|
Post by Umbrafire on Sept 4, 2005 20:33:36 GMT -5
i thought they were great books, anyone else agree, or possibly disagree?
|
|
|
Post by Vash on Sept 4, 2005 20:42:47 GMT -5
Like I've posted in the movies thread, still reading it.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Sept 4, 2005 20:44:41 GMT -5
what did you think of the first book?
|
|
|
Post by Vash on Sept 4, 2005 20:49:54 GMT -5
It was ok, too slow for me really.
|
|
|
Post by Kagome on Sept 4, 2005 21:01:04 GMT -5
yeah I didn't read all of it but in 8th grade the teacher started the hobbit and I thought it was the slowest book of ALL TIME. Other than that I should read maybe the actual LOTR.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Sept 4, 2005 21:07:30 GMT -5
Lol. . . In my opinion the hobbit was much more fast paced than LOTR. . .
But if you want to go ahead and read the trilogy. . . don't let that stop you.
|
|
|
Post by Kagome on Sept 18, 2005 13:28:19 GMT -5
well if the LOTR is slower than the hobbit than maybe I shouldn't read it
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Sept 18, 2005 21:42:45 GMT -5
Lol. . . In my opinion the hobbit was much more fast paced than LOTR. . . But if you want to go ahead and read the trilogy. . . don't let that stop you. I completely agree, I didnt really like the way Tolken wrote the trilogy, I really liked the Hobit though... then again maybe its b/c I read the Hobit before the movies came out.
|
|
|
Post by Kagome on Jan 28, 2006 16:42:50 GMT -5
Yeah they aren't fast enough for me. Maybe the 3rd one would be
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Feb 24, 2006 18:22:33 GMT -5
Yes, they are quite slow paced books, but good if you have the time to read them.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Feb 24, 2006 19:21:40 GMT -5
Yeah, they add a lot of insight into the movies, but as Lobstrosity pointed out you need to be fairly patient (and with a lot of time) to enjoy them.
|
|