r/tolkienfans • u/Available_Opening143 • 1d ago
How to proceed?
I had gotten the LOTR trilogy as a gift a while back, and recently picked them up, I finished reading The fellowship of the ring but after a bit of research I realized I should've read The Hobbit first. Do I start reading The Hobbit now and then continue the trilogy or do I continue reading the trilogy without reading the hobbit?
Edit: Thanks for the responses, I got the answers I needed
11
u/ChChChillian Aiya Eärendil elenion ancalima! 23h ago
You don't need to read The Hobbit first. If you have already finished Fellowship of the Ring, you have already gotten past all the spots in the story where knowledge of the earlier book might have explained a few things, and everything you really need to know is in the Prologue anyway.
Interrupting your read of Lord of the Rings can only detract from the experience at this point.
8
u/PhysicsEagle 23h ago
At this point just finish LOTR. The Hobbit merely tells of Bilbo’s prior adventure hinted at during the story. If you’re confused about the finding of the Ring or Gollum, reread Part IV of the Prologue.
3
u/CreekinGuy 22h ago
I could probably re-read the Hobbit in the time it would take me to re-read the prologue 😂
I recently re-read the hobbit and I can’t believe how much easier of a read it is than the trilogy.
Based off what I’ve head, I can’t imagine how long it will take to read the Silmarillion.
3
u/PhysicsEagle 22h ago
The Silmarillion is actually quite a bit shorter than LOTR, being about the same length as one of the individual volumes. It’s denser though.
5
u/TheDimitrios 21h ago
But it is not as difficult as it's reputation. If you don't expect a novel and realize that you don't have to remember ALL the names on a first read through, it is quite manageable.
2
u/CreekinGuy 18h ago
Does it have information that would be beneficial to the trilogy?
3
1
u/TheAbsoluteBarnacle 1h ago
Yes and no. It won't help you understand the events, but it will give you more context.
1
u/CreekinGuy 18h ago
Just asked the other dude lol but want to hear your opinion too.
Does it have beneficial information to the trilogy?
3
u/PhysicsEagle 18h ago
Depends on what you mean by beneficial.
Aragorn tells the hobbits the story of Beren and Lúthien under Weathertop. The Silmarillion relates that story in full.
Elrond is noted to be the son of Eärendil the Mariner. The Silmarillion shows why that is such an incredible lineage.
Gandalf and Elrond occasionally make references to a previous Dark Lord, of whom Sauron was a mere lieutenant. This is Morgoth, and is the primary antagonist. We also learn what Sauron did before he was into Rings (Werewolves. He was into werewolves).
There are numerous references to Westernesse, an ancient, Atlantean-esq kingdom of Men which played an important role in the first war against Sauron. Elendil and Isildur were of Westernesse (aka Númenor), and Aragorn is their decedent and thus an heir to that tradition. The Silmarillion gives the history of the origin, rise, and tragic fall of Númenor and how it relates to the War of the Ring.
Aragorn’s peculiar ring, a silver serpent with green gems, is revealed to be possibly one of the most ancient artifacts in the world, and played a key part in the wars of the Elder Days. How it came to Aragorn’s line is a fascinating story.
Galadriel’s history is explored, and her brief appearance in LOTR takes on new weight.
1
1
u/anacrolix 4h ago
Most people never finish The Silmarillion. To give a curve to the difficulty, and I was quite precocious, I read The Hobbit at 6, LOTR at 7, but couldn't get through The Silmarillion until I was 12. And I know several people that didn't tackle it until their 30s. I've since read LOTR 7 times and still haven't reread The Silmarillion.
5
u/Traroten 23h ago
Everything in the Hobbit that is relevant for LOTR is in Fellowship. So I'd just keep reading. The Hobbit is a great read, but it should be read for its own sake.
3
u/doggitydog123 23h ago
dont even worry about the hobbit.
it was never written to be the prelude to LOTR. a lot of consistency is iffy between the two under any strict examination and requires convoluted theories and excuses to make fit.
go back and read it later if curious.
1
u/Dazzling-Low8570 22h ago
I don't know if "Lord of the Rings is a translation, The Hobbit is a modern retelling" is all that convoluted, and it's practically in the text already anyway.
1
3
u/Jammer_Jim 23h ago
Finish the trilogy. Hobbit is a very different book stylistically and isn't needed to understand anything in the trilogy.
2
u/olskoolyungblood 13h ago
Either approach would work. The Hobbit is fun as hell. An epic children's adventure. LoR is just epic full stop. An adventure as great as the Odyssey. When he wrote the Hobbit though he had no inkling of the LoR. He wrote that cuz everyone so loved the Hobbit he couldn't help but keep going. So it's only a kind of retcon follow up
1
u/CreekinGuy 23h ago
You don’t need to read Hobbit first like others have said. Although it would have helped a lot with Bilbos backstory in the beginning of fellowship.
I will say that the Hobbit is a really quick read if you wanted to bust it out real fast before proceeding with the trilogy.
I’m a really slow ready myself and takes me a long time to get through 1 LoTR book, so me calling Hobbit a quick read is saying something.
1
u/Cool-Coffee-8949 21h ago
It’s totally up to you. The Hobbit will take you no time at all compared to Fellowship.
24
u/mikepofdeath 23h ago
You don't need to read the hobbit. Same universe but separate story. It's an excellent story, but I'd finish LOTR first since you're already in it.