|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:26 pm
Any other Ringers who have read Tolkien's series?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:36 pm
My uncle got me into reading by giving me LotR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:37 pm
I've read the lord of the ring, the hobbit, most of the silmarillion, a book with short stories and roverandom.. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:15 pm
Did you want to discuss something about the books or was it just curiosity about the percentage of lotr readers on gaia? smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:56 pm
I read large peices of the appendixes in the back of RotK many years ago, I attempted to read the Silmarillian and I'm halfway through Book of Lost Tales 1. It's amazing how much thought some authors put into their books.
I was in 4th grade the first time I read the LotR series, and in 4th grade you learn to, when you write, try to use 'said' minimumly. That's the biggest thing that bugged me about J.R.R's books. He used said nearly every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:15 pm
I think I liked the Silmarillion just as much as I liked The Hobbit, if not better.
Tolkien's writing, I found, was so fantastic that his usage of 'said' didn't bother me. The atmosphere he created around the speaker created, in my mind, more of the emotion the speaker was using when talking, rather than having to say 'whispered,' 'called out,' 'muttered,' etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:12 pm
I did not like the silmarillion, it was like reading an history book and I usually do not read them for fun. I lost count of who was who around the third chapter and after that I did not understand wat was happening anymore crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:16 am
That's kinda the same here. And I was only, what, 10 years old. If I tried to go back and understand it now, I probably could, now that I've got Homer, Ovid, Shakespeare, and Dickens under my belt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:00 pm
I think what helped me understand the Silmarillion was that I had read the Unfinished Tales and the notes in it first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:12 pm
Woot! LotR! *Love* Frodo is sexyful o.o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:47 pm
I've read the Hobbit. I almost finished Fellowship of the Ring, but I didn't...I've been trying for four years... stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:42 pm
I say skip Fellowship. The movies did a real good job. If you're having trouble getting through it, i say just read the parts about Tom Bombadil and RotK. Peter Jackson did a remarkably good job, I think. It was one of the better book-to-movies I have seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:30 am
I agree, the movies were remarkable. Unless you look at the details. The Elves didn't just come to Helm's Deep, and Arwen wasn't the warrior elf princess Jackson made her out to be, she wasn't even a princess! And the Army of the Dead got too big of a job, there was no Tom Bombadil, no Barrow-wrights, so anyone who'd only seen the films didn't know why it was necessary for Merry to stab the Witch King with his blade, Celeborn had his character badly altered, as did Legolas. But overall, yes, the movies were magnificent. Although to get the full Tolkien experience, don't skip the books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
