Off Subject: Lord of the Rings

I have a question about the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I figured that my fellow science fiction/fantasy fans here in the forums could help me out a little bit. Sorry that this is off topic, but i need some advice. I want to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I need to know what the books are and in what order to read them. Also, is the Hobbit the prequel? I read that in like 6th grade, and remember something about it being connected to Lord of the Rings. Can anyone help me ot? Any input/advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch everybody.

-Mandalore

 

The Hobbit is before Lord of the Rings.

 

1. Yes, Hobbit is the prequel. Read it before LOTR.

LOTR goes like this:

1. The Fellowship of the Ring
2. The two Towers
3. The Return Of The King

 

Thanks a lot. I have to find a few books to read before Cloak of Deception, and i figured i read the trilogy

 

I have about 100 pages left in it. Gonna buy the Hobbit, or There and Back Again, this week.

 

It goes kind of like this: Professor Tolkien wrote a little book that he called The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. It became popular so he started writing a sequel. A sequel that dwarfed the original in sheer scope and power. So, The Hobbit really isn't the prequel, LotR is the sequel.

 

Oh and you really shouldn't call The Lord of the Rings a trilogy.

 

The Hobbit is widely considered the prequel to LotR, as is the Silmarillion, which is basically a bible-style history of the elves. Lord of the Rings itself isn't a trilogy, it's one novel which the publisher seperated for readibility and salability purposes, but it is intended as one novel, not a series. A such, if you can afford it, I recommend one of the three-in-one volumes.

 

And it is 20 dollars. I saved a lot of money buying it that way, and not individually.

 

I'd been reading out of my dad's copies from the 60s when I got the leatherbound version as a gift.

 

Well, that's a good thing to have.

 

Yes, I know this is off-topic, but I thought I'd continue this post - anyway, my question is this: In "The Hobbit", Tolkien implies/states several times that the book is set in Earth's distant past; he says things like "long ago", and he refers to runes, a supposed language from the past. This is even though there is no history in Earth's past of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, etc....

However, in the LOTR trilogy, which is the same setting as the Hobbit, the place that the events occur is referred to as "Middle Earth", which seems to imply that it's not Earth, but another planet...

Anyone have any concrete evidence to prove this either way? I know Tolkien is the last word on this...

 

As far as I know, he always intended Middle-Earth to be here.
Not sure though.

 

Middle-Earth actually refers to the land mass that will be later remolded to become Eurasia + Africa.

Other continents are much younger, unlike the former they are created by the end of the Second Age, when the originally flat world is reshaped in a spheric world. Valinor (and Tol Eressëa) are separated from Earth and Númenor sinks down in the oceans to become Atalantë.

 

If you want the "real" scoop on Middle Earth, read The Silmarillion.

 

You can buy the Lord of the Rings as one big book, but don't plan oncarrying it around. It's bigger than any dictionary.

LotR was released in 3 parts, each containing 2 books. So LotR is a 6-ology, just like SW. I agree that these are the best books ever and eagerly anticipate the movies. Have fun.

 

Has anyone ever read any of the works by Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R.'s son? He wrote a "History of Middle-Earth" that was at least six or so volumes. I tried to read it, but it was hard reading. Anyone able to finish it?

The Fellowship of the Rings movie comes out in December! It should be pretty awesome. Especially with Liv Tyler. Ooh.

 

Aren't there actualy six "books"...and each of the three volume parts of LotR has two of them? i remember seeing something to that effect...also...considereing that the LotR dwarfs the hobbit...it seems like it should be considered the master work and the hobbit a prequel depite the order of writing and publishing...besides...the hobbit only serves to introduce the ring and a few key characters...

 

I've bought some of the History books, YodaJammies ( ), but I've yet to read them. Lost Tales and Unfinished Tales will be first after I finish The Silmarillion.

 

"It's bigger than any dictionary."
I beg to differ, I have bigger dictionaryies as do many people.

LotR is one novel divided into six books, or parts if you will. This is a very common thing; many novels are divided up like that. For a more common example here try Conquest . Anyway, because it was so long, the publisher split it into three books, each containing two of the "books".

 

Six books? Where's the other three?

 

Six books as:

2 in The Fellowship of the Ring

2 in The Two Towers

and

2 in The Return of the King

* I hope I got the order of the books right.

About the type of the book, I have the big all in 1 book that the SFBC offers. I have not started reading yet. I already read The Hobbit and after Conquest I plan to start reading TLOTR.

 

Unfinished Tales is better than Lost Tales and i haven't read most of 'history' series, but i have to say that Chris Tolkien is one of the biggest sell-outs ever. The entire History series (or at least the Lost Tales books) is Chris going through Daddy Tolkien's work and pulling out stuff that was written by him eighty years ago and have long been revised.

Unfinished Tales is basically stuff which Tolkien hadn't finished before he died. Lost Tales and the rest are like his first and second drafts that have been published, thus gving the tolkien family more money.

 

junio: Oh, gotcha. Thanks!

 

Motivations aside, DaJames, that C. Tolkien was instrumental in making more of J.R.R.'s art available is reason enough to do what he has done, IMHO.