Amph The Land of Middle Earth: Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit.

I think it mostly due to the fact that the book was never really finished, and some of the chapters are mostly the raw material that was only to be made into an actual story. Those are the parts that are so similar to a history book.

A shame we will never read the Silmarillion in a form that it was meant to be by Tolkien.

 

Severian,

I totally agree with you about Feanor. I've always seen him as the strongest of all the Elves ever born. I always forget that he is Galadriel's uncle.

I don't know if it is a reason or not, or even if the Elves know for that matter. But I like to think that their hatred might go back even further. The elves were supposed to be the first born but in all actuality the Dwarves were awaken first. Only by Eru were they put back to sleep to allow the Elves to be first born.

Sauron is nothing compared to Morgoth. Unlike Sauron, Morgoth cannot be destroyed. He is I believe still imprisoned by the Valar.

Jag29

 

Yeah - his constant ambition and hatred render Morgoth into a mortal, basically, sort of a pariah of the Valar forever. Im glad someone agrees with me about Feanor, the Moses and Exodus symbolism makes him Tolkiens greatest and most complexed creation IMO ( even moreso than Gollum or the hobbits ), whose actions have the greatest ramifications to the entire Middle Earth/Valinor Saga.

 

That is very very true. I also agree about Feanor. His character is very complex and interesting.

 

Feänor is a very complex character, I really liked him. Considering his power and his strong emotions, he is something like Anakin of Tolkien's world.

 

Sorry, but I find the comparison offending. For Feanor, of course. He may have been born only to fulfill his destiny of leading the Elves out to the Middle Earth (that's a separate topic to discuss), but at least he seemed to do things on his own, and by his own will. He was led by emotions, but strong-willed and consistent too. One can not admire everything he's commited, but must at least admit HE did that.
While Anakin seems to kind of go with the flow, and for me personally, is a wimp compared to Feanaro. He's a child until the very end, and is just playing a role in his own life, instead of doing anything by himself.

And, of course, Finwe >>> midichlorians.

 

Both Fëanor and Anakin had a destiny that was very important for their worlds. Fëanor's task was to make a perfection, both good and evil, that will led to great events. It was he who led Elves back to Beleriand. Anakin's destiny was to bring balance to the Force and to bring balance to the stagnant Jedi Order. Luke continued down the path that Anakin had laid before the GFFA; he led the Jedi into a new era, making things that drew Anakin to the Dark Side right, creating a new Order with new rules, one more appropriate for the age he lived in. Both were great people.
Anakin may seem childish, but he is extraordinary and compley character, mush like Fëanor.

And, of course, Finwe >>> midichlorians.
That is true.

 

Which is your favourite LOTR book? Mine is the Two Towers.

 

The Appendices...













No. Really














Really Really.

 

I think I like The Fellowship of the Ring the best. As much as I enjoy The Two Towers and The Return of the King, I really don't like how the two books are split up into the Aragorn et al. adventure and the Frodo and Sam adventure. It would have worked much better for me if they had all been blended into one story. It certainly makes for an interesting literary effect, however.

 

My favourite Lord of the Rings is The Fellowship of the Ring . It concentrates on the adventure and the story of the Ring. The other two are also very good, but they mostly deal with battles and Frodo and Sam's endless walk to Mount Doom.

 

In all seriousness, I'm going to have to agree with the majority and Say Fellowship of the Ring. I often found myself (on subsequent readings) sipping over parts of Two Towers, especially Frodo and Sams parts, and Return of the King's end went on for a bit too long IMO

 

I do that too Kyptastic

 

Fellowship. I bore of Sam and Frodo's Emoistic whining by the middle of TTT

 

What makes Fellowship good is that it gives us a bit of everything, and in turn it is done well. You get the history, the grand and the small, the good and evil, the epic and the trivial. And because Fellowship is the first one (usually) that is read all this has much greater effect than what comes in later books.

Although the Lord of the Rings (read as a single book, as Tolkien intended it to be) works well on this scale as well. It's only when you break it up into its constituent parts that you find uneveness and inconsistencies.

 

My vote for The Two Towers and the Appendices. I just... like them.

 

Fellowship is my favourite! I just love Rivendell!

 

Fellowship was massive boredom. I'm puzzled by the ectasy readers find in endless topographical description, the utter female bias.

I seek to understand why readers and reviewers feel compelled to parallel your acclaimed book to it each time. It was massive telling, not showing. Having recently read Return of the King, the infamous siege was as abreviated as Hapan summer wear; as swift and breezy as a glitterstim bite. Still, I kept my promise to read it.

And read it in just an afternoon I did. Even more amazing!

 

Years after I read The Hobbit and LOTR, I finally read The Silmarillion. I was totally blown away by its scope and vast epic story. It's amazing how Tolkien was able to write a history of a 10,000(ish) year period. It's fun telling people how the LOTR books and movies are covered in about the last 2 pages of The Silmarillion.

 

Can't vote for Fellowship, too much of the beginning is a bit boring. I'd vote for ROTK, I realize it has it's flaws, but I love the Pelenor Fields, and the drawn out ending has always struck a nerve, I'd rather it be the way it is than just "Aragorn marries Arwen, they all lived happily ever after, the end."

My suspicion has always been that of the tales in the Silmarillion, the Feanor stuff was what Tolkien had worked on the most, as it seems the most complete. It#s an incredible tale, on the one hand you can totally understand his pride, on the other you want to smack him silly for letting Morgoth play him.

 

It#s an incredible tale, on the one hand you can totally understand his pride, on the other you want to smack him silly for letting Morgoth play him.


Yeah. Feänor is a perfect good/bad guy character. People love him and hate him and the same time. I was on his side and I was kind of cheering for his sons because I understanded their oath, but then again, I didn't aproove a lot of their actions and their irrational behaviour.

 

The stories of his sons is the perfect warning against blindly following an oath. Tremendous how that thread is woven throw so many of the subsequent tales.

 

Ah, anytime things seem to be settled at last and I hope everyone will live happily everafter, the oath comes up and ruins everything.

 

The movies are really great I think, but the books well I have to read them.

Yeah I started out as a fan of the movies but I just think the books well be better.

I was also wandering if anyone here knew of good place to find info one the events of the 4th age.

 

What, 4th age of the Trees or of the Sun?

To be serious, Tolkien never got round to writing much about the 4th age. He was considering doing a story about Gondors decline 100 years after the War of the Ring, but decided not to.