/lit/ - Literature

You should. That's how I read them. They cover some of the same terrain, and it's nice to see the same places many years later.

You don't.

You should because a lot of the magic and majesty of The Hobbit is that it's a tiny and whimsical opening into a huge and fascinating world, kind of like looking through a keyhole into a room, and then LOTR is more like having the door open and being able to peer inward. Going from keyhole to door is cathartic, but going from door to keyhole can feel artificial.

When reading Tolkien you really want to replicate the conditions he was writing for, as much as possible. With The Hobbit, that means going into it as naive as possible with a crazy adventure in mind. LOTR can spoil that a bit, whereas going from Hobbit to LOTR really improves the latter because you'll be desperate for exactly the scope given in those books.

That's my opinion anyway.

>>11421452
The Silmarillion first as Tolkien wanted you to.

>>11421493
Tolkien would intend you read The Hobbit, where all of this lore/story sprang from, first, then whatever else you want after.

I wouldn't say you'd have to, the hobbit reads more like a story being told to you and LOTR reads more like a regular book. But it certainly does help.

The Silmarillion is something you read if you REALLY enjoyed the hobbit and LOTR

>>11421504
Except for the fact that he conceived of the myths two decades before The Hobbit got published and for the fact that he expressed, many times in his letters, his wish for The Silmarillion to be the first thing people read because all other books are just episodes placed within the world established by The Silmarillion.

>>11421525
Nice sources

>>11421525
Stop saying nonsense

>>11421452
You need to give us that source probably OP.

>>11421549
>>11421556
>My tale [The Hobbit] is not consciously based on any other book -- save one, and that is unpublished: The Silmarillion...
Letter to the editor of the Observer

>Of course, my only real desire is to publish The Silmarillion...
A letter to Stanley Unwin

>It [The Silmarillion] and all that refused to be suppressed. It has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything which I have tried to write since. Its shadow was deep on the later pans of The Hobbit. It has captured The Lord of the Rings, so that that has become simply its continuation and completion, requiring The Silmarillion to be fully intelligible ...
Letter to Sir Stanley Unwin

>The second point was the writing 'out of my head' of the 'Fall of Gondlin', the story of Idril adn Earendel, during sickleave from the army in 1917, and by the original version of the 'Tale of Luthien Tinuviel and Beren' later in the same year.
Letter to Christopher Bretherton

>The Silmarillion is quite different... It began in hospital and sick-leave (1916-1917) and has been with me ever since...

>I have some pictures in my drawer, but though they represent scenes from the mythology on the outskirts of which the Hobbit had his adventures...

>>11421549
>>11421556
>...also in dealing with The Silmarillion (into which some of the L.R. has to be written backwards to make the two coherent).

Letter to Rayner Unwin

>But the mythology (and associated languages) first began to take shape during the 1914 - 1918 war.
Letter to the Houghton Muffin Co.

>>11421522
This. Read The Hobbit (if you hate it, you'll hate LOTR). Read LOTR. Then read the appendices. If you get through those and are still into it, read The Silmarillion and welcome to fandom.

>>11421452
>>11421549
>>11421504
>>11421468
>Thes fucking niggers sont know the fucking glory, gospel, and grace that is Eärendil
>these nigger dont know about the age of trees let alone lamps
>they will never recieve the glory of Eru Ilúvatar an rejoice in the second song

Yes you should read the Hobbit first. It's a short book and it's really good so there's no reason not to. LOTR will be hard to get into if Bilbo Baggins doesn't mean anything to you.

>>11423521
bilbo having plot relevance after leaving for dale

>>11423531
I don't know what you're saying and I probably don't want to.

>>11421452
The hobbit is incredibly fast-paced compared to LOTR. You might as well read it because you may very well enjoy it more.

>>11421452
God, I wish that were me.

>>11421452
You need to read The Hobbit because it's better than all of the TLOTR, unironically (I only have to add the 'unironically' because our culture is shit and worthless at this point, and these retarded qualifications are needed---I hate life...)

>>11421452
PIC SAUCE

>>11424216
SECONDING THIS.

>dildo braggings
>slay le dragongs
>big mage with powerful spells, woah
>orcs vs. humans
>virgin elve pussies
>took an arrow in to the kne
>"run, fools" -- Gandhi
>spiders_attack_the_gemblos_while_they_sleep.mpg
>the little dude is actually a huge hero dude
>(size don' matter, kids [buy muy books])
>hop on my griffon, master Harry

You´re a literal retard/brainlet if you read Tolkien

>>11424251
>Look guys I posted it again! This time I was too lazy to make a separate thread for it!

>>11424259
>wahh he insulted my book de hobbit HE HAS A COOL SWORD IN LE HOBBIT

kys retard

>>11424275
I haven't even read it, I just find your seething to be hilarious.

>>11423511
You are scaring people.
Stop it.

>>11424280
It is clear from your posts that you read dwarves&wizards kind of literature and play brainlet games like Skyrim where you can larp as some fucking gnome because you are manlet irl lmao

kill yourself my man

>>11424285
Never read it and never played those games but keep projecting while you are at it.

>Book X is full of references to book Y but I will still read book X first because it's simple
>The author managed to fill book Z with 70 pages of incomplete appendices because they wouldn't publish the said book Y but I will still read book Y last

MMMM.....lembas

>>11421452
Why does anything really matter OP?

>>11424216
Oh god yes please.

>>11424443
What did he mean by this?