Very well done!! As an avid Tolkien fan I say that. I first read LOTR when I was perhaps 12 years old and am closing in on 70 now … and have read LOTR at least once a year over that time, not including the audiobooks (and yes Andy Serkis is awesome). I’m not a fantasy person so LOTR and the surrounding lore are for me an exception as you described. The depth of lore is astounding … especially if one delves into the History of Middle Earth. I also love the PJ films (Extended Versions). And truth be told, I prefer the Aragorn as portrayed in the films to the Aragorn in the books. That said there are elements of the films that, when first encountered, rubbed me the wrong way … but which over time I’ve forgiven PJ for because the imagery was often so on point that he (PJ) seemed to almost read my mind and take my personal imagery and flash it onto the screen. So, in short, well done! As usual.
I have read it almost every year since I was 13 which is more years ago than I care to admit. But every reading has been beautiful and taught me something new.
I read the books around a year before the movies came out when I was 12 or 13 and found it incredible hard to read through the beginning with the hobbits. At this time it was interesting to hear from hobbits for maybe 2 or 3 pages but then it dragged out chapter wise and it bored me with all these historical dry seeming details. The only reason I didn't give up were cries of the black riders that were like a cut into the picture of an idyllic world. Finally it came to Moria and from there onwards I was totally captured by this world. It seemed real to me, exactly BECAUSE of the many little details that were given before. And the stakes felt much higher than in other books. I stood up till much too late at night because I couldn't stop reading. Until the end I read this trilogy faster than I have read any book before and felt as if I witnessed real events, like something that could have really happened, although I knew very well it was fiction. I had this feeling with no other book ever again, that the characters, their choices and the world felt so real. I think I could best describe this by the type of images in my head. In LotR I pictured the characters like real people and the world realistic with the illusion, if I would zoom in on objects like trees or the surrounding, I could see the little details. In contrast, when I read other fantasy novels, I picture the characters nearly always more like comic or animated figures. And this is all subconscious. When I watched the movies (and here you make a good point for why I feel so negatively about RoP), I couldn't stop picturing the characters anymore like I had before. Aragorn was Viggo Mortensen, Frodo was Elijah Wood etc. But I didn't really mind, because the characters were accurate to the description and I sympathized with them. Now, after RoP, I automatically picture Elrond like this pathetic guy who doesn't even know how to forge stuff or what an alloy is, looking like a normal human being, getting gas lighted with techniques of a 12 year old; and I have to force myself to think of the Peter Jackson Galadriel instead of the self centered Karen I-want-to-talk-to-your-King-manager, wannabe warrior who has pathetic unrealistic fight scenes Galadriel, who is annoying, not logical, dumb, unlikable, and unredeemable. That's the reason why I hate the show. It deconstructs some of the magic of what Tolkien and Peter Jackson have created, if you want it or not.
My reading experience of LOTR was just like yours. Wasn't too excited reading it the first time around after having been obsessed with the movies. However, after rereading it, I've slowly changed into those fans that reread the books every year. Also, your take on what to expect is spot on!
Great video essay. You are correct on the point about not initially "loving" LOTR. It takes a while to get use to the lore and characters and locations and when you come back to it for a re-read, it's much easier and more fun to go through.
I’m an audiobook guy, and I absolutely love both Andy Serkis’s and Rob Inglis’s performances. They’re excellent, each in their own way, so I’d recommend sampling both to anyone considering the audiobook!
I had been reading and re-reading Tolkien for 20 years before the Jackson movies. i was annoyed by some of the changes in the Fellowship movie until I saw the Balrog. Then I was hooked. The amount of imagination and skill and love that went into the Jackson films is still astonishing. I love the films and the books, but they are very different experiences.
Great video. Your analysis is right on. I read the books when I was a teenager right before the movies came out (yes, I'm old) and found myself having to reread sections because of the lore and familial line content. Obviously that sort of thing is toned down in the movies. I haven't read them as an old guy so I want to see how the books hit now.
Thanks for calling out the thing about characters! I am totally with you and found the story kinda hard to get into at first, because my preference for fantasy is to get invested in the narrative via my investment in well-developed characters. Buuut that being said, there is so much beauty and richness in the world within LOTR, that I can sorta get past it and find things to love. It's def a classic for a reason.
I've read it 27 times. Not much to do in the middle of nowhere as a kid growing up in middle TN. I'm waiting for my kid to get old enough to read it for the 28th time.
My partner of 32 years, who passed suddenly in March, never considered reading the books in the beginning of our relationship. I tried to get Robin to read them but alas, Robin was not interested. The 1st movie dropped and while visiting her Mom, Rob watched it. Immediately bought the trilogy,'The Hobbit' and gifted it to me on my birthday. It is my most treasured gift. The books have been a big part of my life, the movies inspired Robin to read them and we became closer in our relationship. Bottom line, the story is solidifying It's a glue that cements.
Most of all I love the linguistic experiments that Tolkien pulls off throughout the novel. I love that the book starts off in a fairly comfortable bourgeois-discursive style familiar to a lot of readers in the twentieth century, but as the action shifts to other areas of Middle-earth the diction becomes more high-flown to match (like in the Medieval Gondor, or the Old English Rohan etc...) He often starts purging his vocabulary of any words not derived from Anglo-Saxon sources, which truly makes it feel like you've travelled to a different place and are meeting a different culture, rather than the movie method where Peter Jackson railroads you from place to place and then throws some action scenes into the mix. Tolkien does this with individual characters as well - most of the time Aragorn speaks in prose (like most characters) but at times when he throws off his disguise as Strider and assumes the mantle of King of Gondor in exile he'll often start speaking in Homeric dactyls, the rhythm and cadence of the heroes of the ancient epics of antiquity. Theoden's speech is largely trochaic (DARK have BEEN my DREAMS of LATE) because that metre shows up a lot in Anglo-Saxon poetry, whereas if the Hobbits ever start speaking in poetry it'll just be iambs, like common louts. It's one of the reasons why I think I am the only person on earth who wasn't very sucked in by the Peter Jackson films (well made though they clearly are), I just feel like I've entered a different world more by reading the books. It's a shame that that kind of creativity and experimentation is now considered a barrier for people trying to get into a story. Smashing vid though.
The show Rings of Plastic has done one good thing for me - it's helped me find your channel. I read LoTR long before the movies came out and had fond memories of it. I'm not one for re-reading a book every year as I like to have forgotten at least some of it before picking it up again. I listened to the audiobook read by Rob Inglis recently and he did a great job too.
Great video, it's many, many years since I last read it and my recollection was that the Fellowship (well the first half) felt like a penance that had to paid in advance of getting to the good stuff. Definitely going to re-read and seek out audio drama (from 1981) for comparison.
The books were given to me for my 13th birthday in 1965 and I have read them every year since. I guess that means I love them; I also love the films and have watched them many times (and would many more, but have to be kind to my husband). However, real love for me is someone I knew who, before the films came out, had read the books eight times, but had never yet finished them, because he couldn't bear the idea that the story had ended.
The books would most certainly seem long and drawn out. Much of the action scenes from the films would be missing. Also the poetry and songs are an important part of the literary work that really don't transfer to film. Oh! and Bombadil would certainly not be living in the desert!
I struggle mainly because I don't have English knowledge when it comes to nature descriptions with no dictionary at hand. Otherwise, I like the lengthed explanations of the characters actions, thoughts and the information they give.
A very interesting&informative analysis of the LOTR book; thanx Liene! I read the books in my teens, back in the late '60s... For me, back then, cannabis, peyote, shrooms, & LSD all added to my experience of reading the books! Even more true when the movies finally came out in theaters in the early 2000s!!! Nowadaze, I'd highly suggest Liene's plug for AndySerkis's audiobooks, which was the first time I really listened to the songs in the books, and fell in love with them too.
We have similar initial LOTR reading experiences. I do enjoy the LOTR, but my love for it didn't blossom like so many other's did. To this day, my eyes still skip the songs, because I just can't make those sound good via my internal voice. I also prefer a more nuanced story where the magic isn't so "soft" and convenient to the story. The Peter Jackson films, however, are near perfection. The only complaint I have revolves around the lack of the scouring of the *spoiler,* and that's a very minor complaint. They're just so good. I was even going through some boxes last week and found the LOTR film cells I bought when the movies came out! Very exciting. lol
I read the books only once and it was decades ago. I've just started the Andy Serkis audiobook and I've been amazed at how much is different from the movies. I remembered that Tolkien didn't dwell much on the action/battles while the movies obviously did but I'm surprised at just how many differences there are, at least in Book 1 (of 6). It's good to get back to what the original medium was. But I expect that I will still prefer the movie experience.
My Lord of the Rings journey was extremely similar to yours: watched the films more times than I can count. Read the Hobbit when I was in school and then tried to read LOTR but gave up after 150 pages or so. Decided a couple of years ago to try again and while it wasn't an instant favourite I did enjoy/appreciate it and ROTK was my favourite book. The fact that you loved it more the second time around bodes well for my first reread!
My introduction to Tolkien was reading The Hobbit in Jr. High. Then I tried to read LOTR...and got about 1/3 of the way through. A couple years later I came back...and read ALL of LOTR. Yes...Tolkien is in many ways an "acquired taste". This lead me a couple years later to The Silmarillion...and then to The Lost Tales, and from there down the rabbit hole. My mother and I wore out 2 paperback copies of LOTR by the time I moved away after college. The Jackson films...YES...I love them (I watch the extended versions once a year). Did the films make changes...yep...and I understand the need for most of them...most of the changes are a result of the difference in how film and book tell stories. I agree...IF someone has been introduced to Tolkien (and we're talking LOTR) by the Jackson Films...yes...start with reading Lord of the Rings (not the Hobbit). That being said...I have just began reading The Hobbit to two of my grand children...we try to read 5 to 7 pages most nights. Thanks for an excellent video presentation...this one earned you a subscription.
Thank you for an unbiased and even review. I am wanting to read the LOTR but have been somewhat intimidated! It's definitely on my TBR, but for the past 5 years!
Ok. I liked because of the sweater. I wanted to try First Law before, hearing your advocacy. Hearing this video, I wanted to again. Yes first time readers, read The Hobbit first. Absolutely. Btw, I have read LotR many times before Peter Jackson was born. You missed advice for first time readers: use of the maps is imperative. Understanding where you are, as your reading will help greatly.
Tolkien is one of the few High Fantasy authors that I love. I'm far more of a Sword & Sorcery fan, more so Robert E. Howards Conan. Whereas people joke about Tolkien taking forever to tell you about simple things, Howard could, in a few words, explain the entire world setting. Though, if Howard wasn't writing his stories for magazines and having to create highly detailed tales with as few words as possible he might have created massive epics. Both were great story tellers and I feel 100% worth reading.
@@theoneonly259 high fantasy is the type of writing, not location. High, or epic fantasy always revolves on some world-saving event or action on which the main characters go on. Low fantasy are stories that involve localized issues or problems that one effect small groups of people or a local area, not world-saving. Conan (Howard's original Conan) is the best example of a well made low fantasy. He never goes on quests to save the world or humanity, or defeat some ultimate evil that will take over all. His problems are always localized to a town, city, region, or a single nation. The Hobbit is closer to low fantasy because Bilbo wasn't out trying to save the world from ruin but out to help the dwarfs return home and all of the problems were localized to that area.
@@Doodle1776 Ha. I knew you would be triggered. I guess it depends on which definitions you are using. Many say that low fantasy is set on earth. LOTR is set on earth and that is why there is disagreement on the topic. Howard published Conan stuff before Tolkien and I would consider both to be low fantasy. So Howard is the OG of fantasy not Tolkien. Howard also could make a better map too right? Doesnt sit will with you elitist Tolkien fans does it? For Tolkien to be associated with the word low. His stuff is overrated elitist propaganda if that helps. Middle Earth is earth..... Tolkien's stuff is low. Comes from the earth. You can google it.
I'm a huge fan of the books. I had some issues with PJ's changes but I understand changes have to be made when you're adapting something from a book to a movie. That being said, I enjoy the movies too.
It's interesting, because I've seen a lot of folks picking up the books for the first time after watching and enjoying Rings of Power, as well as the PJ films.
Wonderful should you video, its not just read and put down, lots to learn and take in - during and after the read. If you want a random suggestion check out the Jan Guillou's Crusades trilogy, it's a splendid read
I tried reading the LOTR trilogy decades ago and well... was bored about 50 pages in :) I am considering trying them on audio next year. I do think the films were a lovely adaptation and while not word for word did a very good job on portraying them. Growing up in the 80s and playing D&D people were always amazed that I had not read Tolkien, but my SFF journey started with Anne McCaffrey and Piers Anthony :)
Short answer: Duh! 😂 (I loved that Christopher Lee read it annually, and I've done the same since about 2001.) I'm old as dirt, so read it for the first time in the 80's, my first introduction was Ralph Bakshi's film.
For new readers the book can seem very long and intimidating. For those of us who love it, it isn’t long enough. I re-read it every few years and you’re right about it feeling very comfortable. I usually start with The Hobbit, go through all three parts of LOTR including the appendices, then continue on to The Silmarillion and feel a sense of sadness when I’m done because it’s over.
Thank you for confirming my decision not to watch TROP. I had read LOTR several times before the films came out and now tend to picture the movie characters in my mind when re-reading it and that’s mostly ok.
It depends on the person. I enjoyed them. Although they influenced many other books, I still have not read anything else like them. I remember the first time I read them I struggled through the first half of Fellowship but then flew through the rest of the story.
@15:00 even though I agree, that characters in LOTR books are allegorical, you have the writer himself, disdaining how his work was and still is received. I don't particularly care much about Tolkien and his "scholar" funboys. All pieces of art, have a unique meaning to each one that appreciates it, and no one else, however correct of militant can change that.
Tolkien said that the Lord of the Rings "is neither allegorical nor topical" but seemed to view it as "feigned history" which allowed varied applicability to the thoughts and experiences of the reader (similar to the last part of your comment)
i read the hobbit in high school, loved it. didn't read fellowship until after jackson's movies were out (and i watched everything on the box set and listened to every commentary track more than once). enjoyed it but then two towers bored me (especially the sam and frodo chapters; the back and forth between their piece of the story and the other pieces in the film version had ruined tolkein's structure for me). i took a break, tried two towers again, couldn't do it, took another break, and then just skipped to return of the king and enjoyed it. had an inkling to read more tolkien, got paperbacks of so much else but quickly overwhelmed myself and ended up reading none of it.
I actually read the entire trilogy after watching the movies. Like so many others, I loved both experiences, and I always wonder if I should read the books again.
I think modern novel readers may not be prepared for how old-fashioned the style of LOTR is. It's certainly not typical of the genre. Even Robert E. Howard wrote in a more modern style 15-20 years before LOTR. For that reason, I consider LOTR to be more a fairy tale than fiction. I think people expecting it to be the ultimate fantasy novel could either be disappointed or go into worship-mode and never read anything ever again (these are the people who say Tolkien invented absolutely everything from elves to the entire genre; he originated neither).
I re-read it twice a year. No RoP intrudes on me or spoils my imaginative movie. Occasionally, PJ-LOTR will provide images or voices in my head.. though having read the books so many times, the movies aren’t primary or intrusive.
First Law is a turned upside down LotR. Joe had a fun time. Reading it many years ago… “wait… what the heck?” I had to smile at Blade Itself… playing dark Fellowship…
I found your channel a couple of weeks ago because of your response videos to the (absolutely AWFUL) RAngs of Power. I really appreciate just how well-spoken and level-headed and objective (at least as objective as anyone who has watched the ROP is able to be) you present yourself to be. Indeed, you strike me as someone that is not only quite but also educated as well. I am only bothering you about such concerns because I am an English prof at a university (linguistics, film theory, Children's/YA Lit specialist) who has been teaching for nearly 20 years and I am always interested when a RUclipsr (such as you) demonstrates such an active command of the wide-ranging-and-yet-nonetheless-interrelated skill sets of diction, syntax, grammar, pacing, prosody, and other general communication skills that, sadly, so many others do not. I am genuinely interested in your educational background, viewpoints, etc. Forgive me if I seem too forward and/or presumptuous; I promise that this is not my intent. It's really simple: I like LOTS of different YT channels for LOTS of different reasons. Indeed, no one needs to speak in a certain way or adhere to any specific set of grammars rules-seriously, I am MUCH more of a descriptivist than I am a prescriptivist-or even agree with a particular socio-political ideology for me to be willing watch a YT channel. With that being said: I still enjoy it when someone is able to present his/her/their stances and arguments with the high level of acumen that you are. Keep up the good work.
thank you! that's wonderful to hear! I don't have any particularly specialized education, I'm just a big fan of language - more in the rhetorical sense, than the linguistic, though my degree in anthropology did touch on some interesting aspects of linguistics. my favorite books are, almost without exception, written by authors who themselves enjoy playing with, and demonstrate an impressive command of language.
I'm one of those from the first page people. Read LOTR for the first time when I was fifteen, which was long before the movies came out. Loved the movies too, but not as much as the original. I think Jackson got the "look and feel" of Middle Earth and its characters spot on, even if as a purist I cringe at some of the plot changes.
U nailed it again TLOTR movie series was amazing filmmaking- the original book is on another level. Either way, it appeals to most with the author who succeeded in his allegories while Director Jackson succeeds in modernizing
Regarding LotR being widely known in the culture these days: When Fellowship of the Ring came out my boss, Lisa, took me and the rest of the engineering team to see it on opening day. We were a bunch of geeks, so of course we had read Tolkien's work at least once. Lisa had not, she just knew the rest of us were enthusiastic. As we left the film, enthusing over how great it was, Lisa spoke up and said she liked the movie a lot but was sad Gandalf had died. We had to fake being sad to avoid spoilers.
My perception of LOTR was definitely not affected by Jackson's films as I first read the books in high school in the early 1980s. Perhaps interestingly the Jackson films did draw me back into the Tolkien universe rereading the books again and now this whole RUclips thing and all the Tolkien related creators.
I think many should read the Trilogy, I do every Christmas, but it's OK if all they have seen is the Jackson films. I enjoy watching the films with my sons without ever going "well, ackshually". Conversely, no one interested in Tolkien should waste a moment on the Hobbit films and just read the book, it's short and fun.
I've read the books right after seeing the first movie of the trilogy, back in 2001. I was 12 years old, and it took me 5 days to finish the first book. I loved it but, unlike the movies, I didn't like the second book as much as the first, and I didn't like the 3rd book as much as the second. With the movies happened the opposite: I liked each new movie more than the last. So ever since then I have the problem that I find myself reading The Fellowship of the Rings, but I rarely read the other two books.
Yes, read Tolkien. Give it a try. You might very well find something you love. And if not, there are worse ways to spend a few hours. I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit numerous times over the years (many before the films were made); it is my favorite story. They are on my bed side table now and as soon as gardening season is over I will start them again (I can't sit up half the night reading and be productive in the garden the next day.) No one should watch Rings of Poop. I feel sorry for you those are the images you have now. I mostly have my own images, all except Aragorn. I like Viggo Mortensen more than the image in my head. He did such a wonderful job with that role. Sometimes Cate Blanchett comes to mind also. Her performance was wonderful and she is a beautiful woman. But I do not think any human, not matter how beautiful, can actually portray an elf. PJ did a great job getting close, but the elves have beauty that transcends humanity. Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf actually comes close to the image in my mind. That's the character I think PJ got closest in terms of appearance. And McKellen's performance was enjoyable as well. I didn't care for the look of the Hobbits in the movies. Again, it's because they had to use human actors. The same with many of the dwarves, although I did like Gimli's look. But the dwarves in The Hobbit were meh.
I loved the hobbit when i read it as a kid. I loved it when I read this year as a middle aged dork. But I couldn't get into LOTR as a kid (fudge me it was a slog) and gave up. I've never gone back to it since...
I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, but it's on my priority reads. Being a fantasy reader and writer, I feel like it's somewhat of a duty. I loved the films. And I'm glad to hear Bill the Pony will be fine. Lol.
Fiction wise, I've only read a bunch of Michal Crichton, the Sword of Truth series, and the Silmarillion. The thing is I couldn't get past the beginning of The Hobbit and that put me off on the Lord of the Rings. I love the movies but I think when it comes to reading Tolkien I appreciate his myth and lore more.
All things I wrote are not against the opinions expressed in the video, it is just that I had so many friends as a kid that were obsessed with Tolkien, when I was a teen, and while I like the books, including Tolkien, they ruined it for me, because they kept ignoring all the flaws, never moving on to better things, be it literally or genre-wise. They remind me of those old people in metal concerts that stopped listening to newer bands, because motorhead, metallica or iron maiden were the best 40 and 50 ago... things move forward and artists are not vampires sucking the life out of their funs, however much their funs behave that way... that is also why Tolkien (but not his estate post-mortum) hated his funs.
“But if a book is tedious to you, don’t read it; that book was not written for you. Reading should be a form of happiness,” ― Jorge Luis Borges The book does't change, but one does. Just wait and try again later.
You’re right that it won’t be for everyone but I don’t completely agree with that quote. The first time I read Lord of the Rings I found the first half of Fellowship to be boring but after that I couldn’t put it down until I finished Return of the King. Similarly, but the other way around, I loved the first three A Song of Ice and Fire books and was so bored by Feast and Dance. I went straight from Storm to Feast and the story just hit a wall for me.
@@lucianotesta5019 I guess I can’t comprehend feeling guilty about not reading a book. There are books I struggled through but it wasn’t guilt that spurred me.
I didn't watch RoP, but I watched tons of reviews. I only listened to them though because I absolutely don't want those images of the characters in my imagination
Books have more boring hobbits and bad poems, but a lot more interesting dwarves and elves. Also if you like either the films or the main storyline the appendices are there to geek out in the lore with ideas never realised by the writer. Plus there is Silmarillion if you survive the main trilogy (technically 6 books, but published as 3). Also if you have read ASOIAF, I promise that the LOTR book poems and hobbits are as bad as describing food and recipes in those beasts 😅
People often say they don't like fantasy, but they have never read Tolkien. Not realising that most fantasy is only a poor impersonation of Tolkien work, Tolkien poured the facet's of his life and experience into The Lord of the Ring's, and it was a life worth reading about and his experience was off the darker period's of human history, that he participated in and experienced first hand, add his scholarly skills and deep knowledge of European mythology and lore. Tolkien is not called the father of fantasy for nothing.
I started with the books and never have desired to see the movies. I did watch ROP Season 1 and will eventually watch Season 2 but that is because I'm not as invested in the Second Age as Tolkein only really gave us an outline. Also, ROP is so far from canon that you can pretend it is something else.
8:21 - and you were correct... 13:35 saying sanderson is easy to read is like saying a potholed, broken, cracked road is easier to drive on because it is paved....
Uhm, no. Sanderson is objectively easy to read in the context Liene was speaking in. Perhaps you don't enjoy Sanderson, which is, of course, fine, but his prose is decidedly simpler and more straight forward than Tolkien's.
@17:30 Definitely don't read the Hobbit first if you have successfully finished elementary school, and your dad didn't buy your way through it, like Trump and Musk. The Hobbit is even more childish, than LOTR. LOTR is good for early teens as a first read, like Alice in Wonderland and other books for kids, but the Hobbit is aimed to kids 12 and below to be read a story by their parents.
Great books can be read at any age, whether written with children or adults in mind. The Hobbit is a great book. Read it first and enjoy being a child for a bit.
Another question that should be asked: Should you read THE HOBBIT before you read THE LORD OF THE RINGS? And another question that should be asked: Should you read THE SILMARILLION before you read THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
You make it sound like torture. That said, if you skip Tom Bombadil the books are fine. The films have somewhat ruined the books. When I first read them I had no idea of the story. So when Gandalf fights the Balrog I was like "yeah whatever," ... well that was before I hurled the book across the room in disgust that Tolkien could do that to my favourite character!!!!!
I was 10 when The return of The King was in cinemas. I was told I had to read the books before I was allowed to see the movies, so I did. Hated movie Faramir the first time I watched it. Still have a hard time to watch that part of The movie.
Very well done!! As an avid Tolkien fan I say that. I first read LOTR when I was perhaps 12 years old and am closing in on 70 now … and have read LOTR at least once a year over that time, not including the audiobooks (and yes Andy Serkis is awesome). I’m not a fantasy person so LOTR and the surrounding lore are for me an exception as you described. The depth of lore is astounding … especially if one delves into the History of Middle Earth.
I also love the PJ films (Extended Versions). And truth be told, I prefer the Aragorn as portrayed in the films to the Aragorn in the books. That said there are elements of the films that, when first encountered, rubbed me the wrong way … but which over time I’ve forgiven PJ for because the imagery was often so on point that he (PJ) seemed to almost read my mind and take my personal imagery and flash it onto the screen.
So, in short, well done! As usual.
Should I read Lord of the Rings? Again? Yes
On p.175 of my second reading
I have read it almost every year since I was 13 which is more years ago than I care to admit. But every reading has been beautiful and taught me something new.
@@wicklunda That's really cool.
I want that sweater. And I always read The Hobbit before reading LOTR. Keep up the good work.
I read the books around a year before the movies came out when I was 12 or 13 and found it incredible hard to read through the beginning with the hobbits. At this time it was interesting to hear from hobbits for maybe 2 or 3 pages but then it dragged out chapter wise and it bored me with all these historical dry seeming details. The only reason I didn't give up were cries of the black riders that were like a cut into the picture of an idyllic world. Finally it came to Moria and from there onwards I was totally captured by this world. It seemed real to me, exactly BECAUSE of the many little details that were given before. And the stakes felt much higher than in other books. I stood up till much too late at night because I couldn't stop reading. Until the end I read this trilogy faster than I have read any book before and felt as if I witnessed real events, like something that could have really happened, although I knew very well it was fiction. I had this feeling with no other book ever again, that the characters, their choices and the world felt so real. I think I could best describe this by the type of images in my head. In LotR I pictured the characters like real people and the world realistic with the illusion, if I would zoom in on objects like trees or the surrounding, I could see the little details. In contrast, when I read other fantasy novels, I picture the characters nearly always more like comic or animated figures. And this is all subconscious.
When I watched the movies (and here you make a good point for why I feel so negatively about RoP), I couldn't stop picturing the characters anymore like I had before. Aragorn was Viggo Mortensen, Frodo was Elijah Wood etc. But I didn't really mind, because the characters were accurate to the description and I sympathized with them. Now, after RoP, I automatically picture Elrond like this pathetic guy who doesn't even know how to forge stuff or what an alloy is, looking like a normal human being, getting gas lighted with techniques of a 12 year old; and I have to force myself to think of the Peter Jackson Galadriel instead of the self centered Karen I-want-to-talk-to-your-King-manager, wannabe warrior who has pathetic unrealistic fight scenes Galadriel, who is annoying, not logical, dumb, unlikable, and unredeemable. That's the reason why I hate the show. It deconstructs some of the magic of what Tolkien and Peter Jackson have created, if you want it or not.
My reading experience of LOTR was just like yours. Wasn't too excited reading it the first time around after having been obsessed with the movies. However, after rereading it, I've slowly changed into those fans that reread the books every year. Also, your take on what to expect is spot on!
Great video essay. You are correct on the point about not initially "loving" LOTR. It takes a while to get use to the lore and characters and locations and when you come back to it for a re-read, it's much easier and more fun to go through.
I’m an audiobook guy, and I absolutely love both Andy Serkis’s and Rob Inglis’s performances. They’re excellent, each in their own way, so I’d recommend sampling both to anyone considering the audiobook!
Are they, by chance, precious to you?
I had been reading and re-reading Tolkien for 20 years before the Jackson movies. i was annoyed by some of the changes in the Fellowship movie until I saw the Balrog. Then I was hooked. The amount of imagination and skill and love that went into the Jackson films is still astonishing. I love the films and the books, but they are very different experiences.
Great video. Your analysis is right on. I read the books when I was a teenager right before the movies came out (yes, I'm old) and found myself having to reread sections because of the lore and familial line content. Obviously that sort of thing is toned down in the movies. I haven't read them as an old guy so I want to see how the books hit now.
Thanks for calling out the thing about characters! I am totally with you and found the story kinda hard to get into at first, because my preference for fantasy is to get invested in the narrative via my investment in well-developed characters.
Buuut that being said, there is so much beauty and richness in the world within LOTR, that I can sorta get past it and find things to love. It's def a classic for a reason.
I've read it 27 times. Not much to do in the middle of nowhere as a kid growing up in middle TN. I'm waiting for my kid to get old enough to read it for the 28th time.
My partner of 32 years, who passed suddenly in March, never considered reading the books in the beginning of our relationship. I tried to get Robin to read them but alas, Robin was not interested. The 1st movie dropped and while visiting her Mom, Rob watched it. Immediately bought the trilogy,'The Hobbit' and gifted it to me on my birthday. It is my most treasured gift. The books have been a big part of my life, the movies inspired Robin to read them and we became closer in our relationship. Bottom line, the story is solidifying It's a glue that cements.
Most of all I love the linguistic experiments that Tolkien pulls off throughout the novel. I love that the book starts off in a fairly comfortable bourgeois-discursive style familiar to a lot of readers in the twentieth century, but as the action shifts to other areas of Middle-earth the diction becomes more high-flown to match (like in the Medieval Gondor, or the Old English Rohan etc...) He often starts purging his vocabulary of any words not derived from Anglo-Saxon sources, which truly makes it feel like you've travelled to a different place and are meeting a different culture, rather than the movie method where Peter Jackson railroads you from place to place and then throws some action scenes into the mix.
Tolkien does this with individual characters as well - most of the time Aragorn speaks in prose (like most characters) but at times when he throws off his disguise as Strider and assumes the mantle of King of Gondor in exile he'll often start speaking in Homeric dactyls, the rhythm and cadence of the heroes of the ancient epics of antiquity. Theoden's speech is largely trochaic (DARK have BEEN my DREAMS of LATE) because that metre shows up a lot in Anglo-Saxon poetry, whereas if the Hobbits ever start speaking in poetry it'll just be iambs, like common louts.
It's one of the reasons why I think I am the only person on earth who wasn't very sucked in by the Peter Jackson films (well made though they clearly are), I just feel like I've entered a different world more by reading the books. It's a shame that that kind of creativity and experimentation is now considered a barrier for people trying to get into a story. Smashing vid though.
You had good company, Christopher Tolkien wasn't impressed by those movies either.
The first law, the following 3 and the Age of Madness series are just the best.
I love them, maybe even more than the LotR.
Great video
Great video and cool sweater!
The show Rings of Plastic has done one good thing for me - it's helped me find your channel. I read LoTR long before the movies came out and had fond memories of it. I'm not one for re-reading a book every year as I like to have forgotten at least some of it before picking it up again. I listened to the audiobook read by Rob Inglis recently and he did a great job too.
Great video, it's many, many years since I last read it and my recollection was that the Fellowship (well the first half) felt like a penance that had to paid in advance of getting to the good stuff. Definitely going to re-read and seek out audio drama (from 1981) for comparison.
You approach cool Tolkien subjects. You present backstory, perspective and wisdom. thx
The books were given to me for my 13th birthday in 1965 and I have read them every year since. I guess that means I love them; I also love the films and have watched them many times (and would many more, but have to be kind to my husband). However, real love for me is someone I knew who, before the films came out, had read the books eight times, but had never yet finished them, because he couldn't bear the idea that the story had ended.
I read LOTR for the first time at 13 and reread many times since; almost every year. I share your joy. I think we that do are a large tribe.
The books would most certainly seem long and drawn out. Much of the action scenes from the films would be missing. Also the poetry and songs are an important part of the literary work that really don't transfer to film. Oh! and Bombadil would certainly not be living in the desert!
Detailed not drawn.
@@Charlie-m6r5v Correct...technicality...yes you are so right!
I struggle mainly because I don't have English knowledge when it comes to nature descriptions with no dictionary at hand. Otherwise, I like the lengthed explanations of the characters actions, thoughts and the information they give.
@@EALS-pb5rs The Lord of The Rings is translated into other languages
Yes.
A very interesting&informative analysis of the LOTR book; thanx Liene!
I read the books in my teens, back in the late '60s... For me, back then, cannabis, peyote, shrooms, & LSD all added to my experience of reading the books! Even more true when the movies finally came out in theaters in the early 2000s!!!
Nowadaze, I'd highly suggest Liene's plug for AndySerkis's audiobooks, which was the first time I really listened to the songs in the books, and fell in love with them too.
We have similar initial LOTR reading experiences. I do enjoy the LOTR, but my love for it didn't blossom like so many other's did. To this day, my eyes still skip the songs, because I just can't make those sound good via my internal voice. I also prefer a more nuanced story where the magic isn't so "soft" and convenient to the story.
The Peter Jackson films, however, are near perfection. The only complaint I have revolves around the lack of the scouring of the *spoiler,* and that's a very minor complaint. They're just so good. I was even going through some boxes last week and found the LOTR film cells I bought when the movies came out! Very exciting. lol
I read the books only once and it was decades ago. I've just started the Andy Serkis audiobook and I've been amazed at how much is different from the movies. I remembered that Tolkien didn't dwell much on the action/battles while the movies obviously did but I'm surprised at just how many differences there are, at least in Book 1 (of 6).
It's good to get back to what the original medium was. But I expect that I will still prefer the movie experience.
My Lord of the Rings journey was extremely similar to yours: watched the films more times than I can count. Read the Hobbit when I was in school and then tried to read LOTR but gave up after 150 pages or so. Decided a couple of years ago to try again and while it wasn't an instant favourite I did enjoy/appreciate it and ROTK was my favourite book. The fact that you loved it more the second time around bodes well for my first reread!
hope your reread goes well!
My introduction to Tolkien was reading The Hobbit in Jr. High. Then I tried to read LOTR...and got about 1/3 of the way through. A couple years later I came back...and read ALL of LOTR. Yes...Tolkien is in many ways an "acquired taste". This lead me a couple years later to The Silmarillion...and then to The Lost Tales, and from there down the rabbit hole. My mother and I wore out 2 paperback copies of LOTR by the time I moved away after college. The Jackson films...YES...I love them (I watch the extended versions once a year). Did the films make changes...yep...and I understand the need for most of them...most of the changes are a result of the difference in how film and book tell stories. I agree...IF someone has been introduced to Tolkien (and we're talking LOTR) by the Jackson Films...yes...start with reading Lord of the Rings (not the Hobbit). That being said...I have just began reading The Hobbit to two of my grand children...we try to read 5 to 7 pages most nights. Thanks for an excellent video presentation...this one earned you a subscription.
Thank you for an unbiased and even review. I am wanting to read the LOTR but have been somewhat intimidated! It's definitely on my TBR, but for the past 5 years!
hope you enjoy it when you get to it!
Yes always yes. I’ve read the books at least four times. Love the movies as well. But the books have my heart and are a comfort read.
Ok. I liked because of the sweater. I wanted to try First Law before, hearing your advocacy. Hearing this video, I wanted to again.
Yes first time readers, read The Hobbit first. Absolutely.
Btw, I have read LotR many times before Peter Jackson was born.
You missed advice for first time readers: use of the maps is imperative. Understanding where you are, as your reading will help greatly.
Completely agree! Great video and commentary.
12 seconds into the video, i agree with everything being said, amazing video 10/10 👍
Tolkien is one of the few High Fantasy authors that I love. I'm far more of a Sword & Sorcery fan, more so Robert E. Howards Conan. Whereas people joke about Tolkien taking forever to tell you about simple things, Howard could, in a few words, explain the entire world setting. Though, if Howard wasn't writing his stories for magazines and having to create highly detailed tales with as few words as possible he might have created massive epics. Both were great story tellers and I feel 100% worth reading.
LOTR is set on earth so its low fantasy. Low.
@@theoneonly259 high fantasy is the type of writing, not location. High, or epic fantasy always revolves on some world-saving event or action on which the main characters go on. Low fantasy are stories that involve localized issues or problems that one effect small groups of people or a local area, not world-saving. Conan (Howard's original Conan) is the best example of a well made low fantasy. He never goes on quests to save the world or humanity, or defeat some ultimate evil that will take over all. His problems are always localized to a town, city, region, or a single nation. The Hobbit is closer to low fantasy because Bilbo wasn't out trying to save the world from ruin but out to help the dwarfs return home and all of the problems were localized to that area.
@@Doodle1776 Ha. I knew you would be triggered. I guess it depends on which definitions you are using. Many say that low fantasy is set on earth. LOTR is set on earth and that is why there is disagreement on the topic.
Howard published Conan stuff before Tolkien and I would consider both to be low fantasy. So Howard is the OG of fantasy not Tolkien. Howard also could make a better map too right?
Doesnt sit will with you elitist Tolkien fans does it? For Tolkien to be associated with the word low. His stuff is overrated elitist propaganda if that helps.
Middle Earth is earth..... Tolkien's stuff is low. Comes from the earth. You can google it.
I'm a huge fan of the books. I had some issues with PJ's changes but I understand changes have to be made when you're adapting something from a book to a movie. That being said, I enjoy the movies too.
I should've said "watch" instead of "see" but...
"the see is always right."
*Pope Francis has entered the chat*
"The Holy See?"
Just ask Grand Elf
It's interesting, because I've seen a lot of folks picking up the books for the first time after watching and enjoying Rings of Power, as well as the PJ films.
Because of rings of prime, I started to read The Silmarillion.
I need to get that sour taste out of my mouth.
And I didn't even see rings of prime.
That's the thing: Read Tolkien and there's nothing even to evoke memories of this Amazon trash
Wonderful should you video, its not just read and put down, lots to learn and take in - during and after the read. If you want a random suggestion check out the Jan Guillou's Crusades trilogy, it's a splendid read
Dernhelm's & Merry's inner dialogue portion was pretty 😎 cool
I tried reading the LOTR trilogy decades ago and well... was bored about 50 pages in :) I am considering trying them on audio next year. I do think the films were a lovely adaptation and while not word for word did a very good job on portraying them. Growing up in the 80s and playing D&D people were always amazed that I had not read Tolkien, but my SFF journey started with Anne McCaffrey and Piers Anthony :)
Love them both. The Professor is the GOAT imo. Love the sweater!
Short answer: Duh! 😂
(I loved that Christopher Lee read it annually, and I've done the same since about 2001.)
I'm old as dirt, so read it for the first time in the 80's, my first introduction was Ralph Bakshi's film.
For new readers the book can seem very long and intimidating. For those of us who love it, it isn’t long enough. I re-read it every few years and you’re right about it feeling very comfortable. I usually start with The Hobbit, go through all three parts of LOTR including the appendices, then continue on to The Silmarillion and feel a sense of sadness when I’m done because it’s over.
Thank you for confirming my decision not to watch TROP. I had read LOTR several times before the films came out and now tend to picture the movie characters in my mind when re-reading it and that’s mostly ok.
It depends on the person. I enjoyed them. Although they influenced many other books, I still have not read anything else like them. I remember the first time I read them I struggled through the first half of Fellowship but then flew through the rest of the story.
@15:40 that was the original intent of the author, but half plus a century later, things have changed... thankfully a lot from WW1.
Indeed you should!
@15:00 even though I agree, that characters in LOTR books are allegorical, you have the writer himself, disdaining how his work was and still is received. I don't particularly care much about Tolkien and his "scholar" funboys. All pieces of art, have a unique meaning to each one that appreciates it, and no one else, however correct of militant can change that.
Tolkien said that the Lord of the Rings "is neither allegorical nor topical" but seemed to view it as "feigned history" which allowed varied applicability to the thoughts and experiences of the reader (similar to the last part of your comment)
Great video
i read the hobbit in high school, loved it. didn't read fellowship until after jackson's movies were out (and i watched everything on the box set and listened to every commentary track more than once). enjoyed it but then two towers bored me (especially the sam and frodo chapters; the back and forth between their piece of the story and the other pieces in the film version had ruined tolkein's structure for me). i took a break, tried two towers again, couldn't do it, took another break, and then just skipped to return of the king and enjoyed it.
had an inkling to read more tolkien, got paperbacks of so much else but quickly overwhelmed myself and ended up reading none of it.
The answer will always be yes, however I'm not brave enough to tackle The Silmarillion yet even though it's long been on my TBR.
It’s so beautiful!
I actually read the entire trilogy after watching the movies. Like so many others, I loved both experiences, and I always wonder if I should read the books again.
I think modern novel readers may not be prepared for how old-fashioned the style of LOTR is. It's certainly not typical of the genre. Even Robert E. Howard wrote in a more modern style 15-20 years before LOTR. For that reason, I consider LOTR to be more a fairy tale than fiction. I think people expecting it to be the ultimate fantasy novel could either be disappointed or go into worship-mode and never read anything ever again (these are the people who say Tolkien invented absolutely everything from elves to the entire genre; he originated neither).
Well said!
I re-read it twice a year. No RoP intrudes on me or spoils my imaginative movie. Occasionally, PJ-LOTR will provide images or voices in my head.. though having read the books so many times, the movies aren’t primary or intrusive.
First Law is a turned upside down LotR. Joe had a fun time. Reading it many years ago… “wait… what the heck?” I had to smile at Blade Itself… playing dark Fellowship…
I found your channel a couple of weeks ago because of your response videos to the (absolutely AWFUL) RAngs of Power. I really appreciate just how well-spoken and level-headed and objective (at least as objective as anyone who has watched the ROP is able to be) you present yourself to be. Indeed, you strike me as someone that is not only quite but also educated as well.
I am only bothering you about such concerns because I am an English prof at a university (linguistics, film theory, Children's/YA Lit specialist) who has been teaching for nearly 20 years and I am always interested when a RUclipsr (such as you) demonstrates such an active command of the wide-ranging-and-yet-nonetheless-interrelated skill sets of diction, syntax, grammar, pacing, prosody, and other general communication skills that, sadly, so many others do not.
I am genuinely interested in your educational background, viewpoints, etc. Forgive me if I seem too forward and/or presumptuous; I promise that this is not my intent. It's really simple: I like LOTS of different YT channels for LOTS of different reasons. Indeed, no one needs to speak in a certain way or adhere to any specific set of grammars rules-seriously, I am MUCH more of a descriptivist than I am a prescriptivist-or even agree with a particular socio-political ideology for me to be willing watch a YT channel.
With that being said: I still enjoy it when someone is able to present his/her/their stances and arguments with the high level of acumen that you are. Keep up the good work.
thank you! that's wonderful to hear! I don't have any particularly specialized education, I'm just a big fan of language - more in the rhetorical sense, than the linguistic, though my degree in anthropology did touch on some interesting aspects of linguistics. my favorite books are, almost without exception, written by authors who themselves enjoy playing with, and demonstrate an impressive command of language.
I'm one of those from the first page people. Read LOTR for the first time when I was fifteen, which was long before the movies came out. Loved the movies too, but not as much as the original. I think Jackson got the "look and feel" of Middle Earth and its characters spot on, even if as a purist I cringe at some of the plot changes.
Should I read the books again? Lemme ask the sea, it’s always right.
U nailed it again
TLOTR movie series was amazing filmmaking- the original book is on another level. Either way, it appeals to most with the author who succeeded in his allegories while Director Jackson succeeds in modernizing
Regarding LotR being widely known in the culture these days:
When Fellowship of the Ring came out my boss, Lisa, took me and the rest of the engineering team to see it on opening day. We were a bunch of geeks, so of course we had read Tolkien's work at least once. Lisa had not, she just knew the rest of us were enthusiastic. As we left the film, enthusing over how great it was, Lisa spoke up and said she liked the movie a lot but was sad Gandalf had died. We had to fake being sad to avoid spoilers.
Yeah, I had that one friend who never read the books, too.
My perception of LOTR was definitely not affected by Jackson's films as I first read the books in high school in the early 1980s. Perhaps interestingly the Jackson films did draw me back into the Tolkien universe rereading the books again and now this whole RUclips thing and all the Tolkien related creators.
I think many should read the Trilogy, I do every Christmas, but it's OK if all they have seen is the Jackson films. I enjoy watching the films with my sons without ever going "well, ackshually". Conversely, no one interested in Tolkien should waste a moment on the Hobbit films and just read the book, it's short and fun.
Are you planning on reading the Unfinished Tales?
Yes I read it at least once a year since 1978
Should you eat an ice cream? Enjoy a sunset? Go for a brisk walk? Have a birthday party?
Yes, read LOTR! 😎😎
I've read the books right after seeing the first movie of the trilogy, back in 2001. I was 12 years old, and it took me 5 days to finish the first book. I loved it but, unlike the movies, I didn't like the second book as much as the first, and I didn't like the 3rd book as much as the second. With the movies happened the opposite: I liked each new movie more than the last. So ever since then I have the problem that I find myself reading The Fellowship of the Rings, but I rarely read the other two books.
If you make it through the first "book" (there are six, you get two bound together per entry in the trilogy) you'll be golden.
Yes
Yes, read Tolkien. Give it a try. You might very well find something you love. And if not, there are worse ways to spend a few hours.
I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit numerous times over the years (many before the films were made); it is my favorite story. They are on my bed side table now and as soon as gardening season is over I will start them again (I can't sit up half the night reading and be productive in the garden the next day.)
No one should watch Rings of Poop. I feel sorry for you those are the images you have now. I mostly have my own images, all except Aragorn. I like Viggo Mortensen more than the image in my head. He did such a wonderful job with that role. Sometimes Cate Blanchett comes to mind also. Her performance was wonderful and she is a beautiful woman. But I do not think any human, not matter how beautiful, can actually portray an elf. PJ did a great job getting close, but the elves have beauty that transcends humanity. Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf actually comes close to the image in my mind. That's the character I think PJ got closest in terms of appearance. And McKellen's performance was enjoyable as well. I didn't care for the look of the Hobbits in the movies. Again, it's because they had to use human actors. The same with many of the dwarves, although I did like Gimli's look. But the dwarves in The Hobbit were meh.
I loved the hobbit when i read it as a kid. I loved it when I read this year as a middle aged dork. But I couldn't get into LOTR as a kid (fudge me it was a slog) and gave up. I've never gone back to it since...
I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, but it's on my priority reads. Being a fantasy reader and writer, I feel like it's somewhat of a duty. I loved the films. And I'm glad to hear Bill the Pony will be fine. Lol.
Fiction wise, I've only read a bunch of Michal Crichton, the Sword of Truth series, and the Silmarillion. The thing is I couldn't get past the beginning of The Hobbit and that put me off on the Lord of the Rings. I love the movies but I think when it comes to reading Tolkien I appreciate his myth and lore more.
Where did you get that sweater at?
Thanks Liene for excellent work here... And I hope my fellow Tolkien maniacs behave themselves
The early chapters are a bit slow, but once you're past the council of Elrond its all gravy!
All things I wrote are not against the opinions expressed in the video, it is just that I had so many friends as a kid that were obsessed with Tolkien, when I was a teen, and while I like the books, including Tolkien, they ruined it for me, because they kept ignoring all the flaws, never moving on to better things, be it literally or genre-wise. They remind me of those old people in metal concerts that stopped listening to newer bands, because motorhead, metallica or iron maiden were the best 40 and 50 ago... things move forward and artists are not vampires sucking the life out of their funs, however much their funs behave that way... that is also why Tolkien (but not his estate post-mortum) hated his funs.
I am experiencing the same thing right now as I read the Malazan Book of the Fallen series for the second time.
This video coming out the same day I decide to try and read this book once again lol
Should people watch the extended editions of the films?
“But if a book is tedious to you, don’t read it; that book was not written for you. Reading should be a form of happiness,”
― Jorge Luis Borges
The book does't change, but one does. Just wait and try again later.
You’re right that it won’t be for everyone but I don’t completely agree with that quote. The first time I read Lord of the Rings I found the first half of Fellowship to be boring but after that I couldn’t put it down until I finished Return of the King. Similarly, but the other way around, I loved the first three A Song of Ice and Fire books and was so bored by Feast and Dance. I went straight from Storm to Feast and the story just hit a wall for me.
@@michaelme1548 I think it refers to people feeling guilty about not reading a book.
@@lucianotesta5019 I guess I can’t comprehend feeling guilty about not reading a book. There are books I struggled through but it wasn’t guilt that spurred me.
@@michaelme1548 Some feel bad about not being able to read a book. That quote is for them.
I didn't watch RoP, but I watched tons of reviews. I only listened to them though because I absolutely don't want those images of the characters in my imagination
I need to again
0:06 Lol, 5:07 love you
You are awesome! 😂😂😂😂
Books have more boring hobbits and bad poems, but a lot more interesting dwarves and elves. Also if you like either the films or the main storyline the appendices are there to geek out in the lore with ideas never realised by the writer. Plus there is Silmarillion if you survive the main trilogy (technically 6 books, but published as 3). Also if you have read ASOIAF, I promise that the LOTR book poems and hobbits are as bad as describing food and recipes in those beasts 😅
I heard the "There is a tempest in me" scene works so much better in the books!!1!
after ROP,l keep envisioning that Lighting of The Beacons scene,TO WAR AGAINST CRAP!!! 😅
Would you ever pickup a WH40K book ?
after reading The Killer Angels and Heir to The Empire,l plan to 🤓
Reading Tolkien is like chewing taffy - it can be sticky and hard to get through, but if you relax and take your time it can be sweet and enjoyable.
love than analogy
People often say they don't like fantasy, but they have never read Tolkien. Not realising that most fantasy is only a poor impersonation of Tolkien work, Tolkien poured the facet's of his life and experience into The Lord of the Ring's, and it was a life worth reading about and his experience was off the darker period's of human history, that he participated in and experienced first hand, add his scholarly skills and deep knowledge of European mythology and lore. Tolkien is not called the father of fantasy for nothing.
I started with the books and never have desired to see the movies. I did watch ROP Season 1 and will eventually watch Season 2 but that is because I'm not as invested in the Second Age as Tolkein only really gave us an outline. Also, ROP is so far from canon that you can pretend it is something else.
8:21 - and you were correct... 13:35 saying sanderson is easy to read is like saying a potholed, broken, cracked road is easier to drive on because it is paved....
Uhm, no. Sanderson is objectively easy to read in the context Liene was speaking in. Perhaps you don't enjoy Sanderson, which is, of course, fine, but his prose is decidedly simpler and more straight forward than Tolkien's.
@17:30 Definitely don't read the Hobbit first if you have successfully finished elementary school, and your dad didn't buy your way through it, like Trump and Musk. The Hobbit is even more childish, than LOTR. LOTR is good for early teens as a first read, like Alice in Wonderland and other books for kids, but the Hobbit is aimed to kids 12 and below to be read a story by their parents.
Great books can be read at any age, whether written with children or adults in mind. The Hobbit is a great book. Read it first and enjoy being a child for a bit.
Of course everyone should read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Another question that should be asked: Should you read THE HOBBIT before you read THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
And another question that should be asked: Should you read THE SILMARILLION before you read THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
for first time readers,l suggest starting(training wheels)with The Hobbit 🤓
You make it sound like torture.
That said, if you skip Tom Bombadil the books are fine.
The films have somewhat ruined the books. When I first read them I had no idea of the story. So when Gandalf fights the Balrog I was like "yeah whatever," ... well that was before I hurled the book across the room in disgust that Tolkien could do that to my favourite character!!!!!
Without Rings of Power we would not have this show..
I was 10 when The return of The King was in cinemas. I was told I had to read the books before I was allowed to see the movies, so I did.
Hated movie Faramir the first time I watched it. Still have a hard time to watch that part of The movie.