The hobbit is literally FOR children. I was also not captured by the first chapter. Not to say there's anything wrong with liking it, but I enjoyed Lord Of The Rings much more.

A song of ice and fire, you mean and remember the hobbit(a children's book) and lotr were published in 1937 and 1954 respectively so styles were different then. I actually skip most of Tom Bombadil and the songs in lotr.

No one else can or should tell you what you should like or not. If it's not for you, no one else's opinion matters.

That said, there's tons of great story writers, and maybe a different style might suit you better!

I always recommend Terry Pratchett's Discworld. It has characters with a lot more development and depth and is lighthearted, humorous, and fun. However, I did not like Name of the Wind.

Good luck with whatever you decide!

The tone of The Hobbit is definitely more that of a children's story where LOTR is an epic fantasy with a whole bunch of complex characters.

You'd be mistaken in thinking that The Hobbit had little depth, but finding it dull is very much a matter of taste. It's a story of the development of one particular character, whereas LOTR has wildly more complex character development.

Indeed, the plot of LOTR depends heavily on character development. You see characters pushed to their very limits, you see them break, and the day is only saved because they had friends.

The Hobbit is much lighter in tone. LOTR is much darker, very melancholy, but stuffed like a Thanksgiving turkey with hope and faith in the possibility that just maybe good will win out in the end.

Maybe you'd like it. Knowing the story of The Hobbit makes the beginning of LOTR make a lot more sense. You appreciate better how odd for a hobbit that Bilbo had become.

Yes, I read in the past a couple of his books. But I am not sure his style is exactly my cup of tea though, but I do agree that their characters were more complex.

The Hobbit is much more of a kid's book, and is more comic. It's like "What if your boring stuffy neighbor accidentally got sucked into an epic quest to fight a dragon." Lord of the Rings starts out like a kids book (a birthday party with fireworks) but quickly transitions into epic fantasy.

You're not going to like LotR either. Tolkien is famous for keeping his characters flat and enigmatic while spending much of his attention on the landscapes and journey.

Lord of the Rings is much better than The Hobbit.

It is nice to know about Bilbo before you read LOTR, but not necessary.

LOTR is a must read for every book nerd, if you liked A Song of Ice and Fire you will likely enjoy LOTR, and unlike the former, LOTR actually has an ending, and a damn good one.

​

Also, if you want a badass fantasy book with a much different feel, try The Scar by China Mieville.

You'll probably not like LoTR too. What you got from The Hobbit is what you can expect from the trilogy. Tolkien likes to talk more about every bit of grass, leaf and stick they come across more than his characters. When I reread his work, I skip a lot of passages and chapters.

The Hobbit is for children. It is not necessary to read it to enjoy The Lord of the Rings. LOTR is far different than the straight line to the dragon.

Having read LOTR first, and The Hobbit much later, I tend to agree with you. The characters are not likeable, even Bilbo is whiny and annoying. Gandalf is barely in it...

There's far more going on in LOTR, with far better characters, with far higher stakes. The world changes drastically, in the end. In The Hobbit things changed barely at all.

The LOTR is a lot dryer and a lot more archaic in the writing. The Hobbit is more casual and an easier read.

I agree with you. I read both the LOTR books and The Hobbit when I was younger, but I recently reread them both last year and I made a massive mistake in going with the LOTR trilogy first. I found The Hobbit to be so boring and basic in comparison. It made me really wish Tolkien went back and rewrote The Hobbit with the same detail he crafted his later novels with.

Give Lord Of The Rings a chance. It's significantly better than The Hobbit.

I'm comparing them like for like - I don't care that The Hobbit is supposedly meant for children.

I love the Lord of the Rings but the pace of the adventure is much slower than modern fantasy. There is a lot of walking through nature while not much happens. Tolkien was first. He is definitely worth reading but it can be work.

I am reading lotr and it is at the same time great and very underwhelming.

It is great as a story of a place (Middle Earth) and everything is so full of lore and well thought. The characters are not very deep but they have their personalities and some of the best moments are their dialogs (most of them are in the movies but changed in when they were said).

Now the bad. It starts incredibly slow and the prose itself is weird. I remember the part where Gandalf tells where he had been during the Council and it reads like the mumblings of a senile man with the amount of insignificant detail that would never happen in a real conversation. At times the dialogues are way too artificial.

Overall I have been enjoying (just started Two Towers) but keep these things in mind. I am a sucker for world building and lore and this lotr delivers.

This is what I’ve been saying. I always find it weird when people on here are like “I didn’t like the hobbit it was dull” and everyone is like Omg it’s a kids book go dead Lord of the Rings it’s EPIC FANTASY!

Yeah. No. I think the Hobbit is a much better, well-paced, FUN adventurous tale. Lord of the Rings is even more dull to me.

The difference in tone also works in-universe, and with the framing device of the stories only being translated by Tolkien (from the Red Book of Westmarch). The Hobbit is Bilbo's story, written down half a century after the events, a period of time in which he has probably bored the whole of the Shire retelling the tale of his adventure, so the willing audience becomes those who haven't heard it yet, young children. The Lord of the Rings is Frodo's story, an account of struggle and war written in the immediate aftermath of the events by someone with PTSD.

Literally the only book I've read multiple times, including the graphic novel rendition. While it was originally a bedtime story for his kids before he set it to paper, it's more of a young adult novel. Everyone saying it's a kid's book or for children is wrong. Tolkien isn't for everyone. The man was a master of language and it very much went into his writing.

Yeah I never read hobbit or watched the movie but the lotr books explaining a lot in the beginning so getting what happened in the hobbit isn't really hard even without the books.

I'm interested. What do you mean by different feel?

Mieville's books are weird fantasy, so not the traditional medieval feel of most fantasy novels. Reading Mieville is a unique experience, whereas LOTR and A Song of Ice and Fire, and Wheel of Time, etc all have a lot in common. They are all Tolkienesque. Mieville's books are not Tolkienesque.

I always say: what the hobbit lacks in depth it has in width

If you liked The Name of the Wind then Tolkien probably isn't for you.

This kind of sounds like an insult. Is the Name of the Wind so despised?

This. I can't believe there are so many people saying you'll love it just because they did.
If you didn't like The Hobbit...I doubt you'll like LOTR just because it's longer and deeper. I personally don't think it has a lot of character development. Not compared to a lot of more modern work. I think it's very unfair and shortsighted to tell someone to go read a book because you loved it, especially when they've clearly said they didn't like the prequel...

IMO, The Hobbit is a fun adventure, but the last 1/4 is dull AF. I can't belive kids want to hear about all the rebuilding of the town and crap....

The LOTR is a good read. I'm not into fantasy, but I enjoyed it. But it's not for everyone. And the Hobbit is a good litmus test.

I personally hated it, but it wasn't meant as an insult. They're two different styles/authors and people have their preferences. It's likely that if you prefer the one you won't like the other.

It is very definitely a book for kids. It's not at all like GRRM's or Rothfuss's work.

I definitely disagree about the characters lacking depth but yes it is slower than Lord of the rings, it's good to know that going in

Agreed! Just because a book is written in the style of a grandfather telling a story doesn't mean only "for children". I think that's a foolish thing to assert. (In fact, Tolkien literally said the book was not specifically written for children.)

To me, it was the most accessible book he wrote about Middle Earth, and it's the one I've reread the most. Even though it's still a bit rambling, it's a more succinct story than the others: fewer pages describing the prairies and grasslands etc.

Actually, I know several people who prefer the Hobbit to Lord of the Rings because it's less digressive.

There and back again, my friend.

I did not like the hobbit much, but absolutey love LOTR. the hobbit is a childrens book, its about the action with not as much character development of depth. LOTR is absolutely beautiful with it world building and character studies. Definitely give LOTR a try