?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Fellowship of the Rings

When people reread this thing, do they skip "Concerning Hobbits" or what?

Comments

( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
csbermack
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:05 pm (UTC)
I don't reread it. If I did, I'd probably read all that stuff, but I'd be annoyed by its presence.
gospog
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:10 pm (UTC)
Having the movies has kept me from re-reading them. Even before the movies, it was slow going and life is short. ;)
dcltdw
Sep. 3rd, 2008 08:12 pm (UTC)
The Man, he speaks Truth.
willtruncheon
Sep. 3rd, 2008 08:34 pm (UTC)
Preach it, brother.
trysha
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:19 pm (UTC)
Nope - but..
Well, i skipped it when re-reading it, but I have the audio books.

I've "re-read" the unabridged lord of the rings about 8 times now since getting them.

Audio Books + iPod = <3
purpletentacle
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:27 pm (UTC)
I attempted reading it for the first time in college.

I started screaming at the pages because I was tired of the hobbits taking breaks for naps and perpetual lunch breaks on the onset of their 'quest'.

I didn't even get to Bree before I intentionally lost the book.
nakor
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:36 pm (UTC)
No, it matters. If "Holbytla" has evolved into "Hobbit," then you can puzzle out other Rohirrim-derived words. Lord of the Rings exists as an epic about the change of the age, as a story of the redemption of the world, and as a linguistics puzzle.
nakor
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:37 pm (UTC)
And, of course, it started as a fairy story. "Concerning Hobbits" exists in the same thread as Tom Bombadil, as far as I can tell. And the songs. If you skip Concerning Hobbits, you'll skip all the songs.
tirianmal
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC)
Urm ... maybe? Depends on how I feel.

I definitely don't skip Tom Bombadil. There's some classic stuff in there. :-P

If you're going to skip the slow parts, you might as well skip a lot of the Two Towers (the marshes and trudging through the mountains with Frodo and Sam), and quite a bit of the Lord of the Rings too. But that would ruin the story, wouldn't it? Ok, maybe not.
mjperson
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:57 pm (UTC)
I never skip the whole section, but I admit I glaze a little these days when I get to Bombadil. Then again, I've read everything he's had to say several times, railing against him, and the author on many occasions, and just taking it in on others.

By the N'th reread of anything, it's no longer a matter of which parts are you actually reading as much as it's which parts are you remembering reading before as the words pass before you.
mathhobbit
Sep. 3rd, 2008 10:05 pm (UTC)
"Concerning Hobbits" beats the pants off "A Long Awaited Party". But yeah, there's some slow bits.
outerjenise
Sep. 4th, 2008 01:23 am (UTC)
I read it all, the whole blessed thing, from end to end, because the language is so beautiful. I reread the entire LOTR about once a year. I need to get a hardback copy of the Hobbit, too. The Silmarillion is slow enough going that I only reread it about once every five years or so. Hmm... I'm about due again. I think I last read it when I was pregnant with Annelise.
kvarko
Sep. 4th, 2008 03:44 am (UTC)
Let's find out ... ah-one, ah-two, ah-three -- CRUNCH! Three.

(Sorry, I've never read LotR and, given how slowly I read, the concept of *re*-reading a book is beyond my comprehension. There'll never be enough time to read enough books *once*.)

shaggy_man
Sep. 4th, 2008 05:20 pm (UTC)
I'm curious: do you never listen to the same song twice, either?
kvarko
Sep. 5th, 2008 02:17 am (UTC)
If a song took me a month to a year to listen to, then yeah I would probably avoid listening to a song more than once.

A movie is a closer analogy, but even then it's still not anywhere close in terms of amount time required to experience it. But it does start to show signs of being similar, as I would rather see a new movie than one I've seen.

( 15 comments — Leave a comment )