Agast? HELLL NOOOO Colbert would LOVE someone who came into the story fresh and ... well... was transformed so well by it. The way he took to the character, read the books, and still is 'open and new' to it? Ya, this is the kinda person Colbert would love to talk LOTR's with :D
Yeah. They're not that good. PARTS are good. Parts aren't. Sean's character, Twoflower, portrayed above ... was written as Asian. Or rather, the cultures of the Counterweight Continent are a play upon those of Earth's Far East, or at least Western perceptions of it.
That’s all I needed to hear from him. He got that shit right. Sam was the hero, but in no way would he think that about himself. That’s what makes him the hero.
Yeah the story was in large part based on Tolkiens experiences with war and especially postwar (and how war can be exciting and glorious yes, but it's awful even if it was just for good against pure evil and there's no escaping its effects, which is why the scouring of the shire was so important to him).
Sam is that guy who shows up because he feels he should, does what he feels needs doing, and leaves it all behind when he can. That 'does what needs doing' part is where heroes come from.
Preaching to the choir, mate. I’ll always be mad at Jackson for not finding a way to include The Scouring of the Shire in the last movie, but I also understand why he couldn’t overshadow the Gondor scene. It’s a love/hate thing for sure.
Yeah, I get it, but if they wanted me to do 3 hobbit movies after that I think I'd have demanded one be Hobbit: Fellowship of the Dwarves, one be Hobbit: Not So Lonely Mountain while there's a Big Dumb Fight Outside, and one be LotR: Sam saves the shire
Sam was above all things, dutiful. Dutiful to Frodo, dutiful to Gandalf, dutiful to the fellowship, and to the shire. Someone I spoke to about it said they disliked Sam for being so subservient, but I think there's a distinct difference between the two.
The ring wouldn't want a subservient person - it sought ambition and corrupted it. Sam wasn't subservient anyway, but more importantly he had no ambition. That's why Hobbits do so well resisting the ring, Hobbits generally aren't ambitious, they're satisfied with their lives. Smeagol included.
Well that's what the ring showed him. He carried it in the very sight of it's birthplace, when it was at its strongest, and it was pretty much straight speaking to him at that point. It showed him saving the world and turning Moror into a garden and he fucking laughed in its face, so to speak. Thought about what his Gaffer would say about that and dismissed it all but instantly. He was not without imagination, but he was also very grounded.
Okay so I have been tempted to get into Tolkien. I started reading the hobbit but didn't finish it. Is it an exercise in futility to read The Silmarillion first and then the hobbit and LOTR or should I start with the hobbit and LOTR and then dive deeper into his writings.
If you started the Hobbit and didn't finish, then maybe it's not for you imho. I read it for HS English class (needed 10 books, Hobbit counts as 1, LOTR as 3, only 3 per author but this is allowed an as exception to that rule). Devoured the Hobbit and the same for LOTR where I slowed down near the end because I didn't want the story to be over. Got a 9 out of 10 during my oral exam. If I had remembered that Elvenbread is called Lembas I might have received a 10/10 (also on my final grading :( ).
Try the audiobooks narrated by Andy Serkis - they are fantastic, and his masterful narration makes them all an easy read. Yes, even the Silmarillion. Andy’s depiction of Glaurung sent literal chills down my spine.
I love The Hobbit and LOTR, and have read them all more times than I can count; I have never read the Silmarillion beyond thumbing through a few of the short stories.
If you don't like reading there are audio books narrated by Andy serkis the voice actor for gollum. They are amazing. And should be available at your library
as a life long fan of tolkien and the movies and books in general. LoTR books are a rough read. I think the movies tell a much more riveting story that streamlines alot of the barriers and blocks to enjoying the books. Most particularly is the stakes I feel like the books undercut the threat. In the movies the Nazgul, Sauron, the eye, the fellbeast, the cost of not destroying the ring are way way more present. In the books you get Tom Bombadils who are interesting, but total bullshit for stakes.
Ok, Imma get roasted by some others in the comments but here's how I did it as an undiagnosed ADHD youth: Read normal until he starts spending a couple of pages describing the inlays of the stone carvings on the battlements. Skim that until the swording starts up again. You wont digest everything the first time anyway, and at least you'll get through having a pretty good time.
Simarilion isn’t needed at all; it’s just a summation of Tolkien’s notes after his death, it’s not a cohesive narrative.
And no, I’ve no idea how to spell the title nor the bother to go google it at the moment. :D
Hobbit is kind of for a younger audience. You might find Lord of the Rings fits better for you first if you’re an adult; I started as a kid so I bounced off of LotR several times before I could get through it, but loved Hobbit. Now I’m more in tune with LotR.
Okay, so here's the simple, fail-safe way to get into Tolkien: study history for a few years, not too contemporary, nothing contemporary, somethign where cuneiform helps. If there's any conferences where historians and archeologists "settle disputes", that's your spot. Find the love of your life, early if possible. Fight some Nazis. See some Nazi combustion machinery eat the world. The Sil will be a breeze.
It all depends on what you expect to get from the books. If I remember correctly: The Hobbit is a written down version of a children's tale Tolkien told his kids. The Lord of the Rings is an attempt to write a mythology in a book form. And the Silmarillion is the collected background works of a world and it's millennia of history.
The Silmarillion is absolutely the wrong starting choice. It's basically a lot of authors notes and deep lore and backstory that is totally unnecessary for reading and enjoying The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy. It's also written in a way that is very dry, boring, and difficult to read. I understand why people read it- the lore is pretty neat- but it is a slog. And it's not where you want to start.
You do not need all the lore for the stories to be good and make sense. The lore adds backstory, a little, but it's definitely not needed to enjoy the other books.
The Silmarillion is a tough nut to crack. You need to already be in love with Tolkiens universe and really want to know more in order to grok what he lays down in the Silmarillion.
The best advice I can give is to read it slowly. Yes, he spends pages and pages describing mundane things, but that serves a purpose.
Picture yourself as a homebody, you've never been further than a few miles from where you were born. But now you've been placed in a world-spanning mission, against your will, to save everything that is good. You're scared, overwhelmed, confused, and in pain the whole time.
You would spend as long as possible appreciating every mundane thing you saw.
You don't read The Silmarillion because you like LOTR, you read LOTR because you like LOTR. You read The Silmarillion because you want to see how much of @Ngugi's posts you already knew.
You don't need to read the Simarillion to appreciate Tolkien's stories.the hobbit movies are vastly different from the book as well. Still in the spirit though. Just enjoy the lotr trilogies.
I am aware that the Hobbit movie franchise was an amalgamation of many different things that were not canon one of them being Orlando Bloom suddenly returning
The Hobbit is a kid's book. It’s a deep kid's book but it 100% feels like a children's book. Lord of the Rings feels like literature a lot of the time. Vast stories that we see a glimpse of and that people can dissect to get more nuance. Silmarillion is a damn encyclopedia. If you like textbooks, go for it. I enjoyed the Hobbit and half of the Lord of the Rings but can not get even slightly into the Silmarillion.
Yea the hobbit is a collection of stories he would tell his kids, stitched together into a book. The time with Bilbo and the trolls. The time with bilbo and the spiders. The time with bilbo and the dragon! etc
The Lord of the Rings books are all excellent, undeniably. But the Silmarillion is as boring as it gets. I think I was reading the full new and old testaments of the Bible at the same time. They're pretty similar. And boring.
1) You don't need to read the Sil. 2) If I can make a suggestion, Lord of the Rings is a fairly lyrical story. A lot of it can seem boring if you just sit and think "he's describing another tree" but the words used can be poetic. If you do bounce off reading it, hearing it as a audiobook may suit you better. Andy Serkis did a reading and it's brilliant. And if you bounce off that, don't force yourself. I think the books are brilliant, but no story is for everyone, even the brilliant ones.
IMO, read the one that interests you the most; they're all different kinds of stories. LOTR: The great adventure tale. The heroes struggle against terrible odds to accomplish the impossible. The Hobbit: A gentler journey. Still perilous, but with song and funny parts mixed in. The Silmarillion: History book crossed with Greek mythology. A multi generational tale of the struggle against the first evil. My favorite.
DO NOT read the similiarn believing it is a story with lots of character dialgoue and interaction. THe simirilian reads more like a history book that dolls out the chain of events that play out in the 1st age that have VERY little interactions between the characters to drive a known plot forward. Its a history book. Not a story. You will also think to yourself "holy fuck why is this all about the elves and why do they all have such similar names." Flipping to the index every 2 pages
And Silmarillion is more for the really big fans. It’s… a lot. Goes super deep into the lore and world building which isn’t everybody’s thing but is some pretty cool stuff if it is yours. Not one cohesive story but lots of smaller stories and explanations and such.
I have the one big red book omnibus version - which is kind of cool since the story is supposed to be translated from Frodo’s and Sam’s version which was a big red book
Well I seem to be a glutton for punishment when it comes to novels and book series I have read War and Peace, In Search of Lost Time, infinite jest. and several other very long novels. I will also admit I have started many books and I have not finished them. I started reading God emperor of Dune in 2024 it is 2026 and I have to start reading it again.
I'm assuming you've read the prior Dune books (The first Dune is maybe the greatest sci fi novel I have read) but God Emperor is one of the worst books I have ever read, I almost didn't finish it. (I can count on one hand the number of novels I have started and not finished, much to my detriment) The series gets better after that but it sure got dreadful for about two-ish books.
Is the box set only the Frank Herbert ones? I have not read the ones by his son and Kevin Anderson but the consensus seems to be that they are utter dreck.
Verbodentoegang
Uhm, wasn’t Tolkien Welsh ?
TheFastpaws
I think he understands Sam very well and I am happy we got the pleasure of him playing that roll.
bigboneded
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dDJrZnYxeHNycWo1OHluajBzbmMwN2Fya2N2MHJ6MjgyYzFjeDZlYSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/9uoYC7cjcU6w8/200w.webp
AtmaDarkwolf
Agast? HELLL NOOOO Colbert would LOVE someone who came into the story fresh and ... well... was transformed so well by it. The way he took to the character, read the books, and still is 'open and new' to it? Ya, this is the kinda person Colbert would love to talk LOTR's with :D
samwyze
Hell yeah, you tell him, Samwise!
gablestout
Kieralynh
peterchen
A bit more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq9-mW6HgQE (they didn't get to the questions though)
TheFastpaws
I’d have loved for this interview to have been longer.
Zalm
Colbert should have more than just a talk show, he needs an unlimited duration video podcast
Deadpool854
shiggitymiggity
All of the discworld movies are great. GNU Sir Terry!
Deadpool854
I haven’t seen them all but I’ve enjoyed the ones I’ve seen.
williamshakesbeer
There's movies?!
SirHonytawk
The Colour of Magic is free on Youtube in 4k
shiggitymiggity
The Color of Magic/The Light Fantastic, The Hogfather, and Going Postal.
nickelrocket
Yeah. They're not that good. PARTS are good. Parts aren't. Sean's character, Twoflower, portrayed above ... was written as Asian. Or rather, the cultures of the Counterweight Continent are a play upon those of Earth's Far East, or at least Western perceptions of it.
OnlyOneArman
Hogfather is my favorite, I think. But yes. Movies, plural, some animated, some live action.
madjo
I also like Going Postal.
DrForester
Hey, he totally got Sam if he knows that Sam would not consider himself the Hero.
The701
"You're a hero, Sam!"
"Nah, no. I just made a promise."
IHaveAGuyForEverything
That’s all I needed to hear from him. He got that shit right. Sam was the hero, but in no way would he think that about himself. That’s what makes him the hero.
agonarch
Yeah the story was in large part based on Tolkiens experiences with war and especially postwar (and how war can be exciting and glorious yes, but it's awful even if it was just for good against pure evil and there's no escaping its effects, which is why the scouring of the shire was so important to him).
Sam is that guy who shows up because he feels he should, does what he feels needs doing, and leaves it all behind when he can. That 'does what needs doing' part is where heroes come from.
IHaveAGuyForEverything
Preaching to the choir, mate. I’ll always be mad at Jackson for not finding a way to include The Scouring of the Shire in the last movie, but I also understand why he couldn’t overshadow the Gondor scene. It’s a love/hate thing for sure.
agonarch
Yeah, I get it, but if they wanted me to do 3 hobbit movies after that I think I'd have demanded one be Hobbit: Fellowship of the Dwarves, one be Hobbit: Not So Lonely Mountain while there's a Big Dumb Fight Outside, and one be LotR: Sam saves the shire
IHaveAGuyForEverything
Omg. That sounds amazing.
Omnimorph2112
Sam was above all things, dutiful. Dutiful to Frodo, dutiful to Gandalf, dutiful to the fellowship, and to the shire. Someone I spoke to about it said they disliked Sam for being so subservient, but I think there's a distinct difference between the two.
Sticklebrickk
There's two different people who could talk about a butler
CaptainDogWasTheBestDog
1000%
twostepsfromlost
A subservient individual would have been tempted by the one ring quickly. Nope, Sam was loyal. Insanely loyal. To his people, his homies, the cause.
Fentex
The ring wouldn't want a subservient person - it sought ambition and corrupted it. Sam wasn't subservient anyway, but more importantly he had no ambition. That's why Hobbits do so well resisting the ring, Hobbits generally aren't ambitious, they're satisfied with their lives. Smeagol included.
TheAbominableToastMan
There was ambition in Sam - it was to become Lord of the Garden
gilliamv
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dTVoMnVudXUzbnEwYnRmZWd0OW10cjV1aHg1bTU4eGUweDhoMTg4MyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/Iic4h6OXGsnEk/200w.webp
Lampmonster
Well that's what the ring showed him. He carried it in the very sight of it's birthplace, when it was at its strongest, and it was pretty much straight speaking to him at that point. It showed him saving the world and turning Moror into a garden and he fucking laughed in its face, so to speak. Thought about what his Gaffer would say about that and dismissed it all but instantly. He was not without imagination, but he was also very grounded.
zeacorzeppelin10
Okay so I have been tempted to get into Tolkien. I started reading the hobbit but didn't finish it. Is it an exercise in futility to read The Silmarillion first and then the hobbit and LOTR or should I start with the hobbit and LOTR and then dive deeper into his writings.
vanillarogue
The Silmarillion is wikipedia for that world, and a few shorter stories. Read Lord of the Rings, its what people loved enough to make into a movie.
ricpaul
If you started the Hobbit and didn't finish, then maybe it's not for you imho. I read it for HS English class (needed 10 books, Hobbit counts as 1, LOTR as 3, only 3 per author but this is allowed an as exception to that rule). Devoured the Hobbit and the same for LOTR where I slowed down near the end because I didn't want the story to be over. Got a 9 out of 10 during my oral exam. If I had remembered that Elvenbread is called Lembas I might have received a 10/10 (also on my final grading :( ).
zeacorzeppelin10
I didn't finish the hobbit cause I had to give it back to the library.
KsuviKhor
Try the audiobooks narrated by Andy Serkis - they are fantastic, and his masterful narration makes them all an easy read. Yes, even the Silmarillion. Andy’s depiction of Glaurung sent literal chills down my spine.
zeacorzeppelin10
What about Rob ingles on CD
OhIfIMust
I love The Hobbit and LOTR, and have read them all more times than I can count; I have never read the Silmarillion beyond thumbing through a few of the short stories.
iamlegendinjapan
If you don't like reading there are audio books narrated by Andy serkis the voice actor for gollum. They are amazing. And should be available at your library
BatmanAndCradleRobin
as a life long fan of tolkien and the movies and books in general. LoTR books are a rough read. I think the movies tell a much more riveting story that streamlines alot of the barriers and blocks to enjoying the books. Most particularly is the stakes I feel like the books undercut the threat. In the movies the Nazgul, Sauron, the eye, the fellbeast, the cost of not destroying the ring are way way more present. In the books you get Tom Bombadils who are interesting, but total bullshit for stakes.
StudioDerpster
Ok, Imma get roasted by some others in the comments but here's how I did it as an undiagnosed ADHD youth: Read normal until he starts spending a couple of pages describing the inlays of the stone carvings on the battlements. Skim that until the swording starts up again. You wont digest everything the first time anyway, and at least you'll get through having a pretty good time.
YoungHeathen
Simarilion isn’t needed at all; it’s just a summation of Tolkien’s notes after his death, it’s not a cohesive narrative.
And no, I’ve no idea how to spell the title nor the bother to go google it at the moment. :D
Hobbit is kind of for a younger audience. You might find Lord of the Rings fits better for you first if you’re an adult; I started as a kid so I bounced off of LotR several times before I could get through it, but loved Hobbit. Now I’m more in tune with LotR.
peterchen
Okay, so here's the simple, fail-safe way to get into Tolkien: study history for a few years, not too contemporary, nothing contemporary, somethign where cuneiform helps. If there's any conferences where historians and archeologists "settle disputes", that's your spot. Find the love of your life, early if possible. Fight some Nazis. See some Nazi combustion machinery eat the world. The Sil will be a breeze.
pyr0max
It all depends on what you expect to get from the books. If I remember correctly: The Hobbit is a written down version of a children's tale Tolkien told his kids. The Lord of the Rings is an attempt to write a mythology in a book form. And the Silmarillion is the collected background works of a world and it's millennia of history.
TheAbominableToastMan
This summation is a great bullet-point, summarized breakdown of Tolkien's Legendarium
pyr0max
Thank you.
TinyBadger101
The Silmarillion is absolutely the wrong starting choice. It's basically a lot of authors notes and deep lore and backstory that is totally unnecessary for reading and enjoying The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy. It's also written in a way that is very dry, boring, and difficult to read. I understand why people read it- the lore is pretty neat- but it is a slog. And it's not where you want to start.
zeacorzeppelin10
I was curious if you needed all the lore first?
TinyBadger101
You do not need all the lore for the stories to be good and make sense. The lore adds backstory, a little, but it's definitely not needed to enjoy the other books.
Skawomplious
The Silmarillion is a tough nut to crack. You need to already be in love with Tolkiens universe and really want to know more in order to grok what he lays down in the Silmarillion.
relsky
The best advice I can give is to read it slowly. Yes, he spends pages and pages describing mundane things, but that serves a purpose.
Picture yourself as a homebody, you've never been further than a few miles from where you were born. But now you've been placed in a world-spanning mission, against your will, to save everything that is good. You're scared, overwhelmed, confused, and in pain the whole time.
You would spend as long as possible appreciating every mundane thing you saw.
zeacorzeppelin10
gablestout
You don't read The Silmarillion because you like LOTR, you read LOTR because you like LOTR. You read The Silmarillion because you want to see how much of @Ngugi's posts you already knew.
zeacorzeppelin10
Good to know
Ngugi
jesuisgur
Just read LOTR. The hobbit is for children and the Silmarion is for nerds.
CookieMonstersCrumbs
You don't need to read the Simarillion to appreciate Tolkien's stories.the hobbit movies are vastly different from the book as well. Still in the spirit though. Just enjoy the lotr trilogies.
zeacorzeppelin10
I am aware that the Hobbit movie franchise was an amalgamation of many different things that were not canon one of them being Orlando Bloom suddenly returning
SharkoutofWata
The Hobbit is a kid's book. It’s a deep kid's book but it 100% feels like a children's book. Lord of the Rings feels like literature a lot of the time. Vast stories that we see a glimpse of and that people can dissect to get more nuance. Silmarillion is a damn encyclopedia. If you like textbooks, go for it. I enjoyed the Hobbit and half of the Lord of the Rings but can not get even slightly into the Silmarillion.
thisisnotfineffs
Yea the hobbit is a collection of stories he would tell his kids, stitched together into a book. The time with Bilbo and the trolls. The time with bilbo and the spiders. The time with bilbo and the dragon! etc
itstheendoftheworldasweknowitandifeelfine
The Lord of the Rings books are all excellent, undeniably. But the Silmarillion is as boring as it gets. I think I was reading the full new and old testaments of the Bible at the same time. They're pretty similar. And boring.
ilikeyoumorethan
In high school we were assigned this book in a class and that first chapter is long for the youths.
SometimesISayHistoryStuff
1) You don't need to read the Sil.
2) If I can make a suggestion, Lord of the Rings is a fairly lyrical story. A lot of it can seem boring if you just sit and think "he's describing another tree" but the words used can be poetic. If you do bounce off reading it, hearing it as a audiobook may suit you better. Andy Serkis did a reading and it's brilliant. And if you bounce off that, don't force yourself. I think the books are brilliant, but no story is for everyone, even the brilliant ones.
Arkham17
IMO, read the one that interests you the most; they're all different kinds of stories.
LOTR: The great adventure tale. The heroes struggle against terrible odds to accomplish the impossible.
The Hobbit: A gentler journey. Still perilous, but with song and funny parts mixed in.
The Silmarillion: History book crossed with Greek mythology. A multi generational tale of the struggle against the first evil. My favorite.
Elonth
DO NOT read the similiarn believing it is a story with lots of character dialgoue and interaction. THe simirilian reads more like a history book that dolls out the chain of events that play out in the 1st age that have VERY little interactions between the characters to drive a known plot forward. Its a history book. Not a story. You will also think to yourself "holy fuck why is this all about the elves and why do they all have such similar names." Flipping to the index every 2 pages
powwerbottom
LOTR first, then delve into the Silmarillion
cropduster5000
Definitely read the LOTR before Silmarillion
zeacorzeppelin10
Ok should I get a box set or the omnibus 1 big ass book version
cropduster5000
I like the look of 3 books on my shelf but that’s just me.
cropduster5000
And Silmarillion is more for the really big fans. It’s… a lot. Goes super deep into the lore and world building which isn’t everybody’s thing but is some pretty cool stuff if it is yours. Not one cohesive story but lots of smaller stories and explanations and such.
nyarlathotep777
I have the one big red book omnibus version - which is kind of cool since the story is supposed to be translated from Frodo’s and Sam’s version which was a big red book
rampartfranklin
I started with The Hobbit. If you get through it, then tackle LOTR. The Silmarillion is a whole next level.
zeacorzeppelin10
Well I seem to be a glutton for punishment when it comes to novels and book series I have read War and Peace, In Search of Lost Time, infinite jest. and several other very long novels. I will also admit I have started many books and I have not finished them. I started reading God emperor of Dune in 2024 it is 2026 and I have to start reading it again.
kevbot5000
I'm assuming you've read the prior Dune books (The first Dune is maybe the greatest sci fi novel I have read) but God Emperor is one of the worst books I have ever read, I almost didn't finish it. (I can count on one hand the number of novels I have started and not finished, much to my detriment) The series gets better after that but it sure got dreadful for about two-ish books.
SlyMrFox
I love God Emperor more than the original. Leto II is just so damn interesting.
zeacorzeppelin10
Well my mom bought me the box set so I'm going to finish what I start.
kevbot5000
Is the box set only the Frank Herbert ones? I have not read the ones by his son and Kevin Anderson but the consensus seems to be that they are utter dreck.