I did. And I think it is because I found Frodo extremely boring. There were some good parts here and there, but Tolkien seemed to ramble on (just like Led Zeppelin) with all of the poetry. I thought the Hobbit was much more entertaining with more likable characters.
The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are kind of two different entities in terms of writing. The Hobbit was the first of any of the Middle-earth books Tolkien ever wrote, I think, and had a whimsical, even cheeky tone that the trilogy lacks. Though the events of the book are often serious, they are told in a much more light-hearted way. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, heavy journey with little humor---perhaps because of Tolkien himself or just the nature of the story. I can't say that I like one over the other, because they take on different roles for me. It's been a while since I read the LotR series, so I can't say for sure, but I know he was not the funny, entertaining character Bilbo was in The Hobbit.
I read The Hobbit, and honestly, it wasn't that great.The Lord of the Rings is one of my favorite books of all time, and I'm not sure why the Hobbit is considered so great.
I love them both. I'd like to say I love them equally, but deep down I know I loved the Trilogy more. The Simarillion was an interesting book, but it almost felt as if you were reading a history book or the bible at times.
I like The Hobbit more, possibly for- as has been stated- its whimsical nature (and, personally, more engaging protagonist).
the hobbit is a fable or kid's book. the LOTR books are adult or young-adult books. the silmarilian is an adult or scholar's book. that's the basic situation. personally i like the hobbit for a straight-ahead 'comfort' read. but it's quickly over. it's just a moist little delicacy- an appetizer before the long heavy meal of the other books.
I can't get through the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I loved The Hobbit, and then started the trilogy, but after Frodo spent like 100 pages in some forest with dancing trees or something I gave up.
The Hobbit. No question. I think this is because I first read LOTR at way too young an age. I carried the grudge with me up until today, apparently.
Actual book: The Hobbit Storyline: LOTR There is just something in his writing style that made it really hard for me to get any mental picture out of LOTR. It took me at least three tries before I made it all the way through the trilogy.
I liked Hobbit better. LOTR was to... peaceful. dark riders are coming after you Frodo! let's sing a song and pick mushrooms! the books had too many unneeded things.
I loved them both for completly diffrent reasons. Tolkien (sorry I have to add my 2 cents) was amazingly brilliant. Anyone, no matter what they write, can only hope to be half the writer he was. He created 3 of his own unique languages that can now be taught as a side in university courses. Oh and The Hobbit was not his first piece. Yes it was his first published story surrounding middle earth but during World War One he was writing parts of "The Silmarillion" in a notepad he kept with his kit. Lord of the Rings is much darker, but just as good!
Honestly, the trilogy dominates over the Hobbit. The Hobbit is a great little peice to pick up for a quick read, but the trilogy reaches those in depth character areas that I really look for. Also since we're throwing the Silmarillion into the mix, I find it to be an excellent read. Some of the most epic Tolkien battles are placed with that book. Though some parts were ungodly slow, I still enjoyed the history of his world displayed here.
ME TOO! I got through the Hobbit so quickly, but couldn't freaking get past page 50 or something of Fellowship. The Hobbit was just so much easier to read, and LOTR is too detailed and slow and generally blah (for me, anyways) to get through. Hobbit all the way.
I loved THE HOBBIT, but I find it profoundly different than the LOTR's. Like noted, The Hobbit possessed a more whimsical nature while the LOTR's bears a darker, dismall quality. I appreciate the LOTR's slightly more than the Hobbit for its epic nature, but I find it somewhat difficult to compare the two even though they are by the same author an exist within the same fictional world.
Put it this way, I got through The Hobbit, whereas I only made it to the second book in the trilogy. There's really only one reason for that. I'm not knocking the trilogy because it is a fine story but I felt a lot of the writing was too heavy. For instance, even though it could be argued that the story is as much about the world as anything else, the description bogged it down for me. That's it really. As for which is the better story though, I would have to say the trilogy wins. Really, The Hobbit is a child's version of the quest and isn't as deep.
I doubt I will add anything new to this thread, but I will chime in. The Hobbit and LotR seem almost to take place in the same world only by chance. The Hobbit, as most here have mentioned, is light reading. There is no axe being grinded here. Not so with LotR. I’m sure anyone who has studied a bit on Tolkien and why he wrote these books knows that there were several axe-grindings going on at the same time. This can leave a reader feeling a bit clobbered. But I think if you know this going in, the trilogy is a ridiculously amazing read. Is it telling me a political story related to the reality of Great Britain at the time? Yes. Is it telling me a religious story verging on proselytizing? Yes. And let’s not forget that Tolkien felt that Great Britain, through multiple conquests, had been robed of her Great Epic Tale, which is so much a part of the cultures of the northern countries of Europe. None of this detracts from the overall mastery that was shown in the writing. At least not for me.
I can't really decide between the two. I first read the trilogy in the third grade and actually understood everything (i had a super high reading comprehension, i guess). I then read the Hobbit afterwards and I enjoyed it too, but not as much. At my age it was fun trying to solve the riddles and such, but now it's just a book that I read for pleasure and a lighter toned book.
Hobbit was ten times a better read than the LOTR. I love the silly antics and crazy things that happen. "What's in my pocket?" Is the best riddle ever!
I didn't mind the hobbit, but lord of the rings was the worse book(trililogy) I ever read. I fail to see what people find interesting about it.
