Jump to content

A Reading Order


Pellaeon

Recommended Posts

Growing up in the 90s, this was my reading order for the main writings — straight publication order:

  1. The Hobbit
  2. The Lord of the Rings
  3. The Silmarillion
  4. Unfinished Tales
  5. The Book of Lost Tales
  6. The Lays of Beleriand

 

Today, there are a few new books which remix some of the writings in pleasing ways, so if you want to take advantage of them, here’s how I would go about it:

  1. The Hobbit
  2. The Lord of the Rings
  3. The Silmarillion
  4. The Fall of Númenor
  5. The Children of Húrin
  6. Unfinished Tales
  7. The Fall of Gondolin
  8. The Book of Lost Tales
  9. The Lays of Beleriand

 

Here are the parts of the traditional books that you can (should?) skip if you read the new books:

From The Silmarillion:

  • Akallabêth
  • Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

From Unfinished Tales:

  • Narn i Hîn Húrin
  • A Description of the Island of Númenor
  • Aldarion and Erendis
  • The Line of Elros

From The Book of Lost Tales:

  • The Fall of Gondolin

 

I only recently finished The Fall of Númenor. It’s really enjoyable to sit down with one book and get the whole Second Age in chronological order. A very satisfying read. Anyone else here read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think starting with either The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings is fine (I don't think it's necessary to start with the former), followed by The Silmarillion. Beyond that, I'm not sure the reading order matters that much. The only really bad advice I'll sometimes see (usually from Tolkien purists) is the suggestion that people new to the books start with The Silmarillion because, the flawed reasoning goes, it chronologically comes first. Which is about the worst advice you can give and pretty guarantees most such readers will just give up around page 3.

 

I really enjoyed The Fall of Númenor, as I have the other stand-alone books that present existing material from The Silmarillion in a new and expanded way. It's not as much of a cash grab as you'd expect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely. I just like to encourage people to read more of the books (for enjoyment!) beyond the obvious Hob+LR, and since there are so many books, it’s maybe helpful to have a numbered short-list. I aimed to find a balance between the way the story unfolded for its audience (i.e., the publication order) and the way it might unfold slightly more naturally for the reader (i.e., satisfactory novels with beginnings, middles, and ends).

 

The one I’m not so keen on is the 2017 Beren and Luthien. I think the Lost Tale and the full Lay as part of their proper collections work just fine, and the 2017 publication just ends up having too much explaining to do.

 

That reminds me, though, there is a “forgotten novel” which I think would work very well slotted in before the (notoriously difficult) Silmarillion. There is a 1977 LP of The Silmarillion: Of Beren and Lúthien read by Christopher Tolkien. It’s a good listen, and I think it would make a nice little standalone book.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/5/2023 at 5:53 PM, Pellaeon said:

I just like to encourage people to read more of the books (for enjoyment!) beyond the obvious Hob+LR, and since there are so many books, it’s maybe helpful to have a numbered short-list. I aimed to find a balance between the way the story unfolded for its audience (i.e., the publication order) and the way it might unfold slightly more naturally for the reader (i.e., satisfactory novels with beginnings, middles, and ends).

 

Agreed. But I read every volume of History of Middle-Earth, so I'm a glutton for punishment. :) 

 

On 20/5/2023 at 5:53 PM, Pellaeon said:

That reminds me, though, there is a “forgotten novel” which I think would work very well slotted in before the (notoriously difficult) Silmarillion. There is a 1977 LP of The Silmarillion: Of Beren and Lúthien read by Christopher Tolkien. It’s a good listen, and I think it would make a nice little standalone book.

 

Yeah, that's really quite nice, and you're right, it would be a great book.

 

Speaking of long-forgotten, if you haven't heard it, there's a recording of The Hobbit by Nicol Williamson that's simply fantastic. Sadly, it's abridged, but I'd put right up there with the Inglis or Serkis versions, and it probably has the edge on those two in charm.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

of what Williamson's Gandalf may have been in a Boorman Lord of the Rings.

 

Williamson was a little on the young side for Gandalf circa 1970 when Boorman was first developing The Lord of the Rings, a good decade before Excalibur, although he did try to get Lord of the Rings off of the ground at least twice again, the last being in the early 1990s: Say what you will for Boorman, he really wanted to see it made!

 

I do bet that he looked-up tickets to Bayreuth around the time of the initial script: there's no way he landed tickets to the Jahrhundertring  (which he said he attended) while he was prepping Excalibur: that would have been much too short a notice.

 

Ironically, since Boorman's film right after Rings collapsed was Zardoz, I think THAT might be a better pointer as to who he might have cast as Gandalf...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I do bet that he looked-up tickets to Bayreuth around the time of the initial script: there's no way he landed tickets to the Jahrhundertring

 

Ah, Bayreuth. Every Wagnerites dream. Reminds me that I want to re-watch Stephen Fry's excellent Wagner & Me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/05/2023 at 1:37 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

Agreed. But I read every volume of History of Middle-Earth, so I'm a glutton for punishment. :)

 

It is a magnificent journey indeed. But as you hint, for most people it’s an insurmountable task to undertake all 12 volumes, and they have no inclination to become “experts.”

 

Which is why I put forward The Book of Lost Tales and The Lays of Beleriand as part of the semi-popular tier. If you ignore the footnotes, they are straightforward reads with very great literary merit. I mean they are not drafts of something else, they are some of Tolkien’s major works in their own right. If you are looking for something to blow the roof off your imagination the way LotR did, for me that would be BoLT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pellaeon said:

If you ignore the footnotes, they are straightforward reads with very great literary merit.

 

I find The Book of Lost Tales a very peculiar read. Kind of stuck halfway between the fairytale world of The Hobbit, and the grown-up mythological world of The Lord of the Rings. Very odd.

 

Ultimately, out of Tolkien's Middle Earth output, there are only three true narratives: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and (as completed by Christopher) The Children of Hurin. The latter, with its air of the fjords and grim atmosphere, was never going to be as popular as the others, but its a literary achievement to rival the Manns and the Dostoyevskis of this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naah… The Children of Húrin has a polished presentation, which I definitely appreciate, but that doesn’t make it the “only true narrative“ outside the famous two. That’s a most unfortunate attitude, and will rob you of the Lay of Leithian (the dearest to Tolkien’s heart of all his writings), the epic Fall of Gondolin, the nuanced Aldarion and Erendis, the majestic Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, the incredible characters of Fëanor and Ulmo, and the continuing tales of Húrin and Mîm. The grand sea journeys of Ælfwine and the odd time travel of Elendil, so fantastic yet you sadly dismiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of those amount to drafts of narrative. They're splendid - Aldarion and Erendis in particular is a most unique and unusual piece from Tolkien - but they don't have the power of a fleshed-out, completed tale a-la Hurin, which to my mind gives The Lord of the Rings a good run for its money.

 

And I'm a great believer in not looking at what artists say they do, but look at what they actually do. Tolkien did say, often, that the Luthien story was the nearest to his heart, or the "kernel" of the mythology or so forth: but the proof in the pudding is that he lavished far, far more of his prodigious talent upon the Turin story, which is not only much more compelling and much, much more well-realized but also was the closest from its conception and across its many metamorphoses to the form it ultimately took. By far the best thing to come out of Tolkien's non-Third Age writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

[The Children of Hurin] … to my mind gives The Lord of the Rings a good run for its money.

 

Eh, not to denigrate The Children of Húrin, one of my long-time faves, but it’s no Lord of the Rings.

 

30 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Tolkien did say, often, that the Luthien story was the nearest to his heart, or the "kernel" of the mythology or so forth: but the proof in the pudding is that he lavished far, far more of his prodigious talent upon the Turin story, which is not only much more compelling and much, much more well-realized

 

I’m not so sure. The Lay of Leithian is about three times the page count of the Narn (the UT version), and it’s poetry, which takes considerably more effort to write than prose. The Lay (which extends to the escape from Angband) is more complete than the Narn (which is missing its middle—the fall of Amon Rudh, the Taur-nu-Fuin episode, and the Nargothrond episode entirely). Additionally, there are two very different prose versions (the Lost Tale and the Silmarillion chapter).

 

30 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

but also was the closest from its conception and across its many metamorphoses to the form it ultimately took.

 

The significance of this is not clear to me. The Lord of the Rings, for example, was VERY different from its conception to the form it ultimately took.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Pellaeon said:

it’s no Lord of the Rings.

 

Its not. But its the only Tolkien novel that comes close, I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I struggle with the material that was not finished by Tolkien, as it appears to have been a struggle for him, also. I know he expressed some misgivings about publishing the appendices some years after the fact, and yet spent the last 20 years of his life working off-and-on on the Silmarillion. I could maybe stretch to that, but for me, the world building of LotR is given depth by the history we glimpse, but never really see. 

 

Do I need to know the intricacies of Beren and Lúthien to understand Aragorn and Arwen? Do I need to know exactly what led Sauron to become the new dark lord after Melkor was defeated?  Do I need to know the hierarchy and geography of Valinor, or the history of the Northern Kingdoms? I've read all of it. I know it, and will never not know it, but I'm not so sure the completed stories we got wouldn't be better off without that level of granular information. Tom Bombadil is fascinating for the things he doesn't say as much as for the things he does. I like it better that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I struggle with the material that was not finished by Tolkien, as it appears to have been a struggle for him, also. I know he expressed some misgivings about publishing the appendices some years after the fact, and yet spent the last 20 years of his life working off-and-on on the Silmarillion. I could maybe stretch to that, but for me, the world building of LotR is given depth by the history we glimpse, but never really see. 

 

Do I need to know the intricacies of Beren and Lúthien to understand Aragorn and Arwen? Do I need to know exactly what led Sauron to become the new dark lord after Melkor was defeated?  Do I need to know the hierarchy and geography of Valinor, or the history of the Northern Kingdoms? I've read all of it. I know it, and will never not know it, but I'm not so sure the completed stories we got wouldn't be better off without that level of granular information. Tom Bombadil is fascinating for the things he doesn't say as much as for the things he does. I like it better that way.

 
Hard disagree. This isn’t George Lucas retconning Star Wars, or even Amazon’s clunky demystification of Middle-Earth. This is Tolkien’s life’s work. The Silmarillion was more important to him than Lord of the Rings.

 

It’s not a question of “need to know”. Anyone who doesn’t wish to delve into the HOMA is free to stop with the narrative fiction (which is admittedly the vast majority of people, including Tolkien fans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

It’s not a question of “need to know”.

Obviously. All fandom is voluntary. I just stated my opinion that I think the novels detailing the end of the Third Age might be better off without all the details about what happened in the First and Second, especially incomplete as they are.

 

Clearly these stories were important to Tolkien. They were the first ones he wrote, and the last ones he worked on, but since you brought it up, I would point out that Star Wars is no less George's life's work, and he finished that story. Ultimately, we make time for the things most important to us.

 

But all of that is beside the point for the opinion I was sharing. If you want to know my reading order:

 

The Hobbit

Lord of the Rings (with appendices)

The Silmarillion (if you really care about Middle Earth enough)

 

The rest I can live without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

 I just stated my opinion that I think the novels detailing the end of the Third Age might be better off without all the details about what happened in the First and Second, especially incomplete as they are.

 

Fair enough. As for me...

 

OAhUzO.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

A nice little touch, by the way: that first scroll that Gandalf draws out before he finds the one he's looking for, is a retelling of Pharazon's story.

 

Nice catch! He is reading ancient Middle-Earth history after all.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher Tolkien addresses the question at hand in an excellent essay given given as the introduction of The Book of Lost Tales. I will offer three brief snippets from the essay (which is worth a read in full):

cjrt1.png

<snip>

cjrt2.png

<snip>

cjrt3.png

He makes the case all the more energetically and joyously in his introduction to Unfinished Tales:

 

cjrt4.png

cjrt5.png

Great stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.