Poor Bilbo Baggins! An unassuming and rather plump hobbit (as most of these small, furry-footed people tend to be ), Baggins finds himself unwittingly drawn into adventure by a wizard named Gandalf and 13 dwarves bound for the Lonely Mountain, where a dragon named Smaug hordes a stolen treasure. Before he knows what is happening, Baggins finds himself on the road to danger. Wizards, dwarves and dragons may seem the stuff of children's fairy tales, but The Hobbit is in a class of its own--light-hearted enough for younger readers, yet with a dark edge guaranteed to intrigue an older audience. In the best tradition of the archetypal hero's quest, Bilbo Baggins sets out on his fateful journey a callow, untested soul and returns--tempered by hardship, danger and loss--a better man--er, hobbit.

This book is the predecessor to Tolkien's masterpiece, The Lord of the Rings, and though that trilogy can be thoroughly enjoyed without first reading The Hobbit, much that happens in the later novels is foreshadowed here. A word of caution, however: as Bilbo discovers early on, travel and adventure are addictive things; embark on this journey to the Lonely Mountain with Tolkien's reluctant hero, and you might not be able to stop there. And the road taken to the distant mountains of Mordor in the ensuing trilogy is an even more perilous one.

60 years before LOTR................, 20 Dec 2008
Well, i picked this book up and i couldent put it down. Thats how good this bok is. Like i said it is set 60 years before the Lord of the rings trilogy. It follows a young (ish) hobbit called Bilbo Baggins on an adventure with a Wizard called Gandalf and 12 Dwarves. They have assigned Bilbo Baggins as burgular (sorry for the spelling) and they have to go to the cave where Smaug lives, a fire-breathing dragon, and steal the treasures which he guards. I am not going to give any more away but i would reccomend this book to anyone. As J.R.R Tolkien wrote this as a passage for his Grandchildren, it isnt as hard to read as people say. Im 11 and i just truthely couldent put this book down. Saying that, it is no way a childrens book as i may have accidently put across. If you love fantasy then this is the all time book of fantasy. Also, bear in mind that when J.R.R Tolkien wrote this, there were no such things as elves and dwarves ect.... so he invented them all. Just bear that in mind as you read this book.

this is a good book but it is for kids, 27 Oct 2008
jrr Tolkien wrote this book for his children. if you are expecting more lord of the rings just be mindfull that this is a kids book it does tell you alot about bilbo and how he found the ring. i like it and i am going to read it to my children. you cant give this book one star because it was not what YOU expected

Read it to your children or just before you start the Lord of the Rings , 18 Aug 2008
This book was a very ancient candidate on my "to read list" and I always planned to read it just before the Lord of the Rings. So far, things have worked out and I have started Lord of the Rings the same afternoon I finished the Hobbit.

I don't think I would enjoy Lord of the Rings as much as I do, had I not read the Hobbit just beforehand. The Hobbit really provides the reader with a lot of background information, which is an advantage when you get started with the trilogy.

Nevertheless, I still feel that, as a stand - alone story, the Hobbit is a book aimed at children. Tolkien's fluid writing style and the way in which he addresses his readers, often gave me the impression that the author was right next to me, lecturing about hobbits in a style suitable for primary school children. The Hobbit is thus the perfect book to read to your children before bedtime or even one of the first novels they might read themselves.

When evaluating the Hobbit as a prelude to Lord of the Rings, things look a little bit different. Currently reading Lord of the Rings, I am thankful to have followed the chronological path, as the Hobbit prepares the setting for Lord of the Rings, in which Tolkien has adapted his very scholarly writing style to an audience of grown ups.

Apart from the obvious highlights of the story, i.e. Bilbo's encounter with Gollum, The Hobbit, even though the plot was neat and perfectly paced, sometimes felt dragging as the story meanders from one perilous situation to another. However, the aspect I enjoyed most was the author's typically English humour, which often shines through when Bilbo interacts with the other characters.

A stand-alone classic, 16 Aug 2008
A children's classic, but the beginning of a world created by the author. The Hobbit introduces the reader to the mystical land of Middle Earth. A stand-alone classic, The Hobbit is also the prequel to the mighty Lord of the Rings and does not fail to impress...

A good story for children and grown-ups, too, 05 May 2008
"The Hobbit" was published in 1937 for the first time, and it was because of it that "The Lord of the Rings" came into existence. It's funny and entertaining, and it shows Bilbo Baggins' most important adventure of his life in an appealing manner. One should clearly understand that this book was at first intended for Tolkien's own children, and only later was published. One should therefore not expect the powerful and often deadly serious narrative of "LotR". As a trivial example, Sauron is not named in "The Hobbit", but appears under the name "the Necromancer", and is of no importance other than keeping Gandalf away from the party of Dwarves for a while, thus allowing for more breath-taking adventures.

I recommend this book if you are parents of young children (Rayner Unwin, the first reviewer, was 10 when he approved for it and convinced his father to print it), since it is an easy reading, that can develop a taste for Tolkien and deeper novels, such as "LotR" or "The Silmarillion". Also, if you've read "LotR", give "The Hobbit" a try - it's not at all a bad story.

For those who have not read Tolkien's epic fantasy, or for those looking to replace a worn and battered copy, this three-volume The Lord of the Rings box set is a great place to start. Comprising the three novels that make up the Lord of the Rings sequence--The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King--the whole set is presented in matching matt black packaging with embossed runes and coloured rings. Of course, beneath the fancy covers lies a great epic story of good versus evil, perhaps one of the greatest stories ever told. Attractively presented--and at a great price--there really is no excuse not to have this in your collection. So go on, give it a try; once you've entered Tolkien's fantastic imagination, you'll find it hard to leave. --Jonathan Weir

60 years before LOTR................, 20 Dec 2008
Well, i picked this book up and i couldent put it down. Thats how good this bok is. Like i said it is set 60 years before the Lord of the rings trilogy. It follows a young (ish) hobbit called Bilbo Baggins on an adventure with a Wizard called Gandalf and 12 Dwarves. They have assigned Bilbo Baggins as burgular (sorry for the spelling) and they have to go to the cave where Smaug lives, a fire-breathing dragon, and steal the treasures which he guards. I am not going to give any more away but i would reccomend this book to anyone. As J.R.R Tolkien wrote this as a passage for his Grandchildren, it isnt as hard to read as people say. Im 11 and i just truthely couldent put this book down. Saying that, it is no way a childrens book as i may have accidently put across. If you love fantasy then this is the all time book of fantasy. Also, bear in mind that when J.R.R Tolkien wrote this, there were no such things as elves and dwarves ect.... so he invented them all. Just bear that in mind as you read this book.

this is a good book but it is for kids, 27 Oct 2008
jrr Tolkien wrote this book for his children. if you are expecting more lord of the rings just be mindfull that this is a kids book it does tell you alot about bilbo and how he found the ring. i like it and i am going to read it to my children. you cant give this book one star because it was not what YOU expected

Read it to your children or just before you start the Lord of the Rings , 18 Aug 2008
This book was a very ancient candidate on my "to read list" and I always planned to read it just before the Lord of the Rings. So far, things have worked out and I have started Lord of the Rings the same afternoon I finished the Hobbit.

I don't think I would enjoy Lord of the Rings as much as I do, had I not read the Hobbit just beforehand. The Hobbit really provides the reader with a lot of background information, which is an advantage when you get started with the trilogy.

Nevertheless, I still feel that, as a stand - alone story, the Hobbit is a book aimed at children. Tolkien's fluid writing style and the way in which he addresses his readers, often gave me the impression that the author was right next to me, lecturing about hobbits in a style suitable for primary school children. The Hobbit is thus the perfect book to read to your children before bedtime or even one of the first novels they might read themselves.

When evaluating the Hobbit as a prelude to Lord of the Rings, things look a little bit different. Currently reading Lord of the Rings, I am thankful to have followed the chronological path, as the Hobbit prepares the setting for Lord of the Rings, in which Tolkien has adapted his very scholarly writing style to an audience of grown ups.

Apart from the obvious highlights of the story, i.e. Bilbo's encounter with Gollum, The Hobbit, even though the plot was neat and perfectly paced, sometimes felt dragging as the story meanders from one perilous situation to another. However, the aspect I enjoyed most was the author's typically English humour, which often shines through when Bilbo interacts with the other characters.

A stand-alone classic, 16 Aug 2008
A children's classic, but the beginning of a world created by the author. The Hobbit introduces the reader to the mystical land of Middle Earth. A stand-alone classic, The Hobbit is also the prequel to the mighty Lord of the Rings and does not fail to impress...

A good story for children and grown-ups, too, 05 May 2008
"The Hobbit" was published in 1937 for the first time, and it was because of it that "The Lord of the Rings" came into existence. It's funny and entertaining, and it shows Bilbo Baggins' most important adventure of his life in an appealing manner. One should clearly understand that this book was at first intended for Tolkien's own children, and only later was published. One should therefore not expect the powerful and often deadly serious narrative of "LotR". As a trivial example, Sauron is not named in "The Hobbit", but appears under the name "the Necromancer", and is of no importance other than keeping Gandalf away from the party of Dwarves for a while, thus allowing for more breath-taking adventures.

I recommend this book if you are parents of young children (Rayner Unwin, the first reviewer, was 10 when he approved for it and convinced his father to print it), since it is an easy reading, that can develop a taste for Tolkien and deeper novels, such as "LotR" or "The Silmarillion". Also, if you've read "LotR", give "The Hobbit" a try - it's not at all a bad story.

This is not a novel in the modern sense, 03 Jan 2009
To all the people who've given this a low mark, and all seem to have the same gripe with it - you all fail to understand that this is not a novel in the sense we've come to understand as a fantasy novel these days, so it's not fair to judge it as such.
Tolkien was not a career author, he didn't set out to write a searing page-turner, a wizzbang tale of derring-do in 500 sizzling chapters. Gandalf doesn't hurl raging fireballs at enemies, Aragorn doesn't have a sex scene with Arwen while doing Eowyn behind her back, there's no pandering to the lowest common denominator to flog a few more copies.
Tolkien barely cared if no one ever read it. He was writing it largely for himself and his friends and family.
You're all guilty of confusing the result of Tolkien's legacy and influence (virtually every other fantasy novel, movie or game) with his actual work, and expecting to see in the father what you've seen in his unruly children.

Judge it for what it is, not for what you wanted it to be as a modern fantasy reader.

So over-rated it hurts, 30 Sep 2008
I think my problem with this book(/s) is that I didn't read it when I was a child. If I had done, I may have loved it like I did Star Wars or appreciated the world it creates like I now accept that the World of Warcraft universe is impressive in its size and scope.
As it is, I can't get over how thoroughly mediocre the whole thing is. People talk about it as an epic but what is epic about it other than its incredible length? People talk about the life lessons you can learn from it or its universal themes of good and bad. Really? Are we ever given even the tiniest shred of motivation for any of the characters? Is it ever explained to us why the 'good' characters are good or why the 'evil' ones are evil?
I challenge any one of this books millions of fans to find a single person who read this after the age of 25 and liked it. Or to re-read it themselves without the rose-tinted spectacles of their childhood and explain to me why it is in any way more impressive, inventive or rewarding than most of todays fantasy computer games. These too create whole worlds with plenty of maps and creatures and races and fights and quests and so on, usually with more to their story than: "Walk for 1400 pages then throw a ring into some lava" but none of these are every held up as the ultimate examples of literature.
Like "The DaVinci Code", this book is cited as a masterpiece only by people who simply haven't read enough other books to know better.

shockingly bad, 09 Sep 2008
This is the single most apallingly overrated nonsense I have ever had my displeasure to read. It starts badly (there never is a plausible reason given why the hobbits set off on this ridiculously dangerous adventure) and just gets worse. The descriptions are turgid, the characterisation unbelievable and the use of language frighteningly dull.

Truth is I have never managed to get past the first of the three books that make up this shockfest. I have always got to the point where the hobbits enter the elvish forest and thrown (yes physically thrown) the book across the room. When I say always I must confess that I have attempted to read this thing three times and always come to the same conclusion - it is too bad to be worthy of my time.

Four points: first I am not afraid to read lengthy novels as I completed Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers" and Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" this year and found both amazing. Also I am not some bigot opposed to children's literature, "Pinnochio" and "The Little Prince" are delightful and speak more to the human condition than Tolkein ever could. I also found "The Hobbit" to be a near perfect fantasy novel whose characters I could easily empathise with. Finally I delight in fairy tales and recognise the importance of the Elvish folk in some cultures. The truth is this is just badly written nonsense best ignored while you realise there is more magic in "Moby Dick" than in some tale about a magic ring.

DON'T DELUDE YOURSELF: THIS IS A BOOK FOR KIDS, 14 Aug 2008
A promising start and then the sheer, tiresome old-skool epic-ness of the thing soon drags things down to a trudge, just before you start screaming to yourself, 'Will anybody actually die in this bleeding thing - especially one or all of those flipping hobbits?'

Too much 'destined-for-greatness', 'goodness-of-the-soul' saccharinity(?). A couple of stars for the scope of the imagination, but none for suspenseful storytelling and the like.

A challenge, but well worth the effort., 22 Apr 2008
This book is a challenge. This is what puts many people off it the first time they open it, especially if they have already seen the movie. The point is, this is not just easy entertainment, like the film was. Yes, they tried in places to put a philosophical gloss on, but took great care to explain this to anyone watching, just in case they missed it.

Yes, there are great long descriptive passages, but they are there for a reason. We are so used to having images presented to us that we no longer seem to find description necessary. This is a pity, because if you give him a chance, Tolkien is one of the best descriptive writers I know. We cannot explore all the detail in a single reading, just as we cannot see all the detail in a good painting in a single quick viewing. The only way to sink yourself into this world is to let the author describe it to you, there would be no point in him writing this book if everyone could just think up their own equally valid version.

The greatest thing about the Lord of the Rings is, like all great art, the fact that we cannot understand and see all in a single reading. People reread it many times, because each new reading reveals something that went unnoticed before. The immense complexity of the characters cannot be shown in a quick and easy way, employed by many fantasy writers of cheap Tolkien-spinoffs, simply by stating something like 'Tom was a very sensitive boy. Having been bullied by his schoolmates, he was constantly on the alert.. blablabla'. Tolkien understood, unlike many of these other authors, that only a very complex combination of deeds, words and thoughts can reveal who and what someone truly is.

If you do struggle reading this, and I can imagine that as I didn't manage to finish it the first time I read it, I strongly recommend an audio book. This may look like cheating as you can simply let it run, and then claim to have read it all. I firmly believe (without reading any experts on this, so I may be eating these words at some later date) that Tolkien was thinking of the great epic poems from the past while writing this. Poems from a completely oral culture. When this is read aloud by a good actor, trees and places appear before your eyes. Passages which may seem dull if you try to tackle them on your own suddenly flow past effortlessly, with your imagination free from fetters to picture the scene.

I don't think this review will ever be read by many people, this has been more of a rant for me than anything else. I do hope more people will be able to find their way to Middle Earth, simply by giving it another chance. It really is worth the effort to see your way past slightly older language than you may be accustomed to, and a style so radically different from usual. But that is something all great art has as well: a unique style, and this work should not be disregarded simply because we are not used to it.

60 years before LOTR................, 20 Dec 2008
Well, i picked this book up and i couldent put it down. Thats how good this bok is. Like i said it is set 60 years before the Lord of the rings trilogy. It follows a young (ish) hobbit called Bilbo Baggins on an adventure with a Wizard called Gandalf and 12 Dwarves. They have assigned Bilbo Baggins as burgular (sorry for the spelling) and they have to go to the cave where Smaug lives, a fire-breathing dragon, and steal the treasures which he guards. I am not going to give any more away but i would reccomend this book to anyone. As J.R.R Tolkien wrote this as a passage for his Grandchildren, it isnt as hard to read as people say. Im 11 and i just truthely couldent put this book down. Saying that, it is no way a childrens book as i may have accidently put across. If you love fantasy then this is the all time book of fantasy. Also, bear in mind that when J.R.R Tolkien wrote this, there were no such things as elves and dwarves ect.... so he invented them all. Just bear that in mind as you read this book.

this is a good book but it is for kids, 27 Oct 2008
jrr Tolkien wrote this book for his children. if you are expecting more lord of the rings just be mindfull that this is a kids book it does tell you alot about bilbo and how he found the ring. i like it and i am going to read it to my children. you cant give this book one star because it was not what YOU expected

Read it to your children or just before you start the Lord of the Rings , 18 Aug 2008
This book was a very ancient candidate on my "to read list" and I always planned to read it just before the Lord of the Rings. So far, things have worked out and I have started Lord of the Rings the same afternoon I finished the Hobbit.

I don't think I would enjoy Lord of the Rings as much as I do, had I not read the Hobbit just beforehand. The Hobbit really provides the reader with a lot of background information, which is an advantage when you get started with the trilogy.

Nevertheless, I still feel that, as a stand - alone story, the Hobbit is a book aimed at children. Tolkien's fluid writing style and the way in which he addresses his readers, often gave me the impression that the author was right next to me, lecturing about hobbits in a style suitable for primary school children. The Hobbit is thus the perfect book to read to your children before bedtime or even one of the first novels they might read themselves.

When evaluating the Hobbit as a prelude to Lord of the Rings, things look a little bit different. Currently reading Lord of the Rings, I am thankful to have followed the chronological path, as the Hobbit prepares the setting for Lord of the Rings, in which Tolkien has adapted his very scholarly writing style to an audience of grown ups.

Apart from the obvious highlights of the story, i.e. Bilbo's encounter with Gollum, The Hobbit, even though the plot was neat and perfectly paced, sometimes felt dragging as the story meanders from one perilous situation to another. However, the aspect I enjoyed most was the author's typically English humour, which often shines through when Bilbo interacts with the other characters.

A stand-alone classic, 16 Aug 2008
A children's classic, but the beginning of a world created by the author. The Hobbit introduces the reader to the mystical land of Middle Earth. A stand-alone classic, The Hobbit is also the prequel to the mighty Lord of the Rings and does not fail to impress...

A good story for children and grown-ups, too, 05 May 2008
"The Hobbit" was published in 1937 for the first time, and it was because of it that "The Lord of the Rings" came into existence. It's funny and entertaining, and it shows Bilbo Baggins' most important adventure of his life in an appealing manner. One should clearly understand that this book was at first intended for Tolkien's own children, and only later was published. One should therefore not expect the powerful and often deadly serious narrative of "LotR". As a trivial example, Sauron is not named in "The Hobbit", but appears under the name "the Necromancer", and is of no importance other than keeping Gandalf away from the party of Dwarves for a while, thus allowing for more breath-taking adventures.

I recommend this book if you are parents of young children (Rayner Unwin, the first reviewer, was 10 when he approved for it and convinced his father to print it), since it is an easy reading, that can develop a taste for Tolkien and deeper novels, such as "LotR" or "The Silmarillion". Also, if you've read "LotR", give "The Hobbit" a try - it's not at all a bad story.

This is not a novel in the modern sense, 03 Jan 2009
To all the people who've given this a low mark, and all seem to have the same gripe with it - you all fail to understand that this is not a novel in the sense we've come to understand as a fantasy novel these days, so it's not fair to judge it as such.
Tolkien was not a career author, he didn't set out to write a searing page-turner, a wizzbang tale of derring-do in 500 sizzling chapters. Gandalf doesn't hurl raging fireballs at enemies, Aragorn doesn't have a sex scene with Arwen while doing Eowyn behind her back, there's no pandering to the lowest common denominator to flog a few more copies.
Tolkien barely cared if no one ever read it. He was writing it largely for himself and his friends and family.
You're all guilty of confusing the result of Tolkien's legacy and influence (virtually every other fantasy novel, movie or game) with his actual work, and expecting to see in the father what you've seen in his unruly children.

Judge it for what it is, not for what you wanted it to be as a modern fantasy reader.

So over-rated it hurts, 30 Sep 2008
I think my problem with this book(/s) is that I didn't read it when I was a child. If I had done, I may have loved it like I did Star Wars or appreciated the world it creates like I now accept that the World of Warcraft universe is impressive in its size and scope.
As it is, I can't get over how thoroughly mediocre the whole thing is. People talk about it as an epic but what is epic about it other than its incredible length? People talk about the life lessons you can learn from it or its universal themes of good and bad. Really? Are we ever given even the tiniest shred of motivation for any of the characters? Is it ever explained to us why the 'good' characters are good or why the 'evil' ones are evil?
I challenge any one of this books millions of fans to find a single person who read this after the age of 25 and liked it. Or to re-read it themselves without the rose-tinted spectacles of their childhood and explain to me why it is in any way more impressive, inventive or rewarding than most of todays fantasy computer games. These too create whole worlds with plenty of maps and creatures and races and fights and quests and so on, usually with more to their story than: "Walk for 1400 pages then throw a ring into some lava" but none of these are every held up as the ultimate examples of literature.
Like "The DaVinci Code", this book is cited as a masterpiece only by people who simply haven't read enough other books to know better.

shockingly bad, 09 Sep 2008
This is the single most apallingly overrated nonsense I have ever had my displeasure to read. It starts badly (there never is a plausible reason given why the hobbits set off on this ridiculously dangerous adventure) and just gets worse. The descriptions are turgid, the characterisation unbelievable and the use of language frighteningly dull.

Truth is I have never managed to get past the first of the three books that make up this shockfest. I have always got to the point where the hobbits enter the elvish forest and thrown (yes physically thrown) the book across the room. When I say always I must confess that I have attempted to read this thing three times and always come to the same conclusion - it is too bad to be worthy of my time.

Four points: first I am not afraid to read lengthy novels as I completed Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers" and Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" this year and found both amazing. Also I am not some bigot opposed to children's literature, "Pinnochio" and "The Little Prince" are delightful and speak more to the human condition than Tolkein ever could. I also found "The Hobbit" to be a near perfect fantasy novel whose characters I could easily empathise with. Finally I delight in fairy tales and recognise the importance of the Elvish folk in some cultures. The truth is this is just badly written nonsense best ignored while you realise there is more magic in "Moby Dick" than in some tale about a magic ring.

DON'T DELUDE YOURSELF: THIS IS A BOOK FOR KIDS, 14 Aug 2008
A promising start and then the sheer, tiresome old-skool epic-ness of the thing soon drags things down to a trudge, just before you start screaming to yourself, 'Will anybody actually die in this bleeding thing - especially one or all of those flipping hobbits?'

Too much 'destined-for-greatness', 'goodness-of-the-soul' saccharinity(?). A couple of stars for the scope of the imagination, but none for suspenseful storytelling and the like.

A challenge, but well worth the effort., 22 Apr 2008
This book is a challenge. This is what puts many people off it the first time they open it, especially if they have already seen the movie. The point is, this is not just easy entertainment, like the film was. Yes, they tried in places to put a philosophical gloss on, but took great care to explain this to anyone watching, just in case they missed it.

Yes, there are great long descriptive passages, but they are there for a reason. We are so used to having images presented to us that we no longer seem to find description necessary. This is a pity, because if you give him a chance, Tolkien is one of the best descriptive writers I know. We cannot explore all the detail in a single reading, just as we cannot see all the detail in a good painting in a single quick viewing. The only way to sink yourself into this world is to let the author describe it to you, there would be no point in him writing this book if everyone could just think up their own equally valid version.

The greatest thing about the Lord of the Rings is, like all great art, the fact that we cannot understand and see all in a single reading. People reread it many times, because each new reading reveals something that went unnoticed before. The immense complexity of the characters cannot be shown in a quick and easy way, employed by many fantasy writers of cheap Tolkien-spinoffs, simply by stating something like 'Tom was a very sensitive boy. Having been bullied by his schoolmates, he was constantly on the alert.. blablabla'. Tolkien understood, unlike many of these other authors, that only a very complex combination of deeds, words and thoughts can reveal who and what someone truly is.

If you do struggle reading this, and I can imagine that as I didn't manage to finish it the first time I read it, I strongly recommend an audio book. This may look like cheating as you can simply let it run, and then claim to have read it all. I firmly believe (without reading any experts on this, so I may be eating these words at some later date) that Tolkien was thinking of the great epic poems from the past while writing this. Poems from a completely oral culture. When this is read aloud by a good actor, trees and places appear before your eyes. Passages which may seem dull if you try to tackle them on your own suddenly flow past effortlessly, with your imagination free from fetters to picture the scene.

I don't think this review will ever be read by many people, this has been more of a rant for me than anything else. I do hope more people will be able to find their way to Middle Earth, simply by giving it another chance. It really is worth the effort to see your way past slightly older language than you may be accustomed to, and a style so radically different from usual. But that is something all great art has as well: a unique style, and this work should not be disregarded simply because we are not used to it.

Correcting Christopher Tolkien's problems with other published works, 06 Jan 2009
The problem for me with all the posthumously published works of JRR Tolkien is that they have been plagued by two major problems.

Initially the two items first out of the traps - the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales - both suffered from a lack of faith from the publishers. In consequence, they were a mish-mash of material collected in an ad hoc kind of way. Elements of JRRT's background material in the former volume have chunks taken out (for brevity, I would guess) which then appear in Unfinished Tales (in an "Oh - and on his way to Gondolin, Tuor did such-and-such" kind of way). So lack of faith by the original publishers resulted in two, 'bitty' incoherent volumes. So that's problem number one.

But then things got much worse... These problems were then compounded by Christopher Tolkien with his determined effort to garner every single, interminable scraping from his fathers rubbish bins into extra volumes of material - much of which his father had already rejected and which add almost nothing to the overall story and background. And yet - infuriatingly - each of the add on volumes justifies its existence by including the odd nugget, the occasional gem.

Years ago I said to anyone that would listen who was a fan of JRRT's work that what was needed was a separate series of books with the stories and topics collected together properly from ALL of the source material but (and here's the important bit) in a non contradictory way and with some story telling cohesion. Sure if Christopher had to add a few "and then he" type bridging sentences, I largely don't care. If the meat's there, I'll chew through the odd bit of connecting gristle...

So - with that in mind - what should be done (I usually say) is for Christopher Tolkien to produce several volumes called (for example)

Ainulindale
Valar Quenta
Quenta Silmarillion
Akallabeth
The Rings of Power and the Third Age
The Fourth Age
Other stories and Histories
Lays of Beleriand etc etc

That kind of thing.

And each of those volumes should contain coherent, non-contradictory material culled from ALL of the other works - everything from the LotR indexes to The Book of Lost Tales, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Lost road... everything that can be made to fit.

And - just when I think no one listens (which I know that they don't, but...) what happens? The Children of Hurin happens. And it's exactly what was needed, I believe: CoH is an assembled, proper 'story' made from components that JRRT actually wrote. I don't care if it was assembled, Frankenstein's monster style and stuck together with sticky tape, it works as a good read and that's the important bit.

All Christopher needs to do is lots more of the same. Stop treating his fathers every scratching as the Dead Sea Scrolls and start ordering it and republishing the best material in such a way as to correct the publishing gaffs he's made with the rest of his father's legacy to english literature.

If he did it properly - like Children of Hurin - I'd buy the lot.

Again...

It's all been said before, 21 Oct 2008
The story has been told, and the critics have spoken!

This is a book that both Tolkien fans and others can very well do without.
It is simple, dull and absolutely not engaging. I was extremely disappointed.

re-hashing for profit, 21 Sep 2008
if you already have "unfinished tales" then you already own this book , give or take a few editorial tweaks......Tolkien is become a rip-off industry

Unreadable, 30 Aug 2008
Okay, I've read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and thought they were fantastic, but this was just terrible. I couldn't get past the first chapter. The prose is dreadful "so and so (unpronouncable name) "was the son of so-and so" (another unpronouncable name) "decended from so-and so" (again unprnouncable) - you get the idea. Just unreadable, turgid rubbish. You'll need the patience of a saint to get through this. Really, life's too short to waste on this ponderous bore-a-thon. Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!

Not Your Father's Hurin, 24 Aug 2008
This is a tale of unrelenting tragedy. Drawn from the history of the First Age of Middle-earth, it tells of how Morgoth, the original Dark Lord to whom Sauron was but a lieutenant, wreaked appalling vengeance upon the family of the man Hurin, chiefly for his refusal to betray a great hidden city of the elves who were his allies. Readers acquainted with the story from a more summary version published three decades earlier in THE SILMARILLION will have some idea what to expect. They will also understand the part these events ultimately did play in the fall of virtually every elven kingdom in the vast land of Beleriand before it sank beneath the sea, still millennia prior to the events recounted in THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

This new telling, however, differs from the former in at least two respects. First and most obvious, it greatly develops the details so that we come to know the doomed players more intimately, better appreciating both their flaws and their virtues, and thus feeling the tragedy more personally when it manifests itself in turn after turn of their lives.

Second and perhaps more subtle is what this version leaves out. THE SILMARILLION continued the story further, revealing later events which, while not negating these present disasters, at least mitigated them somewhat, suggesting that evil's triumph was indeed only for a season. (There were also poignant touches, such as the extraordinary future of a certain gravesite, which lent a melancholy beauty to the sorrow.) Here, however, Christopher Tolkien, the author's son and editor, chooses to end the tale at a point which before had occurred in mid-paragraph. When I first glanced through HURIN and then reacquainted myself with the earlier publication, I seriously questioned this decision.

It has been said that part of Shakespeare's genius in writing his own tragedies was his choice to abstain from moralization. Rarely did the Bard attempt to explain a character's fate in terms of what he or she ought to have done, or of some divine wisdom which, if glimpsed, might explain or even vindicate the suffering. Shakespeare simply showed tragedy with all the seemingly pointless capriciousness of real life, and left it to his audience to speculate further.

Tolkien was not Shakespeare, however. While even THE HOBBIT and LOTR are haunted by melancholy and a sense of loss, Tolkien believed in a transcendent Sovereignty and argued eloquently for some element in such tales which, however faintly, foreshadowed a distant 'Eucatastrophe' (i.e., happy ending) to come, 'giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.' By cutting off the story of Hurin's family where he does, Christopher denies it that consolation.

Having said this, I must make a confession: When I had read HURIN through properly from the beginning and came again to the final two pages, I broke down and sobbed. The same juncture had had no such impact on me in THE SILMARILLION. I may prefer the elder Tolkien's tempering of tragedy with hope and question the philosophical implications of ending this story so abruptly; yet I can not deny that doing so made the bitterness of that end immeasurably more powerful. For a moment I FELT the despair of those who had endured such relentless doom, who left the world knowing nothing of some vaguely conceived consolation in the far future. While that moment lasted, for me their suffering had become very real.

If there is, as Tolkien believed, a 'Joy beyond the walls of the world', the heartbreaking fact remains that there are those who live and die and, for any number of reasons, fail utterly to apprehend it. Consolation may be, yet some are never consoled. THE CHILDREN OF HURIN is not a pleasant book, yet it captures something of the seeming futility in which so many souls have passed through the world. At the least, it reminds those who find and live in hope not to grow callous toward those who are cheated of it.

60 years before LOTR................, 20 Dec 2008
Well, i picked this book up and i couldent put it down. Thats how good this bok is. Like i said it is set 60 years before the Lord of the rings trilogy. It follows a young (ish) hobbit called Bilbo Baggins on an adventure with a Wizard called Gandalf and 12 Dwarves. They have assigned Bilbo Baggins as burgular (sorry for the spelling) and they have to go to the cave where Smaug lives, a fire-breathing dragon, and steal the treasures which he guards. I am not going to give any more away but i would reccomend this book to anyone. As J.R.R Tolkien wrote this as a passage for his Grandchildren, it isnt as hard to read as people say. Im 11 and i just truthely couldent put this book down. Saying that, it is no way a childrens book as i may have accidently put across. If you love fantasy then this is the all time book of fantasy. Also, bear in mind that when J.R.R Tolkien wrote this, there were no such things as elves and dwarves ect.... so he invented them all. Just bear that in mind as you read this book.

this is a good book but it is for kids, 27 Oct 2008
jrr Tolkien wrote this book for his children. if you are expecting more lord of the rings just be mindfull that this is a kids book it does tell you alot about bilbo and how he found the ring. i like it and i am going to read it to my children. you cant give this book one star because it was not what YOU expected

Read it to your children or just before you start the Lord of the Rings , 18 Aug 2008
This book was a very ancient candidate on my "to read list" and I always planned to read it just before the Lord of the Rings. So far, things have worked out and I have started Lord of the Rings the same afternoon I finished the Hobbit.

I don't think I would enjoy Lord of the Rings as much as I do, had I not read the Hobbit just beforehand. The Hobbit really provides the reader with a lot of background information, which is an advantage when you get started with the trilogy.

Nevertheless, I still feel that, as a stand - alone story, the Hobbit is a book aimed at children. Tolkien's fluid writing style and the way in which he addresses his readers, often gave me the impression that the author was right next to me, lecturing about hobbits in a style suitable for primary school children. The Hobbit is thus the perfect book to read to your children before bedtime or even one of the first novels they might read themselves.

When evaluating the Hobbit as a prelude to Lord of the Rings, things look a little bit different. Currently reading Lord of the Rings, I am thankful to have followed the chronological path, as the Hobbit prepares the setting for Lord of the Rings, in which Tolkien has adapted his very scholarly writing style to an audience of grown ups.

Apart from the obvious highlights of the story, i.e. Bilbo's encounter with Gollum, The Hobbit, even though the plot was neat and perfectly paced, sometimes felt dragging as the story meanders from one perilous situation to another. However, the aspect I enjoyed most was the author's typically English humour, which often shines through when Bilbo interacts with the other characters.

A stand-alone classic, 16 Aug 2008
A children's classic, but the beginning of a world created by the author. The Hobbit introduces the reader to the mystical land of Middle Earth. A stand-alone classic, The Hobbit is also the prequel to the mighty Lord of the Rings and does not fail to impress...

A good story for children and grown-ups, too, 05 May 2008
"The Hobbit" was published in 1937 for the first time, and it was because of it that "The Lord of the Rings" came into existence. It's funny and entertaining, and it shows Bilbo Baggins' most important adventure of his life in an appealing manner. One should clearly understand that this book was at first intended for Tolkien's own children, and only later was published. One should therefore not expect the powerful and often deadly serious narrative of "LotR". As a trivial example, Sauron is not named in "The Hobbit", but appears under the name "the Necromancer", and is of no importance other than keeping Gandalf away from the party of Dwarves for a while, thus allowing for more breath-taking adventures.

I recommend this book if you are parents of young children (Rayner Unwin, the first reviewer, was 10 when he approved for it and convinced his father to print it), since it is an easy reading, that can develop a taste for Tolkien and deeper novels, such as "LotR" or "The Silmarillion". Also, if you've read "LotR", give "The Hobbit" a try - it's not at all a bad story.

This is not a novel in the modern sense, 03 Jan 2009
To all the people who've given this a low mark, and all seem to have the same gripe with it - you all fail to understand that this is not a novel in the sense we've come to understand as a fantasy novel these days, so it's not fair to judge it as such.
Tolkien was not a career author, he didn't set out to write a searing page-turner, a wizzbang tale of derring-do in 500 sizzling chapters. Gandalf doesn't hurl raging fireballs at enemies, Aragorn doesn't have a sex scene with Arwen while doing Eowyn behind her back, there's no pandering to the lowest common denominator to flog a few more copies.
Tolkien barely cared if no one ever read it. He was writing it largely for himself and his friends and family.
You're all guilty of confusing the result of Tolkien's legacy and influence (virtually every other fantasy novel, movie or game) with his actual work, and expecting to see in the father what you've seen in his unruly children.

Judge it for what it is, not for what you wanted it to be as a modern fantasy reader.

So over-rated it hurts, 30 Sep 2008
I think my problem with this book(/s) is that I didn't read it when I was a child. If I had done, I may have loved it like I did Star Wars or appreciated the world it creates like I now accept that the World of Warcraft universe is impressive in its size and scope.
As it is, I can't get over how thoroughly mediocre the whole thing is. People talk about it as an epic but what is epic about it other than its incredible length? People talk about the life lessons you can learn from it or its universal themes of good and bad. Really? Are we ever given even the tiniest shred of motivation for any of the characters? Is it ever explained to us why the 'good' characters are good or why the 'evil' ones are evil?
I challenge any one of this books millions of fans to find a single person who read this after the age of 25 and liked it. Or to re-read it themselves without the rose-tinted spectacles of their childhood and explain to me why it is in any way more impressive, inventive or rewarding than most of todays fantasy computer games. These too create whole worlds with plenty of maps and creatures and races and fights and quests and so on, usually with more to their story than: "Walk for 1400 pages then throw a ring into some lava" but none of these are every held up as the ultimate examples of literature.
Like "The DaVinci Code", this book is cited as a masterpiece only by people who simply haven't read enough other books to know better.

shockingly bad, 09 Sep 2008
This is the single most apallingly overrated nonsense I have ever had my displeasure to read. It starts badly (there never is a plausible reason given why the hobbits set off on this ridiculously dangerous adventure) and just gets worse. The descriptions are turgid, the characterisation unbelievable and the use of language frighteningly dull.

Truth is I have never managed to get past the first of the three books that make up this shockfest. I have always got to the point where the hobbits enter the elvish forest and thrown (yes physically thrown) the book across the room. When I say always I must confess that I have attempted to read this thing three times and always come to the same conclusion - it is too bad to be worthy of my time.

Four points: first I am not afraid to read lengthy novels as I completed Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers" and Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" this year and found both amazing. Also I am not some bigot opposed to children's literature, "Pinnochio" and "The Little Prince" are delightful and speak more to the human condition than Tolkein ever could. I also found "The Hobbit" to be a near perfect fantasy novel whose characters I could easily empathise with. Finally I delight in fairy tales and recognise the importance of the Elvish folk in some cultures. The truth is this is just badly written nonsense best ignored while you realise there is more magic in "Moby Dick" than in some tale about a magic ring.

DON'T DELUDE YOURSELF: THIS IS A BOOK FOR KIDS, 14 Aug 2008
A promising start and then the sheer, tiresome old-skool epic-ness of the thing soon drags things down to a trudge, just before you start screaming to yourself, 'Will anybody actually die in this bleeding thing - especially one or all of those flipping hobbits?'

Too much 'destined-for-greatness', 'goodness-of-the-soul' saccharinity(?). A couple of stars for the scope of the imagination, but none for suspenseful storytelling and the like.

A challenge, but well worth the effort., 22 Apr 2008
This book is a challenge. This is what puts many people off it the first time they open it, especially if they have already seen the movie. The point is, this is not just easy entertainment, like the film was. Yes, they tried in places to put a philosophical gloss on, but took great care to explain this to anyone watching, just in case they missed it.

Yes, there are great long descriptive passages, but they are there for a reason. We are so used to having images presented to us that we no longer seem to find description necessary. This is a pity, because if you give him a chance, Tolkien is one of the best descriptive writers I know. We cannot explore all the detail in a single reading, just as we cannot see all the detail in a good painting in a single quick viewing. The only way to sink yourself into this world is to let the author describe it to you, there would be no point in him writing this book if everyone could just think up their own equally valid version.

The greatest thing about the Lord of the Rings is, like all great art, the fact that we cannot understand and see all in a single reading. People reread it many times, because each new reading reveals something that went unnoticed before. The immense complexity of the characters cannot be shown in a quick and easy way, employed by many fantasy writers of cheap Tolkien-spinoffs, simply by stating something like 'Tom was a very sensitive boy. Having been bullied by his schoolmates, he was constantly on the alert.. blablabla'. Tolkien understood, unlike many of these other authors, that only a very complex combination of deeds, words and thoughts can reveal who and what someone truly is.

If you do struggle reading this, and I can imagine that as I didn't manage to finish it the first time I read it, I strongly recommend an audio book. This may look like cheating as you can simply let it run, and then claim to have read it all. I firmly believe (without reading any experts on this, so I may be eating these words at some later date) that Tolkien was thinking of the great epic poems from the past while writing this. Poems from a completely oral culture. When this is read aloud by a good actor, trees and places appear before your eyes. Passages which may seem dull if you try to tackle them on your own suddenly flow past effortlessly, with your imagination free from fetters to picture the scene.

I don't think this review will ever be read by many people, this has been more of a rant for me than anything else. I do hope more people will be able to find their way to Middle Earth, simply by giving it another chance. It really is worth the effort to see your way past slightly older language than you may be accustomed to, and a style so radically different from usual. But that is something all great art has as well: a unique style, and this work should not be disregarded simply because we are not used to it.

Correcting Christopher Tolkien's problems with other published works, 06 Jan 2009
The problem for me with all the posthumously published works of JRR Tolkien is that they have been plagued by two major problems.

Initially the two items first out of the traps - the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales - both suffered from a lack of faith from the publishers. In consequence, they were a mish-mash of material collected in an ad hoc kind of way. Elements of JRRT's background material in the former volume have chunks taken out (for brevity, I would guess) which then appear in Unfinished Tales (in an "Oh - and on his way to Gondolin, Tuor did such-and-such" kind of way). So lack of faith by the original publishers resulted in two, 'bitty' incoherent volumes. So that's problem number one.

But then things got much worse... These problems were then compounded by Christopher Tolkien with his determined effort to garner every single, interminable scraping from his fathers rubbish bins into extra volumes of material - much of which his father had already rejected and which add almost nothing to the overall story and background. And yet - infuriatingly - each of the add on volumes justifies its existence by including the odd nugget, the occasional gem.

Years ago I said to anyone that would listen who was a fan of JRRT's work that what was needed was a separate series of books with the stories and topics collected together properly from ALL of the source material but (and here's the important bit) in a non contradictory way and with some story telling cohesion. Sure if Christopher had to add a few "and then he" type bridging sentences, I largely don't care. If the meat's there, I'll chew through the odd bit of connecting gristle...

So - with that in mind - what should be done (I usually say) is for Christopher Tolkien to produce several volumes called (for example)

Ainulindale
Valar Quenta
Quenta Silmarillion
Akallabeth
The Rings of Power and the Third Age
The Fourth Age
Other stories and Histories
Lays of Beleriand etc etc

That kind of thing.

And each of those volumes should contain coherent, non-contradictory material culled from ALL of the other works - everything from the LotR indexes to The Book of Lost Tales, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Lost road... everything that can be made to fit.

And - just when I think no one listens (which I know that they don't, but...) what happens? The Children of Hurin happens. And it's exactly what was needed, I believe: CoH is an assembled, proper 'story' made from components that JRRT actually wrote. I don't care if it was assembled, Frankenstein's monster style and stuck together with sticky tape, it works as a good read and that's the important bit.

All Christopher needs to do is lots more of the same. Stop treating his fathers every scratching as the Dead Sea Scrolls and start ordering it and republishing the best material in such a way as to correct the publishing gaffs he's made with the rest of his father's legacy to english literature.

If he did it properly - like Children of Hurin - I'd buy the lot.

Again...

It's all been said before, 21 Oct 2008
The story has been told, and the critics have spoken!

This is a book that both Tolkien fans and others can very well do without.
It is simple, dull and absolutely not engaging. I was extremely disappointed.

re-hashing for profit, 21 Sep 2008
if you already have "unfinished tales" then you already own this book , give or take a few editorial tweaks......Tolkien is become a rip-off industry

Unreadable, 30 Aug 2008
Okay, I've read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and thought they were fantastic, but this was just terrible. I couldn't get past the first chapter. The prose is dreadful "so and so (unpronouncable name) "was the son of so-and so" (another unpronouncable name) "decended from so-and so" (again unprnouncable) - you get the idea. Just unreadable, turgid rubbish. You'll need the patience of a saint to get through this. Really, life's too short to waste on this ponderous bore-a-thon. Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!

Not Your Father's Hurin, 24 Aug 2008
This is a tale of unrelenting tragedy. Drawn from the history of the First Age of Middle-earth, it tells of how Morgoth, the original Dark Lord to whom Sauron was but a lieutenant, wreaked appalling vengeance upon the family of the man Hurin, chiefly for his refusal to betray a great hidden city of the elves who were his allies. Readers acquainted with the story from a more summary version published three decades earlier in THE SILMARILLION will have some idea what to expect. They will also understand the part these events ultimately did play in the fall of virtually every elven kingdom in the vast land of Beleriand before it sank beneath the sea, still millennia prior to the events recounted in THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

This new telling, however, differs from the former in at least two respects. First and most obvious, it greatly develops the details so that we come to know the doomed players more intimately, better appreciating both their flaws and their virtues, and thus feeling the tragedy more personally when it manifests itself in turn after turn of their lives.

Second and perhaps more subtle is what this version leaves out. THE SILMARILLION continued the story further, revealing later events which, while not negating these present disasters, at least mitigated them somewhat, suggesting that evil's triumph was indeed only for a season. (There were also poignant touches, such as the extraordinary future of a certain gravesite, which lent a melancholy beauty to the sorrow.) Here, however, Christopher Tolkien, the author's son and editor, chooses to end the tale at a point which before had occurred in mid-paragraph. When I first glanced through HURIN and then reacquainted myself with the earlier publication, I seriously questioned this decision.

It has been said that part of Shakespeare's genius in writing his own tragedies was his choice to abstain from moralization. Rarely did the Bard attempt to explain a character's fate in terms of what he or she ought to have done, or of some divine wisdom which, if glimpsed, might explain or even vindicate the suffering. Shakespeare simply showed tragedy with all the seemingly pointless capriciousness of real life, and left it to his audience to speculate further.

Tolkien was not Shakespeare, however. While even THE HOBBIT and LOTR are haunted by melancholy and a sense of loss, Tolkien believed in a transcendent Sovereignty and argued eloquently for some element in such tales which, however faintly, foreshadowed a distant 'Eucatastrophe' (i.e., happy ending) to come, 'giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.' By cutting off the story of Hurin's family where he does, Christopher denies it that consolation.

Having said this, I must make a confession: When I had read HURIN through properly from the beginning and came again to the final two pages, I broke down and sobbed. The same juncture had had no such impact on me in THE SILMARILLION. I may prefer the elder Tolkien's tempering of tragedy with hope and question the philosophical implications of ending this story so abruptly; yet I can not deny that doing so made the bitterness of that end immeasurably more powerful. For a moment I FELT the despair of those who had endured such relentless doom, who left the world knowing nothing of some vaguely conceived consolation in the far future. While that moment lasted, for me their suffering had become very real.

If there is, as Tolkien believed, a 'Joy beyond the walls of the world', the heartbreaking fact remains that there are those who live and die and, for any number of reasons, fail utterly to apprehend it. Consolation may be, yet some are never consoled. THE CHILDREN OF HURIN is not a pleasant book, yet it captures something of the seeming futility in which so many souls have passed through the world. At the least, it reminds those who find and live in hope not to grow callous toward those who are cheated of it.

Glorious!, 21 Nov 2008
A glorious, faithful, moving dramatisation of the complete Lord of The Rings trilogy, with inspired casting and superb music. Very faithful to the book: it omits only the Tom Bombadil section, and retains all major scenes albeit in shortened form. I particularly appreciated that the adapters were careful to retain the integrity of each of Tolkien's characters and tell the story in chronological order.

This fine production is enhanced by the inspired voice casting, especially in the principal roles. The pronunciation used is quite 'Queen's English', which might come as a bit of a shock if you're expecting it to be as modern-day as the Peter Jackson films, but in fact the voices fit very well with the formality of Tolkien's original dialogue and they sound exactly right. Especially wonderful are Bill Nighy as the irrepressible and doughty Samwise, Peter Woodthorpe as hissing gangrel Gollum, Michael Horden as wise and stern Gandalf, Peter Howell as the traitorous Saruman and Andrew Sear as gentle Faramir. Initally I thought that Robert Stephens' Aragorn was a little too regal-sounding, but as the story progressed I appreciated just how fine his voice was to portray the proud and patient Future King. I also liked Gerard Murphy's quiet and solemn narration. By the end of the production the only voice that sounded out of place to me was that of the rather slack-vowelled announcer who reads each book's closing credits.

With 13 hours of audio I felt that nothing had been skipped in the telling, and that sufficient time had been given to each of the interweaving tales. The dramatisation is enthralling throughout, and in places so moving and atmospheric that the hairs rose on the back of my neck. 'The Paths of The Dead' is a particular favourite - very spooky!

Personally I also loved Stephen Oliver's music (except, perhaps, for the discordant song of the Eagles!). There are beautiful and memorable tracks interspersed throughout the drama and I appreciated having the extra CD of his complete musical score - though I'd have preferred if they'd included Bill Nighy's simple, unaccompanied version of the haunting 'Gil-galad was an Elven King' that was used in the production.

All in all an excellent buy and very good value for money, especially since I've already listened to the whole boxset several times in the 6 weeks since I bought it. (A brilliant accompaniment to redecorating!) These characters and their glorious tale are now very dear to me, thanks to this splendid production. It's even prompted me to re-read Tolkien's novels and rediscover the story again in its original form.


WORTH THE MONEY - LET YOUR IMAGINATION RUN RIOT!!, 05 Jun 2008
There's no getting away from the fact this is pricey but it's worth it!
It's VERY atmospheric with really strong performances from an all British cast. It's NOT an audio book ! There is a central narrator, but every character has it's own individual performance/actor, there are some fantastic (& never cheesy!) Sound FX and subtle uses of suitably grand, orchestral pieces. I certainly can't imagine much better on the Radio back in 1981 - the WHOLE tale fom start to finish!
The beauty of this is that you can indulge your imagination. Definiteley one for a hot bath & the lights out! It's inevitable that comparisons will be made with the Movie trilogy & it is impossible to prevent Peter Jackson's wonderful images occasionally seeping into the mind's eye but this was made nearly two decades before and is it's own beast. I enjoyed the somewhat flawed (and incomplete!) 1978 animated feature but this is better. It cannot be as spectacular as Jackson's films but it's just, if not MORE, faithful and is as enjoyable in it's own manner. The Mines Of Moria is a particular treat - you can almost FEEL the Dark around you!
Standout performances: Michael Hordern as Gandalf & Robert Stephens as Aragorn. Peter Woodthorpe also returns to voice the slimy Gollum as he did in Ralph Bakshi's movie.
An essential for all Tolkien/Fantasy fans.
Incidentally, if you also like rock/metal, I would recommend an Austrian symphonic metal band called Summoning. These guys are MASSIVE Tolkien addicts and base their music around Middle Earth. It's harsh and dark at times but also grandiose & epic. They use samples from the PJ movies & this BBC radio dramatisation, and are really good IF you like music that's on the extreme side ala Dimmu Borgir.

Amazing, well crafted dramatization of a first class tale, 04 Apr 2008
When I first received this gift, and a fantastic gift it was, I was curious at how the BBC was going to approach such a long and complicated novel. By fears were founded on nothing. The acting is simply superb and although made many years ago, it still sounds fresh and new to this very day. LIstening to this audiobook brings you directly into the world of the Lord of the Rings and leaves your heart racing throughout.

I recommend this for long car journeys and any fan of the LotR franchise

This is it - the First full version to appear on radio., 09 Sep 2007
This is the CD collection of the wonderful BBC Radio adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. I remember tuning in every week to listen to the next installment, and wishing that they were longer! I loved it then; I loved it when it became available on cassettes and I love it now on CD.
I first read Lord of the Rings as I entered my teens. Then I struggled with the pronuciation of the names and the Sindarian quotes. But I read it, re-read it and continue to re-read it to this day more than 40 years down the road. These books are rightly famous and this radio epic has achieved its own status. It was the 'First'. The characterisation was wonderful then and even managed to enter the wonderful triology by Peter Jackson in the person of Ian Holm.
Of necessity this, like the films that followed, was an 'abridged' version. Hardly surprising given the length of the books. The pictures are, of course, better on radio than on any screen and I found myself enjoying anew the tale as told by the Beeb.
Long may they continue to turn out drama of this quality!

yet to be bettered, 06 Jul 2004
The great glory of literature is that the reader can develop their own vision of the author's world; this is, of course, also the great glory of radio. Rather than spoon-feed an audience with the director's own imagination, you stimulate theirs, and so enrich the whole experience.

This production of Lord of the Rings is no exception. Whilst I do enjoy Peter Jackson's films, there are of course areas where I feel he has it completely wrong (almost inevitable given the length and depth of the books): compressing distances and times, over-enthusiastic editing of the "slower movements" and expansion of the action, insertion of some (stupefyingly silly) plot lines (which detracted from the story rather than adding to it) and a general "dumbing down" of Tolkein's masterpiece. Whilst the BBC has edited certain sections (the main omission being the Old Forest/Tom Bombadil), they have been more faithful to the overall feel of Tolkein's world and the themes running through the books, and they certainly haven't fallen into the traps which snared Jackson: namely, underestimating your audience and catering for the lowest common denominator.

This production provides superb acting (the casting was inspired), ground-breaking sound effects and a directorial pacing which drives the narrative at an engaging rate whilst allowing the story and characters to breathe. I first heard it during its second airing when I was around 10 years old, having recently read the books. This edition is of course slightly different from the original broadcast, with each episode shorn of it's "top and tail" necessary for broadcast, but with added narration from Ian Holme. Whilst I am not convinced that his addition enhances the production, it does not detract, and the lack of the half-hourly cast list certainly improves the listening experience.

On balance I feel this is the better version to listen to than the original production, although it would benefit from the original boxing/maps rather than the less atttractive generic packaging that it comes in now. Perhaps the BBC will revert to the old style- here's hoping!

I would certainly recommend this, both to those who have only seen the films, and to those who have "only" read the books.

Oh, and by the way. Peter Jackson DID hear this before he made the films. I only wish he's taken a little more notice. The pictures are always better on the radio.

Although The Silmarillion takes place in the same imaginary world as J.J.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, and was originally published four years after the author's death and over two decades after the former book, it is set much earlier, in the First Age of the World. The tales and the book which reads as a fusion between a story collection and historical chronicle, are a matter of legend even to the characters of The Lord of the Rings:

In the beginning Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Ilúvatar, made the Ainur of his thought; and they made a great Music before him

Tolkien wrote the heart of this material very early in his career, and continued to work on it throughout his life. It fell to his son, Christopher Tolkien, to edit it into book form, and such proved the unquenchable public appetite that he subsequently oversaw 12 volumes of The History of Middle-Earth. This edition features 20 highly evocative colour plates by Ted Nasmith, themselves worth the price of admission, while reinforcing the sense of a historical work are genealogical tables, an extensive index, appendix and colour map. Far removed from the genial style of The Hobbit, this is Tolkien at his most formal, his prose austere, poetically beautiful, his storytelling capturing the epic scale, high drama and melancholy wonder of myth. These stories of elves and heroes and old gods are quite literally the foundation of the entire modern fantasy-publishing revival, and are therefore essential reading. --Gary S. DalkinJRR Tolkien is best known for The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings but those who thought these two wonderful adventures marked the height of his imagination have many more delights to come. The Silmarillion represents the source of Tolkien's later work and follows the events of the First Age of Middle Earth. For information, The Lord Of The Rings concerns the end of the Third Age.

The Silmarillion is a gloriously realised story of rebellion, exile, war and the heroism of elves and men. But to gain an insight into the staggering complexity of Tolkien's world, however, the shorter works also included are must-reads. Dealing with the myth of creation, the nature of the Gods, the fall of Númenor and the Rings of Power, they paint a vivid picture not only of Middle Earth but also of the author's soaring imagination.

Tolkien was born of English parents in Bloemfontein, South Africa, in 1892 and died in England in 1973. He worked on The Silmarillion from as early as 1917 but the work was not published until after his death. This edition, richly illustrated by Ted Nasmith, is both collector's item and source of reference and fascination for every follower of Tolkien. --James Barclay

60 years before LOTR................, 20 Dec 2008
Well, i picked this book up and i couldent put it down. Thats how good this bok is. Like i said it is set 60 years before the Lord of the rings trilogy. It follows a young (ish) hobbit called Bilbo Baggins on an adventure with a Wizard called Gandalf and 12 Dwarves. They have assigned Bilbo Baggins as burgular (sorry for the spelling) and they have to go to the cave where Smaug lives, a fire-breathing dragon, and steal the treasures which he guards. I am not going to give any more away but i would reccomend this book to anyone. As J.R.R Tolkien wrote this as a passage for his Grandchildren, it isnt as hard to read as people say. Im 11 and i just truthely couldent put this book down. Saying that, it is no way a childrens book as i may have accidently put across. If you love fantasy then this is the all time book of fantasy. Also, bear in mind that when J.R.R Tolkien wrote this, there were no such things as elves and dwarves ect.... so he invented them all. Just bear that in mind as you read this book.

this is a good book but it is for kids, 27 Oct 2008
jrr Tolkien wrote this book for his children. if you are expecting more lord of the rings just be mindfull that this is a kids book it does tell you alot about bilbo and how he found the ring. i like it and i am going to read it to my children. you cant give this book one star because it was not what YOU expected

Read it to your children or just before you start the Lord of the Rings , 18 Aug 2008
This book was a very ancient candidate on my "to read list" and I always planned to read it just before the Lord of the Rings. So far, things have worked out and I have started Lord of the Rings the same afternoon I finished the Hobbit.

I don't think I would enjoy Lord of the Rings as much as I do, had I not read the Hobbit just beforehand. The Hobbit really provides the reader with a lot of background information, which is an advantage when you get started with the trilogy.

Nevertheless, I still feel that, as a stand - alone story, the Hobbit is a book aimed at children. Tolkien's fluid writing style and the way in which he addresses his readers, often gave me the impression that the author was right next to me, lecturing about hobbits in a style suitable for primary school children. The Hobbit is thus the perfect book to read to your children before bedtime or even one of the first novels they might read themselves.

When evaluating the Hobbit as a prelude to Lord of the Rings, things look a little bit different. Currently reading Lord of the Rings, I am thankful to have followed the chronological path, as the Hobbit prepares the setting for Lord of the Rings, in which Tolkien has adapted his very scholarly writing style to an audience of grown ups.

Apart from the obvious highlights of the story, i.e. Bilbo's encounter with Gollum, The Hobbit, even though the plot was neat and perfectly paced, sometimes felt dragging as the story meanders from one perilous situation to another. However, the aspect I enjoyed most was the author's typically English humour, which often shines through when Bilbo interacts with the other characters.

A stand-alone classic, 16 Aug 2008
A children's classic, but the beginning of a world created by the author. The Hobbit introduces the reader to the mystical land of Middle Earth. A stand-alone classic, The Hobbit is also the prequel to the mighty Lord of the Rings and does not fail to impress...

A good story for children and grown-ups, too, 05 May 2008
"The Hobbit" was published in 1937 for the first time, and it was because of it that "The Lord of the Rings" came into existence. It's funny and entertaining, and it shows Bilbo Baggins' most important adventure of his life in an appealing manner. One should clearly understand that this book was at first intended for Tolkien's own children, and only later was published. One should therefore not expect the powerful and often deadly serious narrative of "LotR". As a trivial example, Sauron is not named in "The Hobbit", but appears under the name "the Necromancer", and is of no importance other than keeping Gandalf away from the party of Dwarves for a while, thus allowing for more breath-taking adventures.

I recommend this book if you are parents of young children (Rayner Unwin, the first reviewer, was 10 when he approved for it and convinced his father to print it), since it is an easy reading, that can develop a taste for Tolkien and deeper novels, such as "LotR" or "The Silmarillion". Also, if you've read "LotR", give "The Hobbit" a try - it's not at all a bad story.

This is not a novel in the modern sense, 03 Jan 2009
To all the people who've given this a low mark, and all seem to have the same gripe with it - you all fail to understand that this is not a novel in the sense we've come to understand as a fantasy novel these days, so it's not fair to judge it as such.
Tolkien was not a career author, he didn't set out to write a searing page-turner, a wizzbang tale of derring-do in 500 sizzling chapters. Gandalf doesn't hurl raging fireballs at enemies, Aragorn doesn't have a sex scene with Arwen while doing Eowyn behind her back, there's no pandering to the lowest common denominator to flog a few more copies.
Tolkien barely cared if no one ever read it. He was writing it largely for himself and his friends and family.
You're all guilty of confusing the result of Tolkien's legacy and influence (virtually every other fantasy novel, movie or game) with his actual work, and expecting to see in the father what you've seen in his unruly children.

Judge it for what it is, not for what you wanted it to be as a modern fantasy reader.

So over-rated it hurts, 30 Sep 2008
I think my problem with this book(/s) is that I didn't read it when I was a child. If I had done, I may have loved it like I did Star Wars or appreciated the world it creates like I now accept that the World of Warcraft universe is impressive in its size and scope.
As it is, I can't get over how thoroughly mediocre the whole thing is. People talk about it as an epic but what is epic about it other than its incredible length? People talk about the life lessons you can learn from it or its universal themes of good and bad. Really? Are we ever given even the tiniest shred of motivation for any of the characters? Is it ever explained to us why the 'good' characters are good or why the 'evil' ones are evil?
I challenge any one of this books millions of fans to find a single person who read this after the age of 25 and liked it. Or to re-read it themselves without the rose-tinted spectacles of their childhood and explain to me why it is in any way more impressive, inventive or rewarding than most of todays fantasy computer games. These too create whole worlds with plenty of maps and creatures and races and fights and quests and so on, usually with more to their story than: "Walk for 1400 pages then throw a ring into some lava" but none of these are every held up as the ultimate examples of literature.
Like "The DaVinci Code", this book is cited as a masterpiece only by people who simply haven't read enough other books to know better.

shockingly bad, 09 Sep 2008
This is the single most apallingly overrated nonsense I have ever had my displeasure to read. It starts badly (there never is a plausible reason given why the hobbits set off on this ridiculously dangerous adventure) and just gets worse. The descriptions are turgid, the characterisation unbelievable and the use of language frighteningly dull.

Truth is I have never managed to get past the first of the three books that make up this shockfest. I have always got to the point where the hobbits enter the elvish forest and thrown (yes physically thrown) the book across the room. When I say always I must confess that I have attempted to read this thing three times and always come to the same conclusion - it is too bad to be worthy of my time.

Four points: first I am not afraid to read lengthy novels as I completed Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers" and Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" this year and found both amazing. Also I am not some bigot opposed to children's literature, "Pinnochio" and "The Little Prince" are delightful and speak more to the human condition than Tolkein ever could. I also found "The Hobbit" to be a near perfect fantasy novel whose characters I could easily empathise with. Finally I delight in fairy tales and recognise the importance of the Elvish folk in some cultures. The truth is this is just badly written nonsense best ignored while you realise there is more magic in "Moby Dick" than in some tale about a magic ring.

DON'T DELUDE YOURSELF: THIS IS A BOOK FOR KIDS, 14 Aug 2008
A promising start and then the sheer, tiresome old-skool epic-ness of the thing soon drags things down to a trudge, just before you start screaming to yourself, 'Will anybody actually die in this bleeding thing - especially one or all of those flipping hobbits?'

Too much 'destined-for-greatness', 'goodness-of-the-soul' saccharinity(?). A couple of stars for the scope of the imagination, but none for suspenseful storytelling and the like.

A challenge, but well worth the effort., 22 Apr 2008
This book is a challenge. This is what puts many people off it the first time they open it, especially if they have already seen the movie. The point is, this is not just easy entertainment, like the film was. Yes, they tried in places to put a philosophical gloss on, but took great care to explain this to anyone watching, just in case they missed it.

Yes, there are great long descriptive passages, but they are there for a reason. We are so used to having images presented to us that we no longer seem to find description necessary. This is a pity, because if you give him a chance, Tolkien is one of the best descriptive writers I know. We cannot explore all the detail in a single reading, just as we cannot see all the detail in a good painting in a single quick viewing. The only way to sink yourself into this world is to let the author describe it to you, there would be no point in him writing this book if everyone could just think up their own equally valid version.

The greatest thing about the Lord of the Rings is, like all great art, the fact that we cannot understand and see all in a single reading. People reread it many times, because each new reading reveals something that went unnoticed before. The immense complexity of the characters cannot be shown in a quick and easy way, employed by many fantasy writers of cheap Tolkien-spinoffs, simply by stating something like 'Tom was a very sensitive boy. Having been bullied by his schoolmates, he was constantly on the alert.. blablabla'. Tolkien understood, unlike many of these other authors, that only a very complex combination of deeds, words and thoughts can reveal who and what someone truly is.

If you do struggle reading this, and I can imagine that as I didn't manage to finish it the first time I read it, I strongly recommend an audio book. This may look like cheating as you can simply let it run, and then claim to have read it all. I firmly believe (without reading any experts on this, so I may be eating these words at some later date) that Tolkien was thinking of the great epic poems from the past while writing this. Poems from a completely oral culture. When this is read aloud by a good actor, trees and places appear before your eyes. Passages which may seem dull if you try to tackle them on your own suddenly flow past effortlessly, with your imagination free from fetters to picture the scene.

I don't think this review will ever be read by many people, this has been more of a rant for me than anything else. I do hope more people will be able to find their way to Middle Earth, simply by giving it another chance. It really is worth the effort to see your way past slightly older language than you may be accustomed to, and a style so radically different from usual. But that is something all great art has as well: a unique style, and this work should not be disregarded simply because we are not used to it.

Correcting Christopher Tolkien's problems with other published works, 06 Jan 2009
The problem for me with all the posthumously published works of JRR Tolkien is that they have been plagued by two major problems.

Initially the two items first out of the traps - the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales - both suffered from a lack of faith from the publishers. In consequence, they were a mish-mash of material collected in an ad hoc kind of way. Elements of JRRT's background material in the former volume have chunks taken out (for brevity, I would guess) which then appear in Unfinished Tales (in an "Oh - and on his way to Gondolin, Tuor did such-and-such" kind of way). So lack of faith by the original publishers resulted in two, 'bitty' incoherent volumes. So that's problem number one.

But then things got much worse... These problems were then compounded by Christopher Tolkien with his determined effort to garner every single, interminable scraping from his fathers rubbish bins into extra volumes of material - much of which his father had already rejected and which add almost nothing to the overall story and background. And yet - infuriatingly - each of the add on volumes justifies its existence by including the odd nugget, the occasional gem.

Years ago I said to anyone that would listen who was a fan of JRRT's work that what was needed was a separate series of books with the stories and topics collected together properly from ALL of the source material but (and here's the important bit) in a non contradictory way and with some story telling cohesion. Sure if Christopher had to add a few "and then he" type bridging sentences, I largely don't care. If the meat's there, I'll chew through the odd bit of connecting gristle...

So - with that in mind - what should be done (I usually say) is for Christopher Tolkien to produce several volumes called (for example)

Ainulindale
Valar Quenta
Quenta Silmarillion
Akallabeth
The Rings of Power and the Third Age
The Fourth Age
Other stories and Histories
Lays of Beleriand etc etc

That kind of thing.

And each of those volumes should contain coherent, non-contradictory material culled from ALL of the other works - everything from the LotR indexes to The Book of Lost Tales, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Lost road... everything that can be made to fit.

And - just when I think no one listens (which I know that they don't, but...) what happens? The Children of Hurin happens. And it's exactly what was needed, I believe: CoH is an assembled, proper 'story' made from components that JRRT actually wrote. I don't care if it was assembled, Frankenstein's monster style and stuck together with sticky tape, it works as a good read and that's the important bit.

All Christopher needs to do is lots more of the same. Stop treating his fathers every scratching as the Dead Sea Scrolls and start ordering it and republishing the best material in such a way as to correct the publishing gaffs he's made with the rest of his father's legacy to english literature.

If he did it properly - like Children of Hurin - I'd buy the lot.

Again...

It's all been said before, 21 Oct 2008
The story has been told, and the critics have spoken!

This is a book that both Tolkien fans and others can very well do without.
It is simple, dull and absolutely not engaging. I was extremely disappointed.

re-hashing for profit, 21 Sep 2008
if you already have "unfinished tales" then you already own this book , give or take a few editorial tweaks......Tolkien is become a rip-off industry

Unreadable, 30 Aug 2008
Okay, I've read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and thought they were fantastic, but this was just terrible. I couldn't get past the first chapter. The prose is dreadful "so and so (unpronouncable name) "was the son of so-and so" (another unpronouncable name) "decended from so-and so" (again unprnouncable) - you get the idea. Just unreadable, turgid rubbish. You'll need the patience of a saint to get through this. Really, life's too short to waste on this ponderous bore-a-thon. Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!

Not Your Father's Hurin, 24 Aug 2008
This is a tale of unrelenting tragedy. Drawn from the history of the First Age of Middle-earth, it tells of how Morgoth, the original Dark Lord to whom Sauron was but a lieutenant, wreaked appalling vengeance upon the family of the man Hurin, chiefly for his refusal to betray a great hidden city of the elves who were his allies. Readers acquainted with the story from a more summary version published three decades earlier in THE SILMARILLION will have some idea what to expect. They will also understand the part these events ultimately did play in the fall of virtually every elven kingdom in the vast land of Beleriand before it sank beneath the sea, still millennia prior to the events recounted in THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

This new telling, however, differs from the former in at least two respects. First and most obvious, it greatly develops the details so that we come to know the doomed players more intimately, better appreciating both their flaws and their virtues, and thus feeling the tragedy more personally when it manifests itself in turn after turn of their lives.

Second and perhaps more subtle is what this version leaves out. THE SILMARILLION continued the story further, revealing later events which, while not negating these present disasters, at least mitigated them somewhat, suggesting that evil's triumph was indeed only for a season. (There were also poignant touches, such as the extraordinary future of a certain gravesite, which lent a melancholy beauty to the sorrow.) Here, however, Christopher Tolkien, the author's son and editor, chooses to end the tale at a point which before had occurred in mid-paragraph. When I first glanced through HURIN and then reacquainted myself with the earlier publication, I seriously questioned this decision.

It has been said that part of Shakespeare's genius in writing his own tragedies was his choice to abstain from moralization. Rarely did the Bard attempt to explain a character's fate in terms of what he or she ought to have done, or of some divine wisdom which, if glimpsed, might explain or even vindicate the suffering. Shakespeare simply showed tragedy with all the seemingly pointless capriciousness of real life, and left it to his audience to speculate further.

Tolkien was not Shakespeare, however. While even THE HOBBIT and LOTR are haunted by melancholy and a sense of loss, Tolkien believed in a transcendent Sovereignty and argued eloquently for some element in such tales which, however faintly, foreshadowed a distant 'Eucatastrophe' (i.e., happy ending) to come, 'giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.' By cutting off the story of Hurin's family where he does, Christopher denies it that consolation.

Having said this, I must make a confession: When I had read HURIN through properly from the beginning and came again to the final two pages, I broke down and sobbed. The same juncture had had no such impact on me in THE SILMARILLION. I may prefer the elder Tolkien's tempering of tragedy with hope and question the philosophical implications of ending this story so abruptly; yet I can not deny that doing so made the bitterness of that end immeasurably more powerful. For a moment I FELT the despair of those who had endured such relentless doom, who left the world knowing nothing of some vaguely conceived consolation in the far future. While that moment lasted, for me their suffering had become very real.

If there is, as Tolkien believed, a 'Joy beyond the walls of the world', the heartbreaking fact remains that there are those who live and die and, for any number of reasons, fail utterly to apprehend it. Consolation may be, yet some are never consoled. THE CHILDREN OF HURIN is not a pleasant book, yet it captures something of the seeming futility in which so many souls have passed through the world. At the least, it reminds those who find and live in hope not to grow callous toward those who are cheated of it.

Glorious!, 21 Nov 2008
A glorious, faithful, moving dramatisation of the complete Lord of The Rings trilogy, with inspired casting and superb music. Very faithful to the book: it omits only the Tom Bombadil section, and retains all major scenes albeit in shortened form. I particularly appreciated that the adapters were careful to retain the integrity of each of Tolkien's characters and tell the story in chronological order.

This fine production is enhanced by the inspired voice casting, especially in the principal roles. The pronunciation used is quite 'Queen's English', which might come as a bit of a shock if you're expecting it to be as modern-day as the Peter Jackson films, but in fact the voices fit very well with the formality of Tolkien's original dialogue and they sound exactly right. Especially wonderful are Bill Nighy as the irrepressible and doughty Samwise, Peter Woodthorpe as hissing gangrel Gollum, Michael Horden as wise and stern Gandalf, Peter Howell as the traitorous Saruman and Andrew Sear as gentle Faramir. Initally I thought that Robert Stephens' Aragorn was a little too regal-sounding, but as the story progressed I appreciated just how fine his voice was to portray the proud and patient Future King. I also liked Gerard Murphy's quiet and solemn narration. By the end of the production the only voice that sounded out of place to me was that of the rather slack-vowelled announcer who reads each book's closing credits.

With 13 hours of audio I felt that nothing had been skipped in the telling, and that sufficient time had been given to each of the interweaving tales. The dramatisation is enthralling throughout, and in places so moving and atmospheric that the hairs rose on the back of my neck. 'The Paths of The Dead' is a particular favourite - very spooky!

Personally I also loved Stephen Oliver's music (except, perhaps, for the discordant song of the Eagles!). There are beautiful and memorable tracks interspersed throughout the drama and I appreciated having the extra CD of his complete musical score - though I'd have preferred if they'd included Bill Nighy's simple, unaccompanied version of the haunting 'Gil-galad was an Elven King' that was used in the production.

All in all an excellent buy and very good value for money, especially since I've already listened to the whole boxset several times in the 6 weeks since I bought it. (A brilliant accompaniment to redecorating!) These characters and their glorious tale are now very dear to me, thanks to this splendid production. It's even prompted me to re-read Tolkien's novels and rediscover the story again in its original form.


WORTH THE MONEY - LET YOUR IMAGINATION RUN RIOT!!, 05 Jun 2008
There's no getting away from the fact this is pricey but it's worth it!
It's VERY atmospheric with really strong performances from an all British cast. It's NOT an audio book ! There is a central narrator, but every character has it's own individual performance/actor, there are some fantastic (& never cheesy!) Sound FX and subtle uses of suitably grand, orchestral pieces. I certainly can't imagine much better on the Radio back in 1981 - the WHOLE tale fom start to finish!
The beauty of this is that you can indulge your imagination. Definiteley one for a hot bath & the lights out! It's inevitable that comparisons will be made with the Movie trilogy & it is impossible to prevent Peter Jackson's wonderful images occasionally seeping into the mind's eye but this was made nearly two decades before and is it's own beast. I enjoyed the somewhat flawed (and incomplete!) 1978 animated feature but this is better. It cannot be as spectacular as Jackson's films but it's just, if not MORE, faithful and is as enjoyable in it's own manner. The Mines Of Moria is a particular treat - you can almost FEEL the Dark around you!
Standout performances: Michael Hordern as Gandalf & Robert Stephens as Aragorn. Peter Woodthorpe also returns to voice the slimy Gollum as he did in Ralph Bakshi's movie.
An essential for all Tolkien/Fantasy fans.
Incidentally, if you also like rock/metal, I would recommend an Austrian symphonic metal band called Summoning. These guys are MASSIVE Tolkien addicts and base their music around Middle Earth. It's harsh and dark at times but also grandiose & epic. They use samples from the PJ movies & this BBC radio dramatisation, and are really good IF you like music that's on the extreme side ala Dimmu Borgir.

Amazing, well crafted dramatization of a first class tale, 04 Apr 2008
When I first received this gift, and a fantastic gift it was, I was curious at how the BBC was going to approach such a long and complicated novel. By fears were founded on nothing. The acting is simply superb and although made many years ago, it still sounds fresh and new to this very day. LIstening to this audiobook brings you directly into the world of the Lord of the Rings and leaves your heart racing throughout.

I recommend this for long car journeys and any fan of the LotR franchise

This is it - the First full version to appear on radio., 09 Sep 2007
This is the CD collection of the wonderful BBC Radio adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. I remember tuning in every week to listen to the next installment, and wishing that they were longer! I loved it then; I loved it when it became available on cassettes and I love it now on CD.
I first read Lord of the Rings as I entered my teens. Then I struggled with the pronuciation of the names and the Sindarian quotes. But I read it, re-read it and continue to re-read it to this day more than 40 years down the road. These books are rightly famous and this radio epic has achieved its own status. It was the 'First'. The characterisation was wonderful then and even managed to enter the wonderful triology by Peter Jackson in the person of Ian Holm.
Of necessity this, like the films that followed, was an 'abridged' version. Hardly surprising given the length of the books. The pictures are, of course, better on radio than on any screen and I found myself enjoying anew the tale as told by the Beeb.
Long may they continue to turn out drama of this quality!

yet to be bettered, 06 Jul 2004
The great glory of literature is that the reader can develop their own vision of the author's world; this is, of course, also the great glory of radio. Rather than spoon-feed an audience with the director's own imagination, you stimulate theirs, and so enrich the whole experience.

This production of Lord of the Rings is no exception. Whilst I do enjoy Peter Jackson's films, there are of course areas where I feel he has it completely wrong (almost inevitable given the length and depth of the books): compressing distances and times, over-enthusiastic editing of the "slower movements" and expansion of the action, insertion of some (stupefyingly silly) plot lines (which detracted from the story rather than adding to it) and a general "dumbing down" of Tolkein's masterpiece. Whilst the BBC has edited certain sections (the main omission being the Old Forest/Tom Bombadil), they have been more faithful to the overall feel of Tolkein's world and the themes running through the books, and they certainly haven't fallen into the traps which snared Jackson: namely, underestimating your audience and catering for the lowest common denominator.

This production provides superb acting (the casting was inspired), ground-breaking sound effects and a directorial pacing which drives the narrative at an engaging rate whilst allowing the story and characters to breathe. I first heard it during its second airing when I was around 10 years old, having recently read the books. This edition is of course slightly different from the original broadcast, with each episode shorn of it's "top and tail" necessary for broadcast, but with added narration from Ian Holme. Whilst I am not convinced that his addition enhances the production, it does not detract, and the lack of the half-hourly cast list certainly improves the listening experience.

On balance I feel this is the better version to listen to than the original production, although it would benefit from the original boxing/maps rather than the less atttractive generic packaging that it comes in now. Perhaps the BBC will revert to the old style- here's hoping!

I would certainly recommend this, both to those who have only seen the films, and to those who have "only" read the books.

Oh, and by the way. Peter Jackson DID hear this before he made the films. I only wish he's taken a little more notice. The pictures are always better on the radio.

This is a truly unreadable book, 25 Nov 2008
I have had this book for about three months, when I bought it I was really looking forward to another Lord of the Rings, or at least