Have you read Tolkien?

Which Tolkien to start with?

Literature shock positions itself. No tolerance for Nazis and fascistsbecause whoever marches next to these assholes is either a Nazi / Fascist himself or a useful puppet of them. There are no other categories.
  • The question is for anyone who does Silmarillion, The lost stories and News from Middle-earth have read.

    I recently got mine The children of Hurin bought and today I was able to News from Middle-earth don't resist.
    Now the whole first chapter is in the news of Hurin and Turin, so I decided to read this first.

    And now my question: hang that Silmarillion and the lost stories also somehow together? In plain English: Doesn't it matter in which order you read them or is it better to start with a certain one?

    Maybe someone knows everyone and can answer my question.


  • In my opinion, it doesn't matter in which order you read the books, but maybe I would have started with the novels (Hobbit, LotR) and not with the "history books", which usually contain nothing more than fragments from the early days and so on . There are always cross-references and references to previous events that you may not be aware of if you haven't read one of the books, but that doesn't matter.

    If you get confused with the chronology, then the Ardapedia or the Encyclopedia by David Day are recommended.

  • @Kringel: Thank you.

    I've already read LotR, I forgot to mention that. I have read The Hobbit at home, but I haven't read it yet.
    Then maybe I'll take it on and let the stories rest for now.


  • I am generally always in favor of following the internal cycle sequence for cycles. as far as tolkien is concerned, however, i understand that it would be problematic for many readers to begin with the legends books about middle earth.

    but since you have already read "the lord of the rings", nothing stands in the way of the chronology. you don't need to have read "the little hobbit" to understand the legends ... especially since the legends "the lord of the rings" seem to be linguistically closer than "the little hobbit".

    as far as "the book of lost stories 1 + 2", "the silmarillion" and "news from middle earth" are concerned, these are collections of stories or fragments in which the same material is available in three different versions (sometimes with huge differentiated), whereby the lost stories represent the earliest and the silmarillion stories represent the final (?) version. (I can't say what about "news from middle-earth" because I don't own the book ...)

    so if you want to understand Tolkien's creative process, you should continue with "the book of lost stories 1 + 2", but if you don't feel like c. Tolkien's remarks, comments, text analyzes, etc. are more likely to recommend "the silmarillion". : smile:

  • eilan blue: I wanted to get the Silmarillion yesterday, but I only saw it in the HC version and that was really too expensive for me. So I took the news from Middle-earth.


  • The Silmarillion has the advantage that the book is complete, i.e. all the stories from earlier ages are present. That is at News from Middle-earth not so. It's more like fragments, Tolkien changed the stories over time and many of them weren't finished either. In this book, many details (and differences from e.g. Silmarillion) clear, and in my opinion it's more for people who really care and want to get "caught up" in details. So if you want to read these histories, maybe it would be better with the Silmarillion to start, then you can immediately see if this style that Tolkien uses here suits you. You also get a good overview, because it covers the entire story from the creation of the world to the 3rd age.


  • Romy: Good, you convinced me. I went to that today news I sniffed it and was once completely at a loss because I really didn't know my way around. So I'll be fine with that Silmarillion to begin.


  • And what about 'The Children of Hurin'?

    Buy * at


    * Promotional / Affiliate Links

    Should you have read one of the legends volumes for this?

  • In my opinion it is not necessaryof having read any other Tolkien before "The Children of Hurin". You understand the book that way.

  • I don't know "The Children of Hurin". But I read the Silmarillion and "The Children of Hurins" are a kind of deepening of the Silmarillion at a certain point. So Hurin's story is told there too, just shortened. I don't want to give you a direct recommendation, Ingroscha, but maybe you can assess it for yourself.
    In any case, have fun reading it!

  • Thank you both. In the meantime I've also done a little research and I'm sure that I'd rather read 'The Children of Hurin' than 'The Silmarillion'.