Enjay
ASK ME ABOUT FOOTBALL / STEAM / DEAD CELEBRITIES / THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT

Posts: 6093
Registered: 12-00 |
geekmarine said:
Depending on the special editions, this might actually be a case where it takes longer to watch the movies than it does to read the book. Not even kidding there, I think I can read the Hobbit from cover to cover in the span of 9 hours.
Heh, you have a point there. In fact, if you've read it once, you can probably skim-read it in the space of a long afternoon.
neubejiita said:
I have just bought the book of The Hobbit and I will just read that instead of bothering with the movie. I am loving it so far. And it was only 14.95, so I could not turn it down.
I know that the target audience of The Hobbit is a much younger one than for The Lord of the Rings, but I have always found the Hobbit a nicely rendered, approachable and easy to read book that manages to stay entertaining even for an adult reader. The Lord of the Rings, however, has always been a dry, inaccessible slog to get through IMO that reads like Tolkein was showing off his skill as an English professor as much as he was trying to get the story across (but it's a joy compared to The Silmarillion). Don't get me wrong, LotR has a great, epic story and the depth of imagination and completeness is astounding but the presentation is too "academic" for my tastes. Someone said earlier that the films are better than the books. I don't know if I would go for that 100% but I'm not sure that I disagree either. I think I enjoyed both the films and the BBC radio plays more than I did the books.
|