Do I gotta read The Hobbit before Lord of the Rings?I mean I get the gist of The Hobbit and think I may have read it when I was a kid.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC35cQKHwzg
>>23324578You absolutely don't. All the key poot points in The Hobbit that are relevant to LoTR are recaped and explained.
>>23324774Plot*
>>23324774Cheers big ears
>>23324578The hobbit is the better book
>>23324774>All the key poot points
I enjoy the hobbit more than lotrlotr was written first, iirc
>>23324578You don't have to but you should.Aside from Hobbit being gigacomfy you can also observe how LotR shifts from. Hobbit-mode adventuring to a more epic scale over the course of the first book.
>>23325221No it wasnt>>23324578You should. The prologue of LOTR is the most boring thing Tolkien has ever written. Also it would spoil you The Hobbit.
>>23325179It's a better book as an whole, entire work, but The Return of the King is the best volume out of the entire The Hobbit + 3 LOTR books. I liked it enough to get a tattoo of Smaug.
>>23324578You can read them both effectively independently. They're two different stories in the same setting.
Is LOTR one book, three, or six??
>>23324578The proper way is to read the Hobbit first, and then stop.
>>23325174Bog off you wanker!
You don’t have to but unlike the movies I found the Hobbit superior to LOTR. The Hobbit movies are absolute garbage
Not really, but it's a funny little book that introduces you to the universe, specialyl the shire
>>23325911The structure of the Hero's Journey is a lot clearer, and the fantasy archetypes inspired by 19th century Germanic folklore are a lot more evident, yeah. It definitely feels different and like it could actually stand on its own relative to LOTR.
>>23324578Not necessary but I highly recommend you read it, anyways. Peak comfy imo and it won't be time wasted.
>>23325900Three books split into two parts each. To Tolkien, though, it was just one big book but was forced to publish it as a trilogy
