/lit/ - Literature

Should people read the Silmarillion before the Lord of the Rings (but after the Hobbit)? Just finished the Silmarillion after reading the hobbit and LotR at different points in my past, and I honestly feel that I would have enjoyed the closing of the third age way more if I had read the silmarillion first.

I totally think the Hobbit should be read by itself regardless, its pretty much Bilbo's tale and I think it works well, if not better, in isolation, coming across the strange new things as he does from his eyes. Totally works stand alone, but the LotR is a different story, one about legacies and worlds. I have strong memories of a lot of stuff in it feeling like it assumes that its way more impactful then it really comes off as. Like most scenes with the elves, and the whole faf about the heirs of Numanor. I mean, even Frodo knows more about the "Old kings" then the readers really do.
But I think the epic mythology of the Silmarillion actually makes these reactions and story beats have the gravity that I felt was implied, but always came off kinda lacking without them.
I know the Return of the King came with an appendix of the history of middle earth, so it seems like there was some intent to weave the history in with the narritive itself in the trilogy in some way.
I can see an argument for keeping the legends to the end to impart a sense of discovery in LotR itself, but I really dont know if thats enough.

Thoughts?

>Nargothrond
>Doriath
>Gondolin
>Numenor
Which city's fall is the saddest?

Meonor the Strong, son of Peanor the Sad, had conquered the lands of the Sinûr since the Age of Silver, when the Milfinor lords sold their daughters to the Great God Akûlla and the River of Souls was full of the sacred tears of the elven princess Iluven.

What am I in for?

>>21502220
Sillmarillion? more like "Shilled by Millions"!
lmao, this shit sucks!