Sort of. Ummm, he never finished it after it was turned down. When he died it was unfinished and his son had to try and piece things together from various works his father had, along with writing in his own material to cover certain holes here and there. So it's really hard to say that it's a 100% accurate depiction of what he would have wanted, especially when he didn't even write the whole thing. It's kind of a weird deal and a lot of it is fascinating, I just wouldn't quote it as fact when discussing tolkien, it's not a 100% credible source.

Once again, super big fan boy and I can't help myself. The Hobbit was the first book I fell in love with.

It's just a debatable subject, I consider it great and I love learning more about the Tolkien universe. I just think they should have left the Hobbit alone, it had enough depth to stand alone and it didn't need any help from possibly subjective subject matter.

This post was edited by jadeoshbogosh on Feb 16 2014 12:51am

Well, it was his son that finished the work. Using the elder Tolkien's own notes and such to try to complete the work. Obviously, not everything could be exactly as J.R.R. wanted, but it's not like some complete rando compiled the Silmarillion 50 years later or smt.

Also, LOTR > Hobbit

come at me bro

(edit: talking about the books, haven't seen all the hobbit flicks yet)

This post was edited by hATemOnkEy on Feb 16 2014 12:53am

I totally understand why so many people view it as Tolkien law, I really do. I haven't read anything from the Silmarillion since I was like fucking 14 and I really do need to go reread it. I just remember how baffled I was in the interview that Stephen Colbert did with Peter Jackson and how Jackson knew shit all about anything besides the very very basics of the LOTR/Hobbit and nothing about the Silmarillion. So it's kind of laughable that he felt the need to add so much "filler" from a book he wasn't even well-versed in.

That's your opinion man , I found the Return of the King boring as fuck and that kind of killed it for me. I think I read the Hobbit for the first time when I was like 8 and it's what made me fall in love with reading. I'll always have a place in my heart for it and it just sucks to see (in my eyes) someone not doing it full justice. The movies are still entertaining but they don't follow anymore than the skeleton of the plot, every scene has been changed and the added filler makes me sigh heavily. I probably haven't read the LOTR trilogy since I was 15 or 16 though, I'll reread those soon as well, maybe I'll enjoy them more this time around.

This post was edited by jadeoshbogosh on Feb 16 2014 01:00am

Read LOTR first, Hobbit about a year later.

Think I was around 12-13 at the time. Dunno, Hobbit always came across as a kids book to me. (Doesn't make it bad, but yeah...)

Just placed an order on Amazon for the Silmarillion lol, I'm very excited to read through it again. I would probably feel the same way had I read through LOTR first, kinda hard to have any ill feelings towards the first really good book you've read.

Good talk though, nice to see someone on here actually knows a little bit about Tolkien .

Wasn't the first good book I've read.

Come from reading family. Basically been born with my nose in a book.

Dunno that much about Tolkien tbh


Also, yeah. Not every discussion has to turn into an e-peen waving contest.

You're an idiot.

Why do you even bother posting? You never have any idea what you're talking about. Not once have you made a legitimate argument on ANY thread in this sub, who do you possibly think you're fooling?

Don't bother - I've already tried with this guy, he's a wiki warrior

Like I said, you're an idiot mate.