ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Reading The Lord of the Rings For the First Time!! *spoiler reading vlog*
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- Join me in reading The Fellowship of the Ring for the first time as a huge LOTR fan!!
Thanks so much for watching!! :)
/ becx
Tiktok: www.tiktok.com...
Free Music for Videos 👉 Music by Obie Hans - Metaphoric Collage - thmatc.co/?l=A...
![Exclusive! น้องลิกก้า&น้องโรร่า มาแล้ว!! [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.48 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UmlpJhRekyY/mqdefault.jpg)
I fully support skimming parts of a book that drag and going back to reference them later. It's better to finish a book than to abandon it because you got stuck somewhere. And sometimes things make more sense once you come back to them.
Watched the movies after having read the books about 10 times. They left out half of the endings of return of the king. Whe I was watching at the theater I kept telling my friends it’s not over yet.
I think the Silmarillion is best read after the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Then you will understand that when Sam is giving his Soliloquy about the great stories they heard as kids that Sam is actually part of the old tales.
Tom Bombadil literally existed before Middle Earth in that he was a character Tolkien invented as part of his Christmas story telling gift to his young children. Tom was a flamboyant powerful being who was the master of his own child-like realm. Tolkien also believed that stories were more secondary worlds (i.e. real and with their own rules) rather than they were allegories used to explain the human condition. If Tolkien was to stay true to his own principles then Tom had to be immune to the power of the ring partly because he didn't really belong in that world. Tolkien also realized that he needed to have evil and adult corruption within Middle Earth for it to be a mature story and Tom knew nothing of this; he was a being of whimsy and child-like tricks. If Tom was to be real then Tolkien had to respect his powers and mindset and that meant evil could not touch him.
Did you get that Frodos dream in Tom’s house was about Gandalf imprisoned on top of Orthanc?
The 3 volume editions are better because as well as being less prone to break along the spine, the third volume will include all the Appendices, instead of just a couple, which you need to better understand the lore and the consequences of the tale as a whole. Nicely bound, hardback, single volume editions with pretty covers, embossed leather or gold leaf illustrations of the Great Tree at Minas Tirith perhaps, are tempting, but not worth the price, unless you just want it as decor that you never read, because of the tendency to break and come unbound if you do. Unfortunately only Bibles are as well bound and durable as Bibles are. Only Bibles get that beautiful everlasting, diaphanously thin Bible paper, for instance.
well LotR was at the start 'just' the sequel to the Hobbit, that Tolkien started because his publisher requested it. There is a book that Tolkiens son Christopher published (part of the 'history of Middle earth' a 12 book series about the creation of Tolkiens world), that really show Tolkiens writing process for this book and it gets clear that he at first has no big plans.
He always starts with the birthday party (there are 5 or 6 versions of that first chapter) but then he goes into different directions. Frodo is for a long time called Bingo and it is unclear how he is related to Bilbo. What survives to the published version of LotR is that it starts out more lighthearted and gets more serious once Aragorn gets introduced. For a while in Tolkiens writing process they didn't meet Strider but Trotter, a hobbit with wooden shoes in Bree who was also living as a ranger and an outcast but there was no talk yet about the Dunedain. The evil was the Necromancer, who was not Sauron at that point. And the Ring was at first just a magic ring, then it was a very powerful magic ring but not unique and finally it became the one ring that the Necromancer needed. So you can kind of see how the story could have gone if he kept it in a hobbit like style. What remains is the first part of LotR with stuff like the fox wondering about the hobbits from the foxes POV, stuff that just wouldn't happen in the later books. So yes it makes sense to read the Hobbit first but only the first part is Hobbit like because of Tolkiens development connecting this new book to the Silmarilion lore he created which it wasn't at first.
Yes, this is good reminder. Tolkien's books can be read in any order without missing anything essential. The Hobbit was a stand-alone storybook with no connection to Middle-earth as it later came to be known. The ring that Bilbo found was really just a magic ring that makes one invisible. It wasn't the "one ring".
That was really nice. Thanks.
There are lots of good reference materials for studying "The Lord of the Rings". For example, I assume you've seen the behind-the-scenes documentaries of the Peter Jackson movies as they have several parts about adapting the book for the movies.
But, you might also be interested in viewing the following book-club live-stream sessions. The host of the stream, like you, had seen the movies and had decided to read the books for the first time - not a literary analysis, just a film fan who wanted to read the books. And she has cats.
It was a book-club, so the viewers were meant to read the given chapters and join her for the live-stream where she talked about her thoughts on that section and reacting to live comments from the community. [Disclaimer: I was one of the people on the chat.] She has stopped (or at least paused) doing them due to lack of time but she got half-way through "The Two Towers" so there's enough there to get some value.
Anyway, if you're interested it is in the "Live" tab section of the @LIPPSMACKER TH-cam channel. You should be able to replay the live-stream comments along-side the video to see what people where chatting about.
Here is the link to the first stream.
th-cam.com/video/bl7xPcAABhk/w-d-xo.html
Great to see that over and over pops up new review of Lord of the Rings and no matter how many people “cry” about being hard to read, new readers join. 👏
Not many things in fantasy lives up to Tolkien’s world… prob the only other fantasy story is Malazan, the Book of the Fallen is not an easy read but today it keeps the top epic fantasy place in everyone tier list who read it. Yep, we even replaced Lord of the Rings too. So if you are up to the next challenge? 😂
Oh I’ve heard of that book/series! I might have to ease myself into a book like that but maybe in the future! 😁
@@bookswithbecx haha not that dangerous. Someone who actually enjoyed Lord of the Rings? Yes, that’s longer. But at the same time? Payoff is a thing. We consider the first book the weakest in it… that is on the level of a Sanderson book let’s say. From that point it goes up and there is no lower than 4/5. The “issue” with it is the POVs. It has a bit more than usual… 33 in the first book… and it doesn’t go lower.. actually goes higher. 😂 Because the main idea is: you are a witness on that world jumping in at a point of history seeing everything from character POVs… no exposition… you will walk the land with them, see incredible details war, different events that build up to bigger events… the simple soldier eyesight not the big hero. Let’s say: in case of an Avengers movie it would take different POVs of police officers, civilians, etc… show how they try to fight back see the avengers at the air and they eventually fail but they see the heroes win because they did what was necessary down there. So in war not the general’s pov but what the soldiers think about him/her. They see lead and they fight. That’s one of the plots the war. 😁 it has others. It’s not a hero journey. No good vs evil. No main character, no obvious enemy and to cheer for. Question are not answered for you but to think who was right. The many POVs let the author show you both sides. Let’s say in lord of the rings you would see the orcs pov and it wouldn’t be that clear that they are the bad guys. That’s Malazan. On a way bigger scale.
@@nazimelmardi wow that sounds really awesome, thank you for all that info!
www.youtube.com/@lotrfan2023 I think Tolkien's work is hard to comprehend without a lot of illustrations and maps for the reader's orientation. And the Peter Jackson films left out some of the best parts of the story and fudged quite a bit more that it adds to the story confusion rather than alleviates it. I've been illustrating the unabridged version of the Lord of the Rings with my channel, LOTR fan, up to page 274 now, a bit of competition for the Peter Jackson films if you want to see what the original story might have looked like on the screen.
keep up the good work :3
Thank you!! ☺️