/lit/ - Literature

It's fantasy.

The Name of The Wind

I'd recommend reading Lord of the Rings first at least. The Silmarillion is great but it's kind of a difficult read for some people.

>>3312117
Look guys! A real live faggot! In it's natural habitat! How marvelous!

>Wanting to read the Silmarillion right off the back of ASOFAI

You might be in for a shock.

I'd recommend reading the Lord of the Rings first.

Put it like this, it's like reading the Old Testament after reading Baby's First Bible or something.

So, these two essentially
>>3312130
>>3312152

>>3312152
I read halfway through LOTR when I was a kid. I'm sure its good, but I can't be arsed now that I know how it ends and all

>>3312179
You actually don't know how it ends from Jackson's movies.

>>3312184
True that, maybe I'll give it a go.

It's a tough read, and while most of /lit/ might call me a pleb, I actually preferred the audiobook version.
As a non-native english speaker the old english words and grammar were simply too distracting for me to take in what was actually written.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-yyEz_cRGb8#t=113s

>>3312179
Grow up, you ridiculous fucking child.

The film covers about 20% of the contents of the book.

Read LOTR first. The Silmarillion is basically a history book/worldbuilding vehicle. It's really good and if you enjoyed The Hobbit and enjoy the LOTR trilogy, you should enjoy it.

>>3312111
I'm surprised to see this book on the boards so much recently. I, as many have already, would recommend you read The Hobbit and LoTR first. Then you read The Silmarillion and realize how huge the events in those books really are.

>>3312189

Do give it a go. The movies completely cut out The Scourging of The Shire, which, in my opinion, is probably the most important part.

>>3312506
This, this, this. The third movie really did fail because it left that sequence out. It absolutely is the most important part. A hero aint shit without a return.

Why are people saying this book is hard? Does nobody in this thread do real reading?

I think it was fine, but I didn't read it in English. You can't really write "archaic" Finnish, so I guess the Old Testament style didn't get through.

>>3312555

It's the most important part of Tolkien's book, certainly. I don't think it would have worked very well in Jackson's movie though - even disregarding the obvious pacing problems present even in its absence, Jackson clearly does not actually care about industrialization or the decay of modernity from ancientry, the leading concerns of Tolkien which manifest themselves most exclusively in the Scouring sequence.

>>3312448
Or rather how small. They pale next to most other events in Silmarillion.

>>3312799
Oh yes you can. Check out, um, I don't know, Old Testament (the 1933/1938 translation)? Or anything old for that matter.

But yeah, the translation is quite straightforward Finnish, compared to how difficult the original text is.

>>3312989

Frankly, I would say that it is not worth reading Tolkien in translation - although I don't have any familiarity with the Finnish translation and my knowledge of Finnish consists in maybe two dozen words and a sense that its grammar is quite strange.

That said, Tolkien was a great fan of Finnish (Quenya is phonetically based on it) so maybe I am talking entirely out of my ass.

>>3312998
I think the translations are great, and have been done with great care (especially with translating Westronese names and such). But you are right, Tolkien's prose is worth the read, even if English isn't your first language.