Films are a good adaptation on their own, but very different to the books.

I encourage you to try reading them. It's hard to review a book that you haven't read.

> I haven't read the books

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ― William Paley

>Personally, I find the lore and the universe of Hobbit / LOTR a bit dull

that's fine. it's not necessary to like every single popular book.

But I want to read them, I'm just asking first if the world will appeal to me, knowing how I was bored by the adaptations' world

I find it is so much more interesting discussing books with people who have actually bothered to read them first.

>Personally, I find the lore and the universe of Hobbit / LOTR a bit dull. I haven't read the books, I've watched the movies as a young teen, but the universe just didn't interest me that much.

How much can you know if you haven't read the books? It's fine not to have liked the movies, and it's fine not to want to read the books, but maybe don't make such sweeping statements about a universe you barely know.

Anyway Tolkien's worldbuilding is unparalleled when it comes to his attention to language - very idiosyncratic in that way. Theology as well.

Another unique feature of the legendarium is that while Tolkien himself only published two books set in that universe, we do have access to a whole hoard of other writings of his thanks to his son Christopher - a view into not just the finished product (which in some cases, ie the Silmarillion, just does not exist anyway - or at least wasn't finished by Tolkien) but into the process of writing. Readers have access to the kind of material that would normally be reserved for scholars, and perhaps not even them.

Edit: regarding your tastes... Eh. Tolkien writes some dark stuff (Children of Húrin being the prime example) but not full on grimdark à la GRRM. Not particularly grounded either.

But I'm just asking if there's something there that the movies fail to convey about the world that'll keep it interesting for me :( I'm not talking shit, Im inquiring.

Hard to find something dull that you haven't read.. but if you don't like the general story you remember from the movies, guess there is no reason to waste your time on the books?

Because he’s the best writer to have lived since Homer. That’s why lol

It's a book, not a house. Bur or borrow it and try for yourself. No one can tell you.

If you want to read something read it, if you don't then don't.

If your on the fence then id say give it a go whenever you get into a mood to read something with a specific premise or theme.

Reading is something you should do for enjoyment or study, not everyone is going to like every book or every genre and that's perfectly fine.

The only time I think there is an issue is when people read two pages and review the book at .5 stars for any amount of dumb reasons like having a lack of character development in the first 500 words. (This happens surprisingly often on sites like Royal Road)

[deleted]

It's the fantasy that kind of built the tropes. Kind of like Dune with Sci fi.

Haven't read the books, calls the world and lore dull.

That's pretty much all that's needed to be said.

My psychic powers are waning of late. I have no way of knowing whether you'll find them interesting. That, Mr. Holes, is something you'll just have to find out yourself. Go, read, live! I eagerly await your progress reports.

But yes, the movies fail to convey a lot. Tolkien is the gold standard for fantasy worldbuilding. No one has ever come remotely close to the depth of his Middle Earth. That is not to say everyone else pales in comparison, just that no one has ever done anywhere near as much worldbuilding as Tolkien. The movies absolutely do not concern themselves with this because they don't have time for it.

I read the books when i was 15 and didnt like them that much but it wasnt bad.

LOTR was the first fantasy book with such a big world building, different new languages etc. thats why its so big. Because everything similar to it has its roots on LOTR. (for example GRRM had a lot of inspiration on JRRT)

personally I find the movies to be good on their own merits but relatively weak adaptations of Tolkein's actual work. There's a lot of the story, the characters and the world that is either dropped, simplified or changed to streamline the movie plot or alternately to add pointless melodrama and inter-character conflict. Frankly I think the movies are more 'generic fantasy' than the books, which can still be kinda weird.

Of course you may well not like them at that's ok.

Tolkien was heavily expired by European mythology as well as ancient epics such as Beowulf. LOTR was part of his attempt to create a mythology for Britain, because he thought such a thing was lacking. Lord of the rings has a mythic quality and poetic prose. I have never read another series that feels quite the same. I think it a revered series not just because it was the first, but because it is one of the best. Admittedly it has been a long time since I have read it though.

The best part about Tolkien is the vastnes of the world, and everything just “works” and makes sense together. Few other series have such a free sandbox feeling.

Then for LotR specifically, it is an expansive story that may have some boring parts but it all comes together fantastically to make a powerful whole. All of the characters and their motivations make sense, and working together across the world, they fight a long and nearly hopeless battle. So it’s about overcoming great difficulties, with the teamwork of thousands of people and multiple races, and help from even a normal skill-less person is valuable aid.

I loved the movies but they could not properly show the true vastness of the world, nor all the small storylines that add up together to tell a greater one. Other series may have more exciting stories, or more accessible prose, but no one has come close yet to the comprehensive detail of Middle-Earth.

Movies aren’t books.

Silmarillion

I was in the same place as you, just started LOTR and already the cinematic universe seems so limited to the cultural and historical lore included in the books. If you like high fantasy, the books will absolutely be worth it

By necessity, the movies have to cut out huge chunks of plot, worldbuilding, and characterization in order to fit the huge epic narrative into a 2-hour timeblock.

There’s tons in the books that got left on the cutting room floor - and a lot that was changed for Hollywood. The overall shape of the plot is the same but adaptation by necessity has to remove and alter a lot by changing the medium.

I would say the movies are faster and more exciting, but they lack the deep sense of immersion and characterization that you get from the books.

I've read Tolkien, and I've read lots of what you might call "generic fantasy" (so, Tolkien knockoffs).

Nothing ever came close.

I'll curb my initial reaction which was to not think very highly of you and try to be positive.

Tolkien invented whole language systems just to make sure his races had a depth and mythology that didn't feel off the cuff. The lore and therefore depth of the examples you mention are akin to stepping into a puddle vs swimming in the ocean.

The examples you mention have fully realised histories. Tolkien's world has history so established, concrete and utitlised it's become mythology to the characters that take part in the events of the books.

I've read all the stuff you mention and they're simply not comparable. Yes they make you feel like you've stepped into another place. Tolkien makes you feel like you actually live there, or more accurately, that your ancient ancestors did and you're reading their story which is partly about their ancient ancestors. It's so immersive the only fantasy literature I can think of that really compares is Dune.

Start with the Hobbit, pretty enjoyable.

Why read Shakespeare? Why read the Bible? The movies are just OK.

I've read The Hobbit 2-1/2 times. Half because I didn't finish it on my first attempt. I've read LOTR about 30+ times altogether - once a year for quite a while - virtually all of the hair on my body is now grey. I was persuaded to read LOTR the first time during as a HS sophomore - by a friend - when I commented that I'd never read it because The Hobbit sucked - talked down to you. The friend said the first chapter or two of LOTR was a little like that but quickly got better and better. "Just stick with it until you get to weather top about 1/2 way through the first book."

I don't know if you would like LOTR or not. But I think my friend gave pretty good advice.

If you do read and like LOTR, I'd also offer the advice to read "The Tale of Years" appendix in the last book when you've finished.

I guess it depends on what you are looking for.

Tolkien is best appreciated (in my opinion, at least) as art and not just as literature.

The prose may feel dry and it doesn't have a lot of action scenes. So if you are looking for edge of the seat, heart stopping adventure . . . It's probably not going to be there.

But, let's talk about the fact that to make these stories one man (not a team) came up with a language, genealogies, mythologies, and maps to explain how this all fits together.

If you can't look at it in terms of the artistic detail that went into it and appreciate the level of work involved then, no, you are not going to like it. That's like asking what's the big deal about a grandfather clock when it is just a big wooden box with a face when viewed from the outside.

Now, that's not to say you are a shallow or something is wrong with you because you don't like it. Not all media is meant for you and art is not appreciated the same across all groups. Liking paintings more than sculpture is fine. Liking sculptures and paintings and not being wowed by the intricacies of the Antikythera Mechanism is also fine. But if you see someone geeking out over this ancient computer and you say you don't get it, expect a lot of talk about the construction and implications. If that sort of thing bores you, then you aren't going to like digging into it.

Makes sense?

Dude, you owe it to yourself to read them. Just do it. It’s so strange to ask a book sub if you should read certain books, especially if you’re already into their respective genre.

I wouldn't bother - it's all expository wordiness

[deleted]

Tolkien is the OG, and praised so highly, for a reason. His prose is pregnant with meaning, and flows across the page like poetry. Despite its verboseness, I find an astounding level of clarity in Tolkien’s writing. The man was a scholar of words and languages, and that love translates to darn near every passage in every book. Paragraph to paragraph, sentence to sentence, the books are beautiful works of art and clearly labors of love.

With that said, if the books you mentioned are just your taste, then you may find Middle Earth a bit bland. Not that you shouldn’t read it! But I’m seeing a lot of “read it and find out,” which isn’t very helpful…

The Hobbit is a fairy tale, where the Lord of the Rings is an epic. Tolkien was heavily inspired by ancient Anglo-Saxon stories, and it shines through. In both, you’ll find Shakespearean dialogue (conversations that read a little too awkwardly for modern sensibilities), and over the top acts of courage and valor on the scale of Norse gods and Greek heroes. Maybe less so in the Hobbit, as compared to it’s counterpart.

If you approach the Lord of the Rings as if you are reading an ancient manuscript found in the tomb of some long lost king, it will blow your mind. If you approach it as another fantasy adventure, well, you’ve probably been so conditioned by modern authors that, like myself, you’ll have a hard time getting into it.

As a writer, I can appreciate the prose. As an avid reader, I can understand why so many people pass on Tolkien. I don’t think it’s aged out for people, because it wasn’t written for its age in the first place. Tolkien wanted to write an epic—a saga—and he did. And it’s brilliant.

Where GoT goes into excruciating detail about relationships, political intrigue, and the interconnectedness of the geopolitical landscape, LotR goes into excruciating detail of the world the characters inhabit. There’s a ton of depth through lore, mythology, and geography, but the living world itself is fairly barren in terms of politics. There’s certainly more going on than the movies display, but Tolkien was clearly less concerned with politicking and more concerned with people banning together to fight the abhorrent evils of Sauron. There’s hints of a world at large, but you will follow the main cast of characters on their adventures, while the politics are kept on the periphery.

Now, speaking of the living world, this is where Tolkien really shines for me. I have never seen a world so clearly through the lens of narration. Its as if you’ve stepped into a whole other world, one that was meticulously put together. The names of trees, geological and geographical features, the moving and migrations of peoples and species. The natural world is alive and well and so, so, very beautiful. I wish Tolkien could write descriptions for every book. His prose and ability to paint a picture is unparalleled. Every forest, mountain, and valley has a personality. Every ruin, city, and society has a story. And the way he coneys them is through the most beautiful writing I have ever read. No author can compare—period.

Well, I’m tired of rambling on, now. Hopefully, you have a better idea of what you’re getting yourself into by reading it, or not. 🤷‍♂️

The world is just soo believable. Reading it sometimes felt like reading a history/based on real life book or something

*3 hour

Tolkien is a cup of tea.

If you don't like tea, you won't like Tolkien.

How can you know that you find a book dull if you've made no attempts to engage with it? Just seems like you want to dislike it just for the sake of it

The books are very dull. I made it half way through the first and said "No More!"

Please post 'Should I read X book''What do I need to know before I read X' questions, in our Weekly Recommendation Thread.

Honestly listen to the audiobook by Phil Dragash. It has music and sound effects… I laughed, I cried, I made my commute a lot more bearable

There's lots of reasons to enjoy LotR really. For me, the main reason is the way Tolkien treats the world itself. Most novels try to put your in the character's heads. You experience their thoughts, feelings, motivations... their inner lives.

Tolkien doesn't try to put you in the character's heads so much as their world. He lavishes the landscape with descriptions of landmarks, weather, scents and sounds. He places you right there with the fellowship walking under oppressively dark forest canopies or freezing mountain tops fearing to be hit by a giant's boulder toss.

And virtually no setting can rival Tolkien's world for sheer world building. A place that has a comprehensive set of stories from the creation of the world all the way up to the events that nearly end it. With fully fledged languages and bloodlines that go back ages. A lot of people love Tolkien because you can trace details through centuries or aeons of fictional history.

And sure, it's not like warhammer or the witcher. Those franchises tend to have gimmicks exactly because they needed to reach for something to differentiate themselves from what you call 'generic fantasy'.

I love those franchises on their own just fine. But for me the difference is that something like warhammer is like a carnival ride. Loud, flashy, fast, a need to find some new whiz bang to keep your attention. Tolkien is more like a David Attenborough documentary meets a historical document. It takes you by the hand as you wander this beautiful and harsh world with little need to wow you with flashy effects.