

In The Hobbit, it appears to have taken them only three or four days to get to Rivendell, in LOTR it took a couple weeks. And in The Hobbit, when they set east they immediately go into some kind of "lone-land" whereas in LOTR, once they leave Bag End it takes them a couple days to get out of The Shire and even after they'd left they were in Bree-Land.

What's going on? Was this on purpose?

I myself have been wondering the same thing. I could not get through LOTR. I ended up stopping somewhere in the middle of the second book. I just found it so slow and a bit dry and it did not catch nor keep my attention. But I already owned a copy of The Hobbit so I have been hesitant to read it and wondering if I should even bother to do so.

the lord of the rings trilogy was great, yet it will not come close to the hobbit - I just finished it about a month ago and found it brilliant! just a spectacular read, i found it. another book, very different but quite similar in the context of journey's is Jack Kerouac's - On the Road. also another great book!

The problem is, LOTR reads like it was written by a university professor with an interest in language- and world-building. It's a very well-crafted story that's unfortunately not thrilling in the least. Since the multiple failures I mentioned above, I've read it through twice now, and I've learned to like it. I like the Silmarillion better, however; I think that type of book (more a collection of mythological stories) suits his natural style. "Beren and Luthien," for example, is just jaw-droppingly good.

Did not like either. They are both kind of tedious. I think in general a flaw of Western fantasy, particularly American fantasy, is an obsession with the epic which is annoying as it plays on too simple an idea but removes essential factors like reader association. The epic has a hard time relating to me when all I feel is boredom having the world around it explained. Authors since Tolkien have used ignorant protagonists paired with sages to beat this problem but it never does. The interesting bit of the story is lost in paragraphs of description

Personally I felt the Hobbit was more childish in writing, more akin to a fairy tale, but perhaps that has to do with me reading it while still young, while the LOTR trilogy was much more of the epic fantasy it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stonebolt

I just got to the end of the third chapter in the hobbit. It appears that there is some inconsistancy between The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings.

In The Hobbit, it appears to have taken them only three or four days to get to Rivendell, in LOTR it took a couple weeks. And in The Hobbit, when they set east they immediately go into some kind of "lone-land" whereas in LOTR, once they leave Bag End it takes them a couple days to get out of The Shire and even after they'd left they were in Bree-Land.

What's going on? Was this on purpose?

---

It's been a while and I don't have a copy of The Hobbit on hand to consult, but in LOTR, Frodo was crossing The Shire on foot, wasn't in any hurry, took back roads and then went cross-country. Bilbo and the Dwarves took the Great East Road, were traveling for business, not pleasure, and most important: weren't they riding and not walking? That alone would account for the difference.

Later on in LOTR they had many diversions and distractions along the road (Old Forest, Bombadil, barrow wights, etc. After Bree they were in the wilderness while, presumably, the party in The Hobbit could once again ride on a good, direct road.

Dark Muse, Dr. Reid, Calidore, et alia: The Hobbit is a minor prelude to LOTR.

I read LOTR like ten times beginning at age 14 and the idea of having trouble getting through it would never have occurred to me. For my friends and I it was a world to inhabit and we never wanted the story to end.

Calidore: That it was written by a professor of philology is not a failing, it is among the book's greatest assets. One major problem with virtually all fantasy that uses imaginary languages and proper nouns allegedly derived from such languages is that they are invariably unconvincing. This is because the unity of tone provided by common roots, consistent phonetic systems, and a realistic grammar is very difficult to fake. LOTR sounds authentic because the languages, written and pronounced, actually exist and have the unity and consistency of real languages. The same is true for history. When ancient tales and myths are retold in LOTR they sound authentic because Tolkien actually created the mythology and history of the world before he even thought of writing the book. (Remember, The Silmarillion was a precursor of LOTR.) When I read the books as a teen, of course, I didn't understand any of this consciously, but I felt it, and my ear for language told me it sounded true. In short, Tolkien poured vastly more effort into creating a realistic world for LOTR than any writer before or since. Pearls before swine apparently.

Incidentally, did you guys happen to notice how beautiful the script used to inscribe the One Ring is? How authentic it looks? (Watch the movies again because they copied it correctly.) The reason it looks real is because it is probably the most sophisticated phonetic alphabet ever developed. It can be used to write any language, including English, and it even has variable rules depending on the incidence of concluding vowels and consonants and other factors. One would, for example, use different rules if one were writing English vs. Italian with this alphabet.

As for those who found LOTR tedious, I just cannot comprehend this. I found it enthralling from beginning to end. Oh well, maybe what they say about today's youth is true.

Yes, oh about today's youth, we should all read Lord of the Rings on the toilet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

Oh well, maybe what they say about today's youth is true.

---

Oh please, in my experience, the majority of today's literate youth consists of nothing but a bunch of overzealous Tolkein fanboys.
Actually, maybe what they say about today's youth is true...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

Incidentally, did you guys happen to notice how beautiful the script used to inscribe the One Ring is? How authentic it looks? (Watch the movies again because they copied it correctly.) The reason it looks real is because it is probably the most sophisticated phonetic alphabet ever developed. It can be used to write any language, including English, and it even has variable rules depending on the incidence of concluding vowels and consonants and other factors. One would, for example, use different rules if one were writing English vs. Italian with this alphabet.

---

This is my problem. Whilst this is no doubt an impressive linguistic feat, Tolkein's painstakingly in-depth world fails to engage me as a reader.
It's too much, I just can't bring myself to care enough about Middle Earth to bother trawling through its vast, imagined histories. This probably appeals to many fans, personally I found it a little dry.

That being said, it's been a long time since I've read the book. Maybe when I've run out of other books I'd like to read I'll give it another go and rethink my opinion.
Although I remember being turned off as soon as page one. Something about 'tweens' and 'eleventy' rubbed me the wrong way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fafnir

Oh please, in my experience, the majority of today's literate youth consists of nothing but a bunch of overzealous Tolkein fanboys.
Actually, maybe what they say about today's youth is true...

Although I remember being turned off as soon as page one. Something about 'tweens' and 'eleventy' rubbed me the wrong way...

---

The point of the way the book begins is to show the Shire as a sheltered little enclave in a brutal and dangerous world. I think the quaint expressions and customs are supposed to rub one the wrong way—Bilbo himself was sick of them and wanted to get the hell out. That's sort of the idea . . .

As for today's youth, I just threw that in for the hell of it. You're probably right about the legions of fanboys (and girls).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Yes, oh about today's youth, we should all read Lord of the Rings on the toilet.

---

Yes, I absolutely insist that you do! And you better take Ulysses in there too, just in case.

If I may link to a past post....