>>525 Man idk. Good books though. Well lotr anyway.

>>525 I just read The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, as well as Farmer Giles of Ham, which I got in this collected edition. I guess I'll discuss them separately. The Adventures of Tom Bombadil is a collection of poems, said in the foreward to be scribbled in the margins of various sections of The Red Book of Westmarch, the book that the various Middle Earth stories are translated from. (The framing device of the whole series is that Tolkien is only translating an old book he found, and things like forwards and translator's notes are written with this conceit.) It's a cool framing device, and some poems give interesting insight into various characters and parts of the world, since, for example, a few are mentioned to be written by Sam, and some are earlier versions of poems that Bilbo writes/recites in The Lord of the Rings, and one is said to be written about Frodo, though by later generations reflecting upon a part of his story that is important but somewhat glossed over in the main text. On the other hand, the issue here is that these are all supposed to be hobbitish poems, and hobbits are intended to be very simple people, fond of simple rhymes and not overly fancy, like those stuck up elves. And that's all well and good, because certainly the point is to glorify these people and these types of poems, but I can't help but feel that a lot of them really do lack much substance. Maybe I'm just dumb, and it's just me. Or maybe I should be going into it with the same mindset with which you should read The Hobbit. Some of them are just fun little things for kids, I suppose. But some are certainly not. So reading them as a collection is a little jarring. They do seem to be arranged in an order to facilitate this tonal shift, though, to make it a bit more gradual, so I must give it credit for that. And only two or three poems are about Tom Bombadil. The first is a bit of a backstory (not an origin story) for him and his wife, which is neat. But then the poems about Tom are said to be written by Sam, and while Sam perhaps did learn more about Tom later in life, perhaps did meet him again, his poems are certainly to be taken with a grain of salt. But then I suppose everything in the series is, since it's all just translations of works from different sources, edited many times before they got to us. Farmer Giles of Ham does not explicitly have such a framing device, and may not be part of the same continuity at all, though you could perhaps reconcile the appearance of dragons here with the books that are part of the series, and there are mentions of Dwarves that could fit with everything else. But none of that is the point. It's a fun short story that makes good use for Tolkien's love of medieval England, of history, of (imagined) etymology. But even if you don't care about those subjects very much, it can be enjoyed on a simple level as a story about a regular old dude stumbling ass-backwards into adventure, with a heavier dose of luck and comedy than in The Hobbit, which does have some similar themes. The forward to the edition I have (and this forward I do not think was by Tolkien, unlike the Tom Bombadil one) suggests reading it aloud to children, and that certainly makes sense, even if they wouldn't get the references to historical place names from Medieval England. Good stuff. Both of these works are only about 75 pages each. Good short reads. Both are recommended, but The Adventures of Tom Bombadil is really for big fans of The Lord of the Rings. (You don't need to read The Silmarillion first. It was published way after this.) Farmer Giles of Ham is standalone, and recommended for anyone in the mood for a lighthearted, comedic, adventurous short story.

>>563 Man that farmer giles sounds fun. Less intrested in poems because I generally hate poetry. But im gonna download that farmer giles for sure. Thanks anon!

Is there a place you guys would recommend as good for someone starting to get into Tolkien's work? Is it better to keep to chronological order or release order, or does it really matter that much?

>>600 Well the Hobbit is the best place to start followed by fellowship of the ring and twin towers and return of the king. and then supplemental material such as silmarillion and his journals and unfinished work. His sons released more or less everything his dad ever wrote and its not really formatted or written in a coherent wide mass audience style. Cause its his notes. So yeah stick to the 4 main works and then Silmarillion then go wherever you want.

>>600 Definitely start with The Hobbit first. Then The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is a sequel, and though you theoretically can understand it without reading The Hobbit, indeed the movies expected you to understand them without knowing The Hobbit, you're missing out if you go that way. The Hobbit is a lighter read for younger audiences, but it does help to introduce you to the writing style and to the world and characters. It eases you into things. The Lord of the Rings then follows that same progression. It begins with a tone and style much in line with The Hobbit, but becomes something very different by the end. Also, Tolkien seemed to consider it all part of the same story. At the end of The Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam discuss the book that began as Bilbo's memoirs, then became Frodo's more scholarly account of "What we did in The War of the Ring." They mention that it's left to Sam to finish the last chapter, and the number given is the number of chapters in the whole book, if you add up all the chapters in The Hobbit and all of the books in The Lord of the Rings. It's one story. You can stop reading after The Hobbit if you want, it has an ending, but The Hobbit is the beginning of The Lord of the Rings. After that, you could bother with things like The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, or Bilbo's Last Song, but those are collections of poetry, and while they are supposed to be poems in-universe, written by characters from the novels, it's not like they're essential reading. They're very short, either way. The Silmarillion is a narrative, and a prequel, but should most definitely be read after The Lord of the Rings. I mentioned that the style changes to one that is much more adult and difficult over the course of The Lord of the Rings. That trend continues into The Silmarillion. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are "written by" (in-universe) hobbits, simple people who speak simply and love simple poems and songs. The Silmarillion is written by elves, stuck up bastards who love being fancy for the sake of it. All the things people say are complicated in The Lord of the Rings, like the use of many different words from different made up languages, the many different names from made up languages, some of which sound similar to each other (Sauron and Saruman), the zillions of characters you're expected to keep track of, all of these things are multiplied in The Silmarillion. Also, while there ultimately does pay off an overarching narrative, really it's a collection of short stories presented in chronological order. But you don't wanna take a break reading between stories, because you might lose the thread of the overarching plot, which is easy when you're expected to remember all these elvish names that might not be mentioned for hundreds of pages. However, if you read The Lord of the Rings before The Silmarillion, you'll already be at least somewhat familiar with many of the main characters, though they're only mentioned a few times here and there in The Lord of the Rings. You'll be somewhat familiar with elvish languages. Also, you'll be more interested because you're learning about these things that are treated as distant and mysterious in The Lord of the Rings. The themes that are in the previous books are expanded upon to much deeper degree here. Though Tolkien started writing this earlier than The Hobbit, he never finished it before he died, and as he got older he got more and more into his own head, and let himself explore the ideas and themes with much more depth. So all the things I'm saying make The Silmarillion difficult do make it better, but you should be primed for it first. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings do refer to things from The Silmarillion, but only as wise mysterious characters talk about them, and the protagonists don't understand, so it's okay if you don't understand, and you and the protagonists just pick up little bits along the way. Then you can read the full book later and learn more. The Silmarillion doesn't expect you to know The Lord of the Rings, but if you do, you'll enjoy it more as you find out more about characters you heard mentioned but didn't learn much about. There are then tons of other things Tolkien's son published after his death, most of which seem like notes and rough drafts, but a few which seem like narratives, but I still don't know where to start with those, because really I only want to read the narratives, not the notes. >tl;dr: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, in that order. You can read The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Bilbo's Last Song before The Silmarillion if you want. They're just short little in-universe poems.

>>601 >>648 Thanks for the info, I'm hoping this holiday season I'll be able to finally get into it and get some Tolkien under my belt.

>>525 I know I come late to the discussion, but I'd like nonetheless to talk. Regarding the Fall of Gondolin, the standalone book is more like the Beren and Lúthien book, where it shows the evolution of the story; beginning from its first version from 1916/17 (The Lost Tale), the Sketch of the Mythology (1930?), the Quenta Noldorinwa (1937), and the "Last Version" (1951). The book also gives a justification why Tolkien never finished the latest (and without a doubt meant as definitive) version, and gives the aftermath of the story - being he Voyage of Eärendil and the subsequent war. Btw, the History of Middle-Earth is a great collection of Tolkien's legendarium; much like he books Beren and Lúthien & The Fall of Gondolin do for their particular tale, those 12 volumes (divisible into 3 parts) encompass the evolution of Tolkien's entire secondary world (with the exception of The Hobbit, which have their own two-volume collection). The great bulk of the published Silmarillion used the material from this collection. So if you're curious in he book's making, and the evolution of the legendarium, I highly recommend it.

>>660 Thanks for the info! I'm now late in replying to your reply, but this is good info. So to be clear, The Fall of Gondolin, as well as Beren and Luthien, are there to show the development of the stories, but Children of Hurin is more like an actual novel? What I'm wondering is if, in terms of narrative value, I'd get more from reading the standalone books than I did from reading The Silmarillion. Are the final versions of the stories pretty much just the ones that are in The Silmarillion? And is Children of Hurin an exception in that it has a more fleshed out version of the version that's in The Silmarillion? I'll be honest about not having much interest in earlier versions of the stories. It's kind of cool, but I have a lot of stuff to read and only so much time to read it. But a more fleshed out version of a story that I've only read an abridged version of would be cool.

>>563 >like those stuck up elves DnD memes infesting Tolkien discussion yet again.

>>677 The fact that hobbits are much more down-to-earth than elves, and everyone else, is central to their premise. Elves are definitely stuck up compared to them.