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

[billl]

Yeah, it was a long time ago, but I remember that LOTR ended up being too long for me. I was disappointed, because I had thought The Hobbit was great.

[Lokasenna]

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate - I'm sure most LitNetters are sick of me banging the Tolkien-is-great drum.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are quite different in style - Tolkien is knowingly keying into two different literary genres. I would encourage you to give it a go, but if you didn't enjoy LotR then it might not be to your taste either.

[Calidore]

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.

I don't disagree with anything you said above. However, your last sentence there...

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.

...and there are uncalled for. I understand that many find it fashionable to look down on those with alternative viewpoints, but that doesn't make it right. Resist the temptation to believe your taste is the only taste anyone should have--you'll learn more and teach better.

I, like you and I think most others, am hugely impressed at the realism Tolkien's years of effort brought to his world (not to mention the fact that he wrote the whole damn thing in longhand). I, like some others but unlike you and some other others, don't think a bulletproof background in itself makes a great novel.

[davigalindo]

I don't really like The Lord of the Rings - except the movies... I left the first book in the beggining. I'm an even slower reader than you, but the thing is that I hate maps (I like A Song of Ice and Fire though). But I've read The Hobbit and I think it's fine. Quite childish actually, but fine. Things happen fast, and the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter is great. Not my kind of book, though. Even though I really love the commercial good-but-not-great Harry Potter series, I'm quite not into fantasy books. Some parts - like the whole Troll plot - aren't good at all. I think The Middle-Earth stories are too overestimated, just as The Chronicles of Narnia, but I understand these are children books (but even with this in mind, I think the Harry Potter books are better).

(sorry for my English, I'm Brazilian and the only experience I have with your language is reading)

[MorpheusSandman]

I thought LotR was one of the more tedious reads I've ever slogged through. The Hobbit is everything LotR is not; it reads like an economical, elegant, classic fable. I've read it three times, but I can't imagine ever going back to LotR.

[Dark Muse]

After much debate with myself in part because of the moving coming out I was inspired to finally jump into The Hobbit and give it a go, considering as I mentioned a couple posts back I really could not get into LOTR and ended up giving up on it in the middle of the 2nd book of the trilogy.

But The Hobbit for me really does read much better than LOTR and I am finding it more engaging to read and easier to get into. I am actually enjoying it quite a bit.

After this some day I may even attempt to revisit LOTR.

[MorpheusSandman]

I should add that the LotR films are much better films than the novels are novels.

[mona amon]

I loved the LOTR movies and preferred them to the book, which I thought was too rambling and long-drawn-out. The movies took all Tolkien's wonderful material, pruned and tidied it up or something - anyway, they left out Tom Bombadil and that's enough reason right there to like the movies better. Come to think of it, the Harry Potter movie 5 should have left out Grawp...

As for The Hobbit, I bought it along with my copy of LOTR about 7 years back, and it's still lying unread on my shelf, but I haven't given up the idea of reading it sometime.

[blazeofglory]

I have read this wonderful book and though written by a youth in his early years it is a mature book and I enjoyed reading it and found the book totally unpudownable. I think I I will enjoy if I do reread it

[kev67]

The Hobbit and Watership Down were my favourite books as a boy. I read The Hobbit over a dozen times and Watership Down about eight times. They are quite similar stories in a way. I did not enjoy LOTR so much, although I have read it twice (possibly thrice). It's a harder read. The Hobbit just rattles along. Each chapter is a separate adventure, my favourite being Riddles in the Dark.

[Calidore]

I should add that the LotR films are much better films than the novels are novels.

I'd agree with this. The fanboys shrieked because things were changed, but as Peter Jackson put it, novels and film are two different mediums, and a slavishly literal adaptation wouldn't work at all.

What makes me nervous about the Hobbit film is that it's a light story blown up first into two movies and then three (though it seems from what I've read that the third will largely be epilogue and transitional material between this story and LOTR). One thing I've learned from LOTR and King Kong is that Jackson & co. are much better at compressing than expanding. King Kong had lots of bloat and repetition, and I'd hate to see The Hobbit made tedious.

I'm still hoping for an anthology film made up of stories from The Silmarillion. Some of Tolkien's best stuff is in that book.

[JCamilo]

The movies are awful. Simple as that. The books are not.

[MorpheusSandman]

The movies are awful. Simple as that. The books are not.

Wrong on both accounts.

[JCamilo]

Sorry, but since Newton is Kaput, we know a 3 and half hour thrailler for DVD versions cannot be a great movie. The direction is awful. The narrative has no sense of chronology, timing. The best acting is a CGI creature. The awful acting and silly dialogue from elfs and dwarves. The continuity problems such as misterious disapereance of Saruman. It is a Titanic f/x effect, in super speed video-game battle. Very poor movie. Perhaps your lacanian experience with tolkien has caused you troubles, but it is your experience.

[MorpheusSandman]

Yeah, those are just a bunch of empty propositional claims, not one of which is true. Peter Jackson is a fine director, as is evidenced by his work outside LotR. I don't know what you mean by "no sense of chronology, timing." Acting has never been paramount in fantasy--see Star Wars... similar with dialogue (though I find it humorous you lambaste the film for these things while the silliness is even more heightened in the novels). Most all films have continuity problems (IMDb goofs pages testify to this). I don't know what "Titanic f/x effect" is, and the battles are relatively few given the gargantuan runtime. If LotR is a poorly made film, then so are all big-budget blockbusters. I have no Lacanian troubles with Tolkien; he's just a poor writer that only survives because he was a great mythologist.