Lord of the Rings Trilogy / The Hobbit

There are twelve volumes in the complete series of the History of Middle Earth.

Each book deals with different stories that Tolkien was developing, but never made to the press. Books 1-5 in the series deal with versions of stories found in the Silmarillion. Books 6-9 deal with stories from The Lord of the Ring. Books 10-11 deal with Silmarillion topics again. Book 12 is alot like the appendix in the Return of the Ring.

By the way, I wouldn't call the Silmarillion a sequel to the Hobbit. Everything in the Silmarillion occurs at a much earlier time in Tolkien's mythology.

 

Sorry, I meant prequel obviously. Either way it was originally intended as the follow-up.

Thanks for the corrections regarding the other volumes.

 

If you are talking about the Appendix at end of The Return of the King, then this isn't The History of Middle Earth series.

My gut feeling was based on a couple of things. In any case, I apologize for the insinuation.

 

For those who are interested, the theme of the current issue of Credenda/Agenda is fantasy literature, and it devotes a not inconsiderable amount of space to J. R. R. Tolkien and J. K. Rowling. The contributors come down neither wholly for nor wholly against Harry Potter, though, so everybody will be equally outraged.

 

I just saw the DVD. What does it have to do with Christ?

Yes, there is good vs. evil, but that can be associated with anything, what do these stories have to do with Chirst?

There is so much magic in the movie (wizards, magical rings, witches, and so on) is the same true about the book? I have never read them and based on the movie I don't think I would. It's big entertainment that's for sure. Regardless of who the author is.

But, is it good for the spirit?

 

I have read LoR at least a dozen times and am currently about half-way through The Two Towers again. I have read The Silmarillion once many years ago, and should read it again. I have not read either Unfinished Tales or the History of Middle Earth.

As far as the movie goes I wasn't really all that impressed by it. I perfer the 1978 animated version by Ralph Bakshi. That movie covers all of Fellowship of the Ring and the first part of The Two Towers. It's too bad Bakshi never went back and completed the whole trilogy.

Bill

 

The movie is a dismal portrayal of the books. In the book, the 'wizard dual' never took place. Saruman does not cause the storm on the mountain.

The list on inconsistancies goes on and on.

 

Yes, there is good vs. evil, but that can be associated with anything, what do these stories have to do with Chirst?

Absolutely nothing. So what? I guess I'll have to give up my reading of Michael Chrichton then, because they don't have anything to do with Christ either. Come to think of it, I'll have to toss my dvd of the Ten Commandments. It has nothing to do with Christ either. Oh, I mustn't forget tossing my Jackie Chan movies as well.

Although I'm in agreement with Tuor. The movie took a fair amount of license over the books (unlike Harry Potter, where there is extremely little difference between the two, save the sorting hat scene).

[ September 27, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

One thing I would like to point out...

This is supposed to be a mythology. If you have a problem with reading Greek/Norse or any other mythology, you should have a problem with this too.

If you don't have a problem with reading mythologies, you shouldn't have a problem with this either. Take it for what it was meant to be, Tolkien's Mythology for England.