|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:59 pm
I love these books so much. It is the best trilogy I have ever read. The best books I have ever period. The three books are the Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. It was written by J.R.R. Tolkien. Has anyone else read these? I sure hope so!
I would have written more, and in a little more logical fashion, but I have to go.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:25 pm
I like the idea, but I find the writing a little pedantic.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:43 pm
I loved them. You have to put The Hobbit in there, too. I also think Tom Bombadil should have been in the movies.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:58 pm
Amazingly... I haven't read them. I tried, got through a few pages, and failed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:47 pm
Lord of the rings is a classic and to me, basicly started the fantasy genre.
As far as I know Tolkien made Elves and recreated Dwarves. I have read the books many times over, however now that I read more modern writing I find it hard to go through the book.
Currently, I'm reading Harshini by Jenifer Fallon, which is quite far from the style of writing that Tolkien started.
In the end, he's a good writer and I strive to be like him.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:19 pm
I will say now, he did not create Elves or recreate Dwarves. They were great books, but don't say he created everything.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:53 pm
I read it back when I was about 12 or so, a bit over my head for my age but I had the movies to help me out with the older or bigger words at the time. Yes, I agree, that Tom Bombadil should have been put in the movies, but you have to remember that the shortest movie was at least 2 hours long without him. So from the views of the film maker Tom, sadly, wasn't nessasary, Dispite all his amazing glory.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:04 pm
The Hobbit was an excellent book. I first read that in highschool. The Lord of the Rings is my all time favorite book. What a wonderful story to totally lose yourself in. I've read it 3 times now and I am sure I'll read it again. You know what's funny? The first time I read it, I was in my late teens or early twenties. I picked it up again when I was pregnant with my daughter, early thirties. (Great book to read under pregnant conditions). biggrin The last time I read it, it was again whilst pregnant this time with my son. We named our son with the middle name of Aragorn, after one of my favorite characters. I did see all the movies. They were good, but not near as good as the books. My first post here at the guild. Hello everyone. Peace, Hippie Me
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:51 am
I really adore The Lord of the Rings! I did a research paper about J.R.R. Tolkien for school last year and some of the facts you can find about him are fantastic (and you know if a research paper doesn't turn you off something it must be really amazing). The Hobbit was excellent as well, and now I am staring to delve into The Simillarion; the stories collected in that are superb as well.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:24 pm
I read the Lord of the Rings when I was about ten and I read the Hobbit sometime before that, but I didn't get to reading the Silmarillion until a few years ago. In my opinion Tolkien is the epitome of the fantasy genre, but as Masamune pointed out he is only one of the great writers of this genre. Elves and dwarves were around before him and will be after us. As an aspirring author, Tolkien is who I like to look at for inspiration.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:27 pm
Masamune no Hi I loved them. You have to put The Hobbit in there, too. I also think Tom Bombadil should have been in the movies. Tom Bombadil was definitely something they should have included in the movie as a character, It was not included for two main reasons. 1st. The Tom Bombadil history contributes too little to the main course of the story. 2nd. Tom Bombadil is by far too powerful to be troubled by trivial things, as he saw it, like the Ring of Power. He was able to take it, master it and give it back without even being tempted by it. Now, Tom's words were included in many parts of the movie only that his words were told by Gandalf and Treebear mostly. Now, I do agree the Hobbit should've been included but I venture to go further; The Lost Tales and the Silmarillion are fine pieces of art even though they're a hard to read.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:49 am
If I remember right, he wanted them all to be one volume (divided into 6 books as they are now). Publishing separated them into the three volumes with 2 books each.
My biggest qualm with the movies: the lack of Sharkey. :(.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:47 pm
KadajNu I love these books so much. It is the best trilogy I have ever read. The best books I have ever period. The three books are the Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. stare Except...It's. Not. A. Trilogy. The "Note on the Text" begins, and I quote: The Lord of the Rings is often erroneously called a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel,...Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine. But yes, I love the books. I re-read them every year.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:11 pm
The Lord of the Rings is the greatest book ever. Actually, I think it was originally six books, just divided into three parts. I love the Lord of the Rings, and I think the movie just didn't match up to the standard of the book.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:04 pm
Tokyoanimefan The Lord of the Rings is the greatest book ever. Actually, I think it was originally six books, just divided into three parts. I love the Lord of the Rings, and I think the movie just didn't match up to the standard of the book. You should see the extended edition; it's much better. It is one book, in that it only has one storyline. The narrative was divided into six parts, each called books, which were then published in three volumes.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|