Different orders for reading the books

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:06:58 +1100, "Ian P"
<parsifellow RemoveThis @ozemail.com.au> wrote:
 >
 >I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which people have
 >read the three major Middle Earth books - The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and
<snip>
 >Silmarillion, then The Hobbit, then LOTR. I think that would be quite a
 >unique experience and, I imagine, quite magical.
 >
Me: LOTR, Hobbit, Sil, etc. (Last: Mr. Bliss)


the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
If extra-terrestrials are a higher form of intelligence, why do
they abduct only the stupidest people?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

 > From: "Ian P" <parsifellow DeleteThis @ozemail.com.au>
 > Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
 > Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:06:58 +1100
 > Subject: Different orders for reading the books
 >
 > Hello all,
 >
 > I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which people have
 > read the three major Middle Earth books - The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and
 > LOTR. Like many people (possibly even most) I read The Hobbit first, then
 > LOTR then The Silmarillion. I'm just interested to know if the sequence in
 > which the books are read tends to make much difference to the experience of
 > them. I would especially love to hear the story of anyone who read them, for
 > the first time, in the order of the actual events - that is, The
 > Silmarillion, then The Hobbit, then LOTR. I think that would be quite a
 > unique experience and, I imagine, quite magical.
 >
 > Ian

My order was the same as you, and I'd imagine would be the same for most
people. I think a lot of people would've been exposed to the Tolkien when
quite young. That would rule a lot of people out of reading the Silmarillion
first, and lending to The Hobbit being first, with LOTR being the logical
follow-on from that. It would be interesting to hear the breakdown not just
of the order read, but the age of the reader.

Tim<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

timananda <veganpower.TakeThisOut@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:BC4C5F60.4D602%veganpower@optushome.com.au...
  > > From: "Ian P" <parsifellow.TakeThisOut@ozemail.com.au>
  > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
  > > Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:06:58 +1100
  > > Subject: Different orders for reading the books
  > >
  > > Hello all,
  > >
  > > I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which people
have
  > > read the three major Middle Earth books - The Silmarillion, The Hobbit
and
  > > LOTR. Like many people (possibly even most) I read The Hobbit first,
then
  > > LOTR then The Silmarillion. I'm just interested to know if the sequence
in
  > > which the books are read tends to make much difference to the experience
of
  > > them. I would especially love to hear the story of anyone who read them,
for
  > > the first time, in the order of the actual events - that is, The
  > > Silmarillion, then The Hobbit, then LOTR. I think that would be quite a
  > > unique experience and, I imagine, quite magical.
  > >
  > > Ian
 >

My order was the same as yourself, but I read the books over a number of
years starting with the Hobbit at the age of 15 and just starting to read
Unfinished Tales now at the age of 26.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

Em Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:49:20 +1100, timananda escreveu:

  >> From: "Ian P" <parsifellow DeleteThis @ozemail.com.au>
  >> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
  >> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:06:58 +1100
  >> Subject: Different orders for reading the books
  >>
  >> Hello all,
  >>
  >> I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which people have
  >> read the three major Middle Earth books - The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and
  >> LOTR. Like many people (possibly even most) I read The Hobbit first, then
  >> LOTR then The Silmarillion. I'm just interested to know if the sequence in
  >> which the books are read tends to make much difference to the experience of
  >> them. I would especially love to hear the story of anyone who read them, for
  >> the first time, in the order of the actual events - that is, The
  >> Silmarillion, then The Hobbit, then LOTR. I think that would be quite a
  >> unique experience and, I imagine, quite magical.
  >>
  >> Ian
 >
 > My order was the same as you, and I'd imagine would be the same for most
 > people. I think a lot of people would've been exposed to the Tolkien when
 > quite young. That would rule a lot of people out of reading the Silmarillion
 > first, and lending to The Hobbit being first, with LOTR being the logical
 > follow-on from that. It would be interesting to hear the breakdown not just
 > of the order read, but the age of the reader.
 >
 > Tim

I started with LOTR (1998); I didn't even know that there was The Hobbit
or The Silmarillion; I guessed that there was a preceding work because of
the Preface of LOTR. After reading LOTR, I finally discovered The Hobbit
and then, The Silmarillion. Afterwards, I always read them (year after
year, since 1998) in the order Silmarillion-TH-LOTR. This year I got the
Unfinished Tales, I just started reading it. Perhaps next year I will read
it after the Silmarillion and before The Hobbit.

By the way, I'm 22 now.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

I doubt I'd have had the patience for The Hobbit if I'd read it first.
The childish bits that Tolkien came to regret later I also found to be
rather tiresome, and it was only because of its importance for LoTR that
I keep it around. I pretty much never re-read it unless my kids want to
hear it.

I read LoTR first, in 1970 or 1971, when I was too young to really
appreciate it. (This was the edition with the really groovy covers
Tolkien hated so much. I spent far too much time trying to make sense of
them, but I suspect I'd have needed to be stoned to succeed.) Then TH. I
read Sil as soon as it showed up in the bookstore. Ditto for UT.

-- Chris Csernica

Ian P wrote:

 > I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which people have
 > read the three major Middle Earth books - The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and
 > LOTR. Like many people (possibly even most) I read The Hobbit first, then
 > LOTR then The Silmarillion. I'm just interested to know if the sequence in
 > which the books are read tends to make much difference to the experience of
 > them. I would especially love to hear the story of anyone who read them, for
 > the first time, in the order of the actual events - that is, The
 > Silmarillion, then The Hobbit, then LOTR. I think that would be quite a
 > unique experience and, I imagine, quite magical.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

Quoth "Ian P" <parsifellow.RemoveThis@ozemail.com.au> in article
<bTnVb.1020$J9.24866@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>:
 > I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which
 > people have read the three major Middle Earth books - The
 > Silmarillion, The Hobbit and LOTR.

I continue to campaign for _Unfinished Tales_ to be counted as a
"major Middle-earth book", on the level of _The Silmarillion_.

It boggles my mind and sometimes even annoys me when I find lists of
Tolkien's books that mention UT _after_ HoMe (there's some "guide to
Tolkien" book in stores right now that does that).

It's not as polished as the others, certainly. But I would contend
that for many people, the Third Age material in UT is more
accessible and enjoyable immediately after LotR than Silm. is. (So
many people get turned off by the near-biblical style of the early
parts of _The Silmarillion_!) Yes, parts of it won't make sense until
they've read Silm., but there's so much great stuff in UT that it
makes sense to suggest reading it first anyway. (But in that case,
it's important to warn them which parts to skip until later.)

 > Like many people (possibly even most) I read The Hobbit first, then
 > LOTR then The Silmarillion.

I'd guess that was the most common order until three or four years ago
(if only by a hair); it's certainly the order that I read them. But I
suspect that the recent movies have thoroughly tipped the balance
toward those who read LotR first.

 > I would especially love to hear the story of anyone who read them,
 > for the first time, in the order of the actual events - that is, The
 > Silmarillion, then The Hobbit, then LOTR. I think that would be
 > quite a unique experience and, I imagine, quite magical.

I have a feeling that your statistics may end up being subtly biased
on this one. Trying to read Silm. first might even make many
people give up on Tolkien altogether: it's not aimed at a "popular
audience" as much as LotR is. So I suspect that anyone who _did_ read
all of Silm. first and then go on to read LotR and _The Hobbit_ would
have to be a serious Tolkien fan from the start.

Mind you, that makes me interested in hearing their stories, too!

(As a side note, don't forget that the final section of Silm. includes
a plot summary of LotR, which could be a disappointing spoiler for
some people.)
    Steuard Jensen<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

"Ian P" <parsifellow.DeleteThis@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<bTnVb.1020$J9.24866@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
 > Hello all,
 >
 > I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which people have
 > read the three major Middle Earth books - The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and
 > LOTR. Like many people (possibly even most) I read The Hobbit first, then
 > LOTR then The Silmarillion. I'm just interested to know if the sequence in
 > which the books are read tends to make much difference to the experience of
 > them. I would especially love to hear the story of anyone who read them, for
 > the first time, in the order of the actual events - that is, The
 > Silmarillion, then The Hobbit, then LOTR. I think that would be quite a
 > unique experience and, I imagine, quite magical.
 >
 > Ian

I read The Simarillion first, then Fellowship of the Ring, and
currently The Two Towers (I just "got into" Tolkien last month! --
besides watching the movies).
I loved The Simarillion and the two biggest benefits that I have
gotten from reading it before LOTR are:

1) The sense of the magnitude of the constant struggle of the Children
of Illuvitar (sp?) against the Dark Lords. The continually
re-emergence of a Dark Power bringing havoc to Middle Earth. The epic
background also lets you read LOTR and understand all those
unexplained references (to a newbie who hasn't read The Simarillion)
that Tolkien put in there. I have also realized that I should have
read The Hobbit before LOTR since there are references to events that
took place during the The Hobbit.

2) An appreciation of just how old the Elves live to be and as a
result the wisdom they provide. When you have Galadriel appear in the
first chapters dealing with the lives of the Elves in The Simarillion,
and then again towards the end of the book, with a lot of other
stories in between you get an appreciation of her age. And then to
have her appear in FOTR even more so. There was a line in The
Simarillion stating the men were given the "gift" of mortality whereas
the Elves would live in Middle Earth until they no could longer bear
it and would voluntarily make the pilgrimage to the West and leave ME.
Well, during the time of LOTR they have reached that point! You have a
sense of their long lives and understand why they are willing to make
the pilgrimage.

That's just my opinion.

Chronological Order is best.

Dave<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

Ian P schrieb:
 > Hello all,
 >
 > I am interested to hear about the different sequences in which people
 > have read the three major Middle Earth books - The Silmarillion, The
 > Hobbit and LOTR. Like many people (possibly even most) I read The
 > Hobbit first, then LOTR then The Silmarillion. I'm just interested to
 > know if the sequence in which the books are read tends to make much
 > difference to the experience of them. I would especially love to hear
 > the story of anyone who read them, for the first time, in the order
 > of the actual events - that is, The Silmarillion, then The Hobbit,
 > then LOTR. I think that would be quite a unique experience and, I
 > imagine, quite magical.
 >

My order was : LotR, The Hobbit, Silmarillion.

And to anyone new to Tolkien, I would strongly discourage them from
reading the Silmarillion first. It is hard to get into if the other
books haven´t made you a fan of Middle Earth to begin with. Also,
reading the Silmarillion first would make you "too smart" about things
that happen in LotR, even if you avoid the short summary of the Story in
the Silmarillion. It is meant to be experienced and discovered from the
perspective of the Hobbits, which know little to nothing about the
larger world and its history. Reading the Silmarillion first would take
away some of the magic of this discovery.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

"Steuard Jensen" <sbjensen RemoveThis @midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:pGGVb.17
 >
 > I continue to campaign for _Unfinished Tales_ to be counted as a
 > "major Middle-earth book", on the level of _The Silmarillion_.
 >
 > It boggles my mind and sometimes even annoys me when I find lists of
 > Tolkien's books that mention UT _after_ HoMe (there's some "guide to
 > Tolkien" book in stores right now that does that).
 >
 > It's not as polished as the others, certainly. But I would contend
 > that for many people, the Third Age material in UT is more
 > accessible and enjoyable immediately after LotR than Silm. is. (So
 > many people get turned off by the near-biblical style of the early
 > parts of _The Silmarillion_!) Yes, parts of it won't make sense until
 > they've read Silm., but there's so much great stuff in UT that it
 > makes sense to suggest reading it first anyway. (But in that case,
 > it's important to warn them which parts to skip until later.)
 >

 > I'd guess that was the most common order until three or four years ago
 > (if only by a hair); it's certainly the order that I read them. But I
 > suspect that the recent movies have thoroughly tipped the balance
 > toward those who read LotR first.
 >

 > I have a feeling that your statistics may end up being subtly biased
 > on this one. Trying to read Silm. first might even make many
 > people give up on Tolkien altogether: it's not aimed at a "popular
 > audience" as much as LotR is. So I suspect that anyone who _did_ read
 > all of Silm. first and then go on to read LotR and _The Hobbit_ would
 > have to be a serious Tolkien fan from the start.
 >
 > Mind you, that makes me interested in hearing their stories, too!
 >
 > (As a side note, don't forget that the final section of Silm. includes
 > a plot summary of LotR, which could be a disappointing spoiler for
 > some people.)
 > Steuard Jensen

Very interesting observtions. I agree completely on UT, even though I bought
it only very recently and am yet to read it all the way through. I'm sure
you're right on the Sil, too - I know I found it too heavy going on my first
attempt, many, many, many years ago. But now I find it utterly absorbing.
Maybe there's an age factor there somewhere, too?

Ian<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:30:29 GMT, sbjensen DeleteThis @midway.uchicago.edu
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:

 > (So
 >many people get turned off by the near-biblical style of the early
 >parts of _The Silmarillion_!)

That's because they have sold their souls to Morgoth.

the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
Question _your own_ authority.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

 > From: "Ian P" <parsifellow RemoveThis @ozemail.com.au>
 > Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
 > Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:50:01 +1100
 > Subject: Re: Different orders for reading the books
 >
 >
 > "Steuard Jensen" <sbjensen RemoveThis @midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
 > news:pGGVb.17
  >>
  >> I continue to campaign for _Unfinished Tales_ to be counted as a
  >> "major Middle-earth book", on the level of _The Silmarillion_.
  >>
  >> It boggles my mind and sometimes even annoys me when I find lists of
  >> Tolkien's books that mention UT _after_ HoMe (there's some "guide to
  >> Tolkien" book in stores right now that does that).
  >>
  >> It's not as polished as the others, certainly. But I would contend
  >> that for many people, the Third Age material in UT is more
  >> accessible and enjoyable immediately after LotR than Silm. is. (So
  >> many people get turned off by the near-biblical style of the early
  >> parts of _The Silmarillion_!) Yes, parts of it won't make sense until
  >> they've read Silm., but there's so much great stuff in UT that it
  >> makes sense to suggest reading it first anyway. (But in that case,
  >> it's important to warn them which parts to skip until later.)
  >>
 >
  >> I'd guess that was the most common order until three or four years ago
  >> (if only by a hair); it's certainly the order that I read them. But I
  >> suspect that the recent movies have thoroughly tipped the balance
  >> toward those who read LotR first.
  >>
 >
  >> I have a feeling that your statistics may end up being subtly biased
  >> on this one. Trying to read Silm. first might even make many
  >> people give up on Tolkien altogether: it's not aimed at a "popular
  >> audience" as much as LotR is. So I suspect that anyone who _did_ read
  >> all of Silm. first and then go on to read LotR and _The Hobbit_ would
  >> have to be a serious Tolkien fan from the start.
  >>
  >> Mind you, that makes me interested in hearing their stories, too!
  >>
  >> (As a side note, don't forget that the final section of Silm. includes
  >> a plot summary of LotR, which could be a disappointing spoiler for
  >> some people.)
  >> Steuard Jensen
 >
 > Very interesting observtions. I agree completely on UT, even though I bought
 > it only very recently and am yet to read it all the way through. I'm sure
 > you're right on the Sil, too - I know I found it too heavy going on my first
 > attempt, many, many, many years ago. But now I find it utterly absorbing.
 > Maybe there's an age factor there somewhere, too?
 >
 > Ian

I'm sure there's an age factor in there. I gave up on the first reading - I
think I was about 16 - but read it and loved it when about 20. That being
said, I'm in no hurry to read it again even though I've read LOTR twice
since.

Tim<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

"timananda" <veganpower.RemoveThis@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:BC4D9872.4D7A6%veganpower@optushome.com.au...
 > I'm sure there's an age factor in there. I gave up on the first reading -
I
 > think I was about 16 - but read it and loved it when about 20. That being
 > said, I'm in no hurry to read it again even though I've read LOTR twice
 > since.
 >
 > Tim
Not sure how long ago you were 20, Tim - but I would strongly encourage you
to give the Sil another go. I have been so utterly shaken by it this time.
I'm only half way through it, and now my biggest trauma is that I have to go
back to work tomorrow after three weeks' leave and I can't work out how I'm
going to be able to read it without being noticed.

Ian<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books 

 > From: "Ian P" <parsifellow.TakeThisOut@ozemail.com.au>
 > Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
 > Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:33:59 +1100
 > Subject: Re: Different orders for reading the books
 >
 >
 > "timananda" <veganpower.TakeThisOut@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
 > news:BC4D9872.4D7A6%veganpower@optushome.com.au...
  >> I'm sure there's an age factor in there. I gave up on the first reading -
 > I
  >> think I was about 16 - but read it and loved it when about 20. That being
  >> said, I'm in no hurry to read it again even though I've read LOTR twice
  >> since.
  >>
  >> Tim
 > Not sure how long ago you were 20, Tim - but I would strongly encourage you
 > to give the Sil another go. I have been so utterly shaken by it this time.
 > I'm only half way through it, and now my biggest trauma is that I have to go
 > back to work tomorrow after three weeks' leave and I can't work out how I'm
 > going to be able to read it without being noticed.
 >
 > Ian

Ahem... let's just say I was 20 a while ago... Yeah, maybe I'll read it
again... sometime. Sorry to hear about going back to work. Last time I read
LOTR I was on hols, and I ploughed through it like never before, reading
hours a day. In terms of doing it at work without getting noticed, did you
ever see the SBS mock lifestyle program (can't remember the name). They
showed a way of sleeping in front of your monitor without people noticing.
You could probably improvise slightly and be looking down to read instead.
You need to paint fake eyes on top of your eyelids, so anyone walking past
will think you're staring at the computer and be amazed at your diligence.
Of course, if you don't have a computer, then it's even less likely to work.


Tim<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Different orders for reading the books