# The Lord of the Rings (Trilogy) (Kindle Edition)



## meljackson

Yay look what's coming soon!


----------



## meljackson

Forgot to say the others are already available but I haven't decided if I want to buy each book or wait for the trilogy to be available.

Melissa


----------



## intinst

Amazing! I'll get the trilogy and The Hobbit immediately!


----------



## ak rain

ooohhh great is it better to individuals or trilogy as a whole?


----------



## marianneg

Wow, I guess the Tolkiens came around.  Personally, I will wait for the trilogy, since I'd prefer to have them all together on my Kindle.  Plus, it's almost half price to get the trilogy at $15.94 than to buy the three books at $9.99 each.  It's really a matter of personal preference, though.


----------



## ak rain

Now we got to turn the Rawling, HP 
sylvia


----------



## lostknitter

marianner said:


> Wow, I guess the Tolkiens came around. Personally, I will wait for the trilogy, since I'd prefer to have them all together on my Kindle. Plus, it's almost half price to get the trilogy at $15.94 than to buy the three books at $9.99 each. It's really a matter of personal preference, though.


Is that the only difference? I have always seen them separate and I am hesitant to purchase the trilogy in case it is different than the three.


----------



## intinst

No difference. I have hard bound copies of each,


----------



## r0b0d0c

Although the trilogy and the individual LOTR books are all listed as "not yet available," this is the first I've heard of a Kindle edition coming! (I've been putting my Kindle request to the Tolkien estate website 2-3 times/month, but never thought it would happen)

When did this change? I'm absolutely THRILLED, as Tolkien's books are my all time favorites, and THE major disappointment of the Kindle available titles! 

As Sylvia says, ON TO JKR!!!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

Not anymore. The books, separately available for 9.00 each were available as of 6:00 PM EST and o  my Kindle shortly thereafter. Even though I have have read the work annually since High School, which would be 37 times, my Kindle is happy now that the Fantasy bible is where it should belong. I have a dozen LOTR's in print, including some expensive illustrated ones. I have it on audiobook. I would have it tattoo on my . . . well, let's upper thigh, and I have a wide upper thigh, if I didn;t have a low threshold for pain. Hallelujah! And The Hobbit will download authomatically tomorrow. Now if Rowling's publishers will wake up, we could avert the end of the world in 2012 a la Maya caledar.

Edward C. Patterson
a Tolkien disciple


----------



## WalterK

Wow.  I never thought that I'd see these works on Kindle.  Well maybe not never, but certainly for a long, long time.  

Off to amazon.

- Walter.


----------



## intinst

I am reading The Hobbit on my KIndle now and will order LotR  trilogy ASAP!


----------



## intinst

Went to the page, one clicked it, it was sent to my Kindle, that's all I know.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! (and it really is the truth)


----------



## mwvickers

How is the formatting, for those who have downloaded them already?

I wonder if the three-in-one edition will have a linked TOC to make it easier to navigate from one book to the other?


----------



## intinst

Yes, I see that is the way it is now, earlier no mention of preorder was made. I'm athinkin' that sombody goofed. Formatting looks good and matches up with my DTB, including drawings. Guess I'll keep whispernet off for a wile incase they want it back!


----------



## meljackson

It was definitely available earlier. I went ahead and got the Hobbit too. 

Melissa


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

I just took a peek at the formatting. Cover (the original cover in fact as published in 1954), front page sports the original first page, complete with tengwa characters. Full Table of Contorts with hyperlinks. I am truly happy. Pippa passes, and All's well with the world.

Edward C. Patterson
Shireling under the skin


----------



## Aravis60

And there was rejoicing in Kindleworld.


----------



## marianneg

Trekker said:


> If these are legit, I'm definitely getting them!


Well, the publisher is listed as HarperCollins e-books, so if it's a pirate, it's a pretty clever one. That's the first thing I checked  I don't think amazon would be doing pre-orders for any but the big companies, anyway.


----------



## intinst

I am surprised that there was not some kind of anouncement made about them coming to Amazon, LotR and Harry Potter are probably the most requested books for the Kindle.


----------



## luvmy4brats

When I first went to look at it, the trilogy was still showing not yet available..However, after going through the links, it's now showing up and available to purchase. It's just downloaded to my Kindle, but I haven't had a chance to look through it yet. 

I am very excited. I've never actually read the books. I may have read The Hobbit when I was younger, but I don't remember it. As soon as I get the Hobbit, I'm going to start reading.


----------



## intinst

Got the Trilogy!


----------



## chevauchee

"HarperCollins has invested an undisclosed sum in order to secure the global electronic rights to the JRR Tolkien list, with the three titles available to download from today."
source

HC moves really fast once they get their deals finalized, apparently?

_edited to fix format error with link_


----------



## r0b0d0c

WOW, this changed quickly! I can now download each of the LOTR books, and the trilogy, but The Hobbit still shows "Preorder" only - how did some of you already download it?

edit: I've been repeatedly refreshing the Amazon page for this, and now, at 7:55 CDT, it's downloadable (and downloading on my Kindle! wOOt!)


----------



## r0b0d0c

OMG - I'm like a 6 year old at Christmas! 

The Hobbit and LOTR Trilogy are now on my Kindle! Gimme the Harry Potter series, and my (Kindle) life is complete! (The only problem is that with the excited celebration dance I'm doing here in our living room, Mrs. r0b0d0c is checking the wine cellar to see how much I've consumed! Hmm ... think I might open a bottle right now!)


----------



## Athenagwis

Trekker said:


> Your source link is broken.


This should be the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/20/interview-victoria-barnsley-harper-collins

Good article!
Rachel


----------



## luvmy4brats

The Hobbit just showed up on my Kindle as well. I guess the other book I was reading is getting thrown aside.

Oh JKR, are you listening?


----------



## intinst

r0b0d0c said:


> OMG - I'm like a 6 year old at Christmas!
> 
> The Hobbit and LOTR Trilogy are now on my Kindle! Gimme the Harry Potter series, and my (Kindle) life is complete! (The only problem is that with the excited celebration dance I'm doing here in our living room, Mrs. r0b0d0c is checking the wine cellar to see how much I've consumed! Hmm ... think I might open a bottle right now!)


I know how you feel. My two biggest disappointments when I started researching the Kindle was that Tolkien's (LotR and The Hobbit) and Rowling's books were not available. I did not believe that either would make them available for many years. Well, one of the walls has been knocked down!


----------



## Forster

Just bought the Trilogy and the Hobbit.  

I really, really hope this turns into a financial success for the Tolkien family and Amazon as it may give incentive for more authors to release their works to an e-format.


----------



## intinst

My wife does not share my enthusiasm for LotR, she had nightmares from just reading about Shelob and wouldn't stay in the theater for that part of the movie.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Forster said:


> Just bought the Trilogy and the Hobbit.
> 
> I really, really hope this turns into a financial success for the Tolkien family and Amazon as it may give incentive for more authors to release their works to an e-format.


Being such a legendary work, I hope so, too - and hope (anticipate) that Amazon will use the sales numbers to encourage (coerce?) other authors (JKR?) to Kindleize their books.

I'd love to see the download numbers for LOTR for today alone, and for the next 3 days, when it's more widely known to be available!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Whoa, I'm out of touch for two days and look what happens. Maybe if I stay away for a week, JKR will have caved. 

Excuse me while I go get the trilogy. I don't think I would reread these books in dtv, but I'll definitely reread them on Little Gertie.


----------



## intinst

If that is what it takes, I'll go with you!


----------



## chevauchee

Thanks for the catch, Trekker, I fixed my post.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

The hobbit was on preorder for about an hour, and it just arrived on my kindle. Sigh -----

"In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit." 

JRRT: (from a tape recording I have of the Don) "And I sid to myself - A Hobbit? Why, what's a Hobbit? And why would he e living in a hole?"

Edward C. Patterson
who is also the oldest male member of the Elijah Wood fan club (A&E Forever) - and Elijah has signed a broadside of The Jade Owl.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

edwpat said:


> Edward C. Patterson
> who is also the oldest male member of the Elijah Wood fan club (A&E Forever) - and Elijah has signed a broadside of The Jade Owl.


Elijah Wood was great as Frodo. Sean Astin was also perfect as Sam, and I loved him as Twoflower. I even loved Sean Astin narrating Meerkat Manor.

Was there anything about the movies that wasn't fantastic? Oh, yeah, the 50 endings, especially Elrond playing the sappy father of the bride. Even so, every time TNT shows the marathon, I drag out my DVDs and watch them all.

Has anybody heard what's happening with The Hobbit movies? There are supposed to be two the last I heard.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked

intinst said:


> My wife does not share my enthusiasm for LotR,


I read the books once, long ago. I have no great enthusiasm for reading them again. But I watch the movies again every so often, heh.

Mike


----------



## Chad Winters

OUCH!! 
That was not in my book budget! I just bought the trilogy and the Hobbit and Children of Hurin. I've read all but Children of Hurin several times and have a few DTVs, but still, I couldn't pass it up!


----------



## Chloe

Help!  I need some information on exactly what I should purchase in reference to the newly added - April 19 - J.R.R. Tolkien Kindle editions.  I am just now looking at the Lord of the Rings Trilogy - Kindle edition (added today, April 19).  I downloaded the Trilogy sample, but am not sure if it includes the 3 entire books "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Two Towers" and "Return of the King".  If so, why would the Kindle price be $15.94 for the Trilogy, but $9.99 for each of the three referenced books?  Is it better; i.e., more inclusive to buy each book separately?  I also want "The Hobbit", which would not be included in the Trilogy.  I have looked at the table of contents for the sample, and it seems the three books are included.

Am I correct in my assumption that the entire three books are there, or should I buy each book separately?


----------



## KBoards Admin

Is it this one? If so, yes, this appears to contain all three parts of the trilogy. I would see no downside to purchasing this one, rather than the three individual titles. I'm downloading the sample as well and will probably purchase this one.


----------



## jeremy81

I just purchased it earlier.  I'm so happy it's finally available.  Now on to waiting for Harry Potter.


----------



## intinst

meljackson said:


> Forgot to say the others are already available but I haven't decided if I want to buy each book or wait for the trilogy to be available.
> 
> Melissa


Thanks Melissa for letting us know about this!


----------



## eneisch

I have purchased the trilogy and can confirm that it contains all three volumes of the trilogy.  BTW the Tolkien books are also on Fictionwise/Ereader sites as of this morning.  The prices are cheaper over there by a couple of bucks, but they are claiming to be having a 50% off sale on the books now.  I wonder if that means the books will increase in price on Amazon as well in the future.  Not that it matters since I've purchased both the Hobbit and LOTR this morning!


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Lest anyone be concerned that these are not legitimate copies (one of the HP books showed up on Amazon a few months back; clearly pirated and taken down pretty quickly), today I received a "what's new in the Kindle store" e-mail from Amazon and it lists all the Middle Earth books. . . . . . .

Ann


----------



## patrisha w.

I also purchased the LoTR trilogy AND the Hobbit last night from Amazon and everything is there. I prefer the trilogy in one book rather than three separate books especially since the contents are linked {that is you can find , for example Chapter 12 and go straight there instead of interminable page-flipping}

patrisha


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

I merged the two threads about the newly available LOTR Rings trilogy:


[/quote]

Now, off to shop!

Betsy


----------



## RangerXenos

Woo Hoo, log on this morning and find this wonderful news!  I'm off to download them now!


----------



## mwb

I noticed Fictionwise has a big splash page announcing them too, but sadly they don't offer it in multiformat so can't use a Kindle with them.

But hey I'll grab them at Amazon then.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

_Slightly_ OT, the first half of The Hobbit movie will be released in December 2011. At first, it was thought that it was going to be a bridge movie between the end of The Hobbit and FotR (nooooo). Now we know the book is going to be split into two movies. DelToro is directing.


----------



## AnelaBelladonna

LoTR is the only instance I can think of where the movies were MUCH better than the books.  The movies are my all time favorites!  My husband bought me a beautiful set of the books and it was absolutely painful to try to read them.  It would take entire chapters for them to get from one side of the road to the other.  I couldn't force myself to continue reading.  I wish I could love them.  I see that I am very much in the minority.


----------



## Saylorgirl

I downloaded the Trilogy first thing this morning!!  This is indeed good news.


----------



## LaraAmber

AnelaBelladonna,

I completely agree.  I never made it past the first couple of hundred pages of the first book.  It was the writing style that turned me off, yet I absolutely adore the movies.  I think I peed enough for a horse after the first one because I absolutely could not leave the theater for a second.  

I read The Hobbit in high school for a class assignment and thought it was decent, but again not the best.  I felt the same way about Dickens, loved the story, not too thrilled with the writing style, though I cut him some slack since he was writing in serial format for the newspaper, hence the repetitiveness. 

Lara Amber


----------



## Forster

AnelaBelladonna said:


> LoTR is the only instance I can think of where the movies were MUCH better than the books. The movies are my all time favorites! My husband bought me a beautiful set of the books and it was absolutely painful to try to read them. It would take entire chapters for them to get from one side of the road to the other. I couldn't force myself to continue reading. I wish I could love them. I see that I am very much in the minority.


Heresy! LOL.

Did you try to read the books after watching the movies? The LOTR and Hobbit were probably the first non-kid sized books I 1st read in 1977-1978 and I've revisited them many times over the years. When my kids were young (in the 5-7 age range) I read all of them to them aloud, they were enthralled. I personally credit this series with sparking my love of reading and my book "collecting" sickness. All three of my kids are voracious readers as well.


----------



## Rhiathame

AnelaBelladonna said:


> LoTR is the only instance I can think of where the movies were MUCH better than the books. The movies are my all time favorites! My husband bought me a beautiful set of the books and it was absolutely painful to try to read them. It would take entire chapters for them to get from one side of the road to the other. I couldn't force myself to continue reading. I wish I could love them. I see that I am very much in the minority.


Like you, I was never able to get through the DTB of LoTR. I tried and tried but I also got tired of the incredible amount of detail that went into each scene. That being said, I very much enjoyed the audio book version of the trilogy. In fact these books in audio format is what got me firmly hooked on audio books.


----------



## mwvickers

AnelaBelladonna said:


> LoTR is the only instance I can think of where the movies were MUCH better than the books. The movies are my all time favorites! My husband bought me a beautiful set of the books and it was absolutely painful to try to read them. It would take entire chapters for them to get from one side of the road to the other. I couldn't force myself to continue reading. I wish I could love them. I see that I am very much in the minority.


Not everyone likes the same kinds of books.

Your issue with LoTR may be the depth of description in the writing. As you mention, it is very slow reading, but that is because of the depth of imagery and description in the story. By the time you finished the chapter in which the characters moved from one side of the road to the other, you could easily visualize that road and everything around it. LOL

This was due to Tolkien's depth and love regarding his work. He actually started the work by inventing the languages when he was in his early twenties. He then developed the people to speak those languages and the places to put those people in. He worked on this aspect for many years.

Finally, C.S. Lewis had to tell Tolkien to just write the story, and that he had worked on the background to it long enough.

First, Tolkien wrote _The Hobbit _ for children. Then, he began working on a sequel, which eventually became LoTR. It was a very fascinating process, to me.

You can read more about that from his perspective in _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_.


----------



## Andra

Yet another reason why I love Kindleboards! I sent a letter to the Tolkien estate some time ago and hadn't been checking back. I'm so glad someone was!
I now have the Hobbit and the Trilogy as well.
I agree about the books being a little more difficult to read because the temptation is there to skip around (here comes a song that goes on for pages, I'll skip to the end). And if you skip, you miss things. I thoroughly enjoyed the movies and have them pre-ordered on blu-ray. But the audio version is great too. These are the ones that I have:

The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, Book 1)

The Two Towers (The Lord of the Rings, Book 2)

The Return of the King (The Lord of the Rings, Book 3)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

LaraAmber said:


> I think I peed enough for a horse after the first one because I absolutely could not leave the theater for a second.


Lara--

TMI, girl! LOL! I have to say I read the books a hundred or so years ago, enjoyed them, and haven't read them since. Couldn't remember a lot when I went to the movie versions, so enjoyed them too, although I thought they were overlong...but again, don't feel the need to see them again and again like some, though I will probably watch bits and pieces when they're on cable. Loved the blond Elven prince guy (that's how little I know the books or movies), though! Very hot!

I did buy the Trilogy for my Library-on-a-Kindle, though! The Hobbit is on my list next. Watching the price to see if it goes down.


Betsy


----------



## ak rain

all people seem to remember from movies is great big battles. I got so much more from the books. I must have read the books 6 times each. Mind you I did enjoy movies too
Sylvia


----------



## LaraAmber

Oh I remember more then the battles.

Mmm, Aragorn.  

Lara Amber


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

LaraAmber said:


> Oh I remember more then the battles.
> 
> Mmm, Aragorn.
> 
> Lara Amber


Is that the blond Elven prince guy? He's what I remember most from the movie!

Betsy


----------



## LaraAmber

No the blond Elf is Legolas.  Aragorn was the dark-haired hunk attracting all the women, elf or human.  Being a king without country and being nice to hobbits is apparently great bait.  

Lara Amber


----------



## rho

I got the Trilogy and Hobbit and I see that there is another book The Children of Hurin  - what is that one?  

I got them because I have always wanted to read them and also I wanted to be sure the publishers see how many of us want them.  And maybe that will put some more pressure on JKR for the Harry Potter Books -- as I click weekly on them on Amazon to be Kindlized --


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

LaraAmber said:


> No the blond Elf is Legolas. Aragorn was the dark-haired hunk attracting all the women, elf or human. Being a king without country and being nice to hobbits is apparently great bait.
> 
> Lara Amber


This guy? Major hunk.









Hmmm. Maybe I WILL have to watch them again.

Betsy


----------



## Jesslyn

mwvickers said:


> Not everyone likes the same kinds of books.
> 
> Your issue with LoTR may be the depth of description in the writing. As you mention, it is very slow reading, but that is because of the depth of imagery and description in the story. By the time you finished the chapter in which the characters moved from one side of the road to the other, you could easily visualize that road and everything around it. LOL
> 
> This was due to Tolkien's depth and love regarding his work. He actually started the work by inventing the languages when he was in his early twenties. He then developed the people to speak those languages and the places to put those people in. He worked on this aspect for many years.
> 
> Finally, C.S. Lewis had to tell Tolkien to just write the story, and that he had worked on the background to it long enough.
> 
> First, Tolkien wrote _The Hobbit _ for children. Then, he began working on a sequel, which eventually became LoTR. It was a very fascinating process, to me.
> 
> You can read more about that from his perspective in _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_.
> Although the movies were amazingly well done, I think I loved the book versions more. Me and my uber-geeky friends used the runes in the books to make our own alphabet to pass 'secret' notes (7th & 8th grade).


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Is that the blond Elven prince guy? He's what I remember most from the movie!
> 
> Betsy


Orlando Bloom played Legolas.










And also Will Turner in Pirates of the Caribbean










Then there was Boromir - Sean Bean










Of course, I only watch the movies for the intellectual content.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Orlando Bloom played Legolas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also Will Turner in Pirates of the Caribbean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was Boromir - Sean Bean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I only watch the movies for the intellectual content.


Thank you, Gertie. I'm going to refer the ladies posting in "Worst Movie Ever" to this thread.

Betsy


----------



## hazeldazel

yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!  I just saw an article in my newspaper that the LOTR and The Hobbit would be available starting today and came over here right away to get the reviews of the Kindle editions.  So glad to hear they did a great job, so I one-clicked immediately!  Hey, Kindle Boards gets some support from Amazon if we order through here right?  Hope so! 

Now if Rowling would get the wand out of her kiester and if Mercedes Lackey's publisher would get the message, I'd be perfectly content (and with far more room on my shelves).


----------



## luvmy4brats

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Orlando Bloom played Legolas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also Will Turner in Pirates of the Caribbean


Do you know how long it took me to figure out this was the same guy? I think he's hot either way..


----------



## chynared21

hazeldazel said:


> Hey, Kindle Boards gets some support from Amazon if we order through here right? Hope so!


*Harvey posted a couple of weeks ago that Amazon changed their affiliate payment on Kindle books but all other merchandise ordered through the link here will give KB a bit of spare change 

I 1-clicked on The Hobbit. I read somewhere that it sets up the world before the Trilogy. Does anyone suggest I read the Trilogy first instead or is The Hobbit a good starting point for me?*


----------



## WalterK

I would recommend starting with *The Hobbit*. Just my opinion.

- Walter.


----------



## chynared21

WalterK said:


> I would recommend starting with *The Hobbit*. Just my opinion.
> 
> - Walter.


*Thanks Walter...I'll do just that *


----------



## Ann in Arlington

I second starting with the Hobbit. . . . . .

Ann


----------



## Sariy

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG *bounces around the small computer room*  OMG!  

Okay.  I've been "want to read on kindle"('ing) Tolkien since before I actually ordered the Kindle!


----------



## MAGreen

If you buy a GC from the affiliate links, then KB still gets something from the GC sale. So just buy a card and add it to your account to buy all of your books!


----------



## bkworm8it

hazeldazel said:


> yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy!!! I just saw an article in my newspaper that the LOTR and The Hobbit would be available starting today and came over here right away to get the reviews of the Kindle editions. So glad to hear they did a great job, so I one-clicked immediately! Hey, Kindle Boards gets some support from Amazon if we order through here right? Hope so!
> 
> Now if Rowling would get the wand out of her kiester and if Mercedes Lackey's publisher would get the message, I'd be perfectly content (and with far more room on my shelves).


Here! Here! On both counts! As it is, I'm going to lend my sister my kindle for her to catch up on Sookie, while I read several DTB from Mercedes Lackey. I really would rather be reading those from my kindle. I won't be reading Harry Potter unless it comes out on kindle, so that may be never. I don't want to carry the books around. I know too many people who have had the book ruined for them because others had to interupt and say something about the book that they had not read yet.

I've read and listened to LoTR. I got a little lost while listening trying to figure out who's who. I've only seen the first movie. Still in my netflix queue for the rest. Look forward to being able to read it again without carrying a heavy book!

theresam


----------



## Kindgirl

My dad read The Hobbit to us when we were little... it was better than TV.   

I never read the LotR books, but loved the movies.  Along with the Wizard of Oz series, this seems like a staple to any well stocked Kindle shelf.  And the price is right!  

Can anyone tell me more about "Children of Hurin" though?  I've not heard of this before.


----------



## rho

luvmy4brats said:


> Do you know how long it took me to figure out this was the same guy? I think he's hot either way..


I can to that -- I only figured it out just now with the pictures in front of me - guess I really don't pay attention to names do I?


----------



## Aravis60

Kindgirl said:


> My dad read The Hobbit to us when we were little... it was better than TV.
> 
> I never read the LotR books, but loved the movies. Along with the Wizard of Oz series, this seems like a staple to any well stocked Kindle shelf. And the price is right!
> 
> Can anyone tell me more about "Children of Hurin" though? I've not heard of this before.


I bought "Children of Hurin" in hardcover when it was released in 2007. It takes place many, many years before "The Hobbit" or LotR. It offers a detailed account of some of the mythology that is referred to in LotR. It was similar to "The Book(s) of Lost Tales" or "The Silmarillion", although I thought that it read a little more like a novel than those.


----------



## mwb

bkworm8it said:


> Here! Here! On both counts! As it is, I'm going to lend my sister my kindle for her to catch up on Sookie, while I read several DTB from Mercedes Lackey. I really would rather be reading those from my kindle.


Oh, and thirded very strongly. I really have a hankering to re-read all of her Valdemar works again but this time on my Kindle!

----------------
Listening to: The Beatles - I Want You (She's So Heavy)


----------



## ladyvolz

there were announcements on other Book Boards.  Harpers has a huge ad on Goodreads and AOL concerning the "e-book" release of these books.  

That being said, Harper Collins has a huge e-book division.  They have been ahead of the e-book curve for a while.  All the other publishers are still playing catch up.  Many of the freebies we have been seeing with Amazon have been HC books.


----------



## TM

I am so happy they finally Kindlized it!


----------



## chynared21

Trekker said:


> Definitely start with The Hobbit. It's Bilbo's adventure and how he came to find "The Ring."


*Great! I'm looking forward to reading it *


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

MAGreen said:


> If you buy a GC from the affiliate links, then KB still gets something from the GC sale. So just buy a card and add it to your account to buy all of your books!


Great point, MAG. I've been 1-clicking to my credit card but I think I'll 1-click a gift card first next time!

Betsy


----------



## jeremy81

AnelaBelladonna said:


> LoTR is the only instance I can think of where the movies were MUCH better than the books. The movies are my all time favorites! My husband bought me a beautiful set of the books and it was absolutely painful to try to read them. It would take entire chapters for them to get from one side of the road to the other. I couldn't force myself to continue reading. I wish I could love them. I see that I am very much in the minority.


Sorry, I don't agree. While the movies are some of my favorites I wouldn't even come close to saying they are better. I would say they are one of the best adaptations I've seen. I have read LOTR twice and am on my third read with the Kindle edition and have never found them boring. It took me between 1-2 weeks to read each time. It's been 6 years or so since I last read it but I do remember I didn't want to put it down and couldn't wait to pick it up again. I've had people tell me it took 6 months to a year to read so I guess I can understand that it is boring for some people?


----------



## bkworm8it

mwb said:


> Oh, and thirded very strongly. I really have a hankering to re-read all of her Valdemar works again but this time on my Kindle!
> 
> ----------------
> Listening to: The Beatles - I Want You (She's So Heavy)
> 
> My absolute favorite series. I'm reading her elemental series but really miss Valdemar. I'd defiantly read them all again if they were kindled. As it is my sister would have to hunt the books down out of her attic again for me  this time around I would read in published order. My first time I read chronologically - which was nice to be able to do since they had all been written !


----------



## intinst

Read the Hobbit, it is more of a prequel.


----------



## KBoards Admin

The LOTR is one of my all-time favorite books. I remember the first time I saw the book, I was in elementary school (Grade 7) and it was on a shelf in the BookMobile that would pull into our small town once a week. I checked it out, and it took me so long to read it that the BookMobile people kept asking me to return it. 

The three paperback copies I have now were one of the first books I bought when I started earning my own money. In my teens I would read it over and over. Upon finishing the last page I'd go back and start re-reading it again. It spoiled me for other books. 

Chynared, I think that is good advice about reading the Hobbit first. But be aware it's a lot different - - it's a fast, easy read, and it's not as richly textured as LOTR. But it gives some good background context for LOTR. And when you get to LOTR, you will meet characters that will stay with you the rest of your life.

(Oh, and IMO the movies are superb but not nearly as good as the books.)

Enjoy the ride.


----------



## Angela

I am so happy I can hardly contain myself!! WOO HOO!! 
This is the best news ever... _The Hobbit _ and _The LotR Trilogy _ will be purchased tomorrow just as soon as I can get to the Coinstar machine and home again!!   

BTW... I am in total agreement with those who have been recommending reading _The Hobbit _ first.

Do you think our konstant klicking to add these books to the Kindle Store had any influence?


----------



## ricky

I read these books, plus The Hobbit, many times over when I was an older teenager and all through my twenties.  I still have my original four volumes in very worn out paperback. I have not read them in years, but I will get them for Tyrella and I to read again.  I would not see any of the movies, didn't want my imaginary characters and actions created by these wonderful books to be compromised somehow. 
My daughter-in-law quietly confided to me last year that what she really wanted for Christmas was her own set of the Lord of the Rings books. I was delighted to oblige...... she is 20.  
And please start with The Hobbit.  You will get really the start to the whole story.  

And, theresam, when you spend a bit of time reading and getting into it, you will know who is who.

And for something REALLY confusing, just compare this work with the volumes of the Rise and Fall of The Roman Empire!!!  You will read through Lord of the Rings like the wonderful Dream that it really is.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

I saw Fellowship of the Ring before I ever read the first book.  I found it confusing and thought I had better read the books.  I'm so glad I did.  I read The Hobbit and the trilogy and had a greater appreciation for the movies.  Even though Jackson left out whole chunks (how could he do otherwise), I felt he captured the richness and depth of the books.  

I haven't reread the books since then, but I will now.


----------



## chynared21

Harvey said:


> Chynared, I think that is good advice about reading the Hobbit first. But be aware it's a lot different - - it's a fast, easy read, and it's not as richly textured as LOTR. But it gives some good background context for LOTR. And when you get to LOTR, you will meet characters that will stay with you the rest of your life.
> 
> (Oh, and IMO the movies are superb but not nearly as good as the books.)
> 
> Enjoy the ride.


*I was wondering about the reading pace of The Hobbit...good to know  I did see the first movie and enjoyed it for what it was...a movie without having any preconceptions since I hadn't read the book. I love reading books that I can meld with the characters no matter how long it takes me to read 

Do I need to buckle up for this ride? *


----------



## KBoards Admin

chynared21 said:


> Do I need to buckle up for this ride?


Not like some books! But it's a very satisfying ride!!

I liken the LOTR to some of the old classic movies, that don't go at the breakneck pace of today's movies. You have to invest a bit of reading to get the thrilling or moving parts... but that just makes them more satisfying.

I'm disappointed that I haven't been able to get any of my daughters to share my love for LOTR, and I think it's partly because they're used to the thrilling pace of the Harry Potter books.


----------



## hazeldazel

Is it just me, or did anyone else really miss not having Tom Bombadil(sp?) in the movies?  I mean, I knew the character wouldn't be in the movies because it was a bit of a tangent, but he's one of my favorite characters.


----------



## jason10mm

The Hobbit is quite different from LOTR in tone and theme. It is a fast read and a good prep to the early events of LOTR though. Be warned that the first book of LOTR is VERY slow to get moving. You may feel a greater attachment to Bilbo after the Hobbit though, which can help those first 100 or so pages go by. And of course everyone has varying responses to Tom Bombadill.....


----------



## Forster

jason10mm said:


> The Hobbit is quite different from LOTR in tone and theme. It is a fast read and a good prep to the early events of LOTR though. Be warned that the first book of LOTR is VERY slow to get moving. You may feel a greater attachment to Bilbo after the Hobbit though, which can help those first 100 or so pages go by. And of course everyone has varying responses to Tom Bombadill.....


I read the Hobbit before reading the LOTR. At first I had a hard time warming up to Frodo. It was like what? No! He couldn't have replaced Bilbo as the main character. I'm over it now, lol.


----------



## mwvickers

hazeldazel said:


> Is it just me, or did anyone else really miss not having Tom Bombadil(sp?) in the movies? I mean, I knew the character wouldn't be in the movies because it was a bit of a tangent, but he's one of my favorite characters.


The first time I read through that part of the book, I was glad he wasn't in the movie (which I saw before reading the book).

After further reading and thought, however, I kind of wish he was in.

The reason? As far as I know, Bombadil is the only person not affected at all by being near or holding the One Ring. Everyone else (humans, elves, hobbits, dwarves, etc.) is affected by its power. Why isn't Bombadil?

This question has led to some interesting theories.


----------



## PJ

Aravis60 said:


> I bought "Children of Hurin" in hardcover when it was released in 2007. It takes place many, many years before "The Hobbit" or LotR. It offers a detailed account of some of the mythology that is referred to in LotR. It was similar to "The Book(s) of Lost Tales" or "The Silmarillion", although I thought that it read a little more like a novel than those.


That's encouraging - I tried to read "The Silmarillion" and found it too dense with historical reference and lacking in engaging storytelling. I even tried to listen to an audiobook of it and decided it wasn't a good idea to drive while listening to it - I might fall asleep and have an accident .


----------



## chynared21

Harvey said:


> Not like some books! But it's a very satisfying ride!!
> 
> I liken the LOTR to some of the old classic movies, that don't go at the breakneck pace of today's movies. You have to invest a bit of reading to get the thrilling or moving parts... but that just makes them more satisfying.
> 
> I'm disappointed that I haven't been able to get any of my daughters to share my love for LOTR, and I think it's partly because they're used to the thrilling pace of the Harry Potter books.


*I love movies that I have to invest time in...that's what I call "me" time when I can truly concentrate on what I'm reading or watching without interruptions *


----------



## jeremy81

hazeldazel said:


> Is it just me, or did anyone else really miss not having Tom Bombadil(sp?) in the movies? I mean, I knew the character wouldn't be in the movies because it was a bit of a tangent, but he's one of my favorite characters.


That was one of my least favorite parts of the books. I pretty much knew he wouldn't be in the movie. It would have been hard to translate to a movie I think.


----------



## Aravis60

hazeldazel said:


> Is it just me, or did anyone else really miss not having Tom Bombadil(sp?) in the movies? I mean, I knew the character wouldn't be in the movies because it was a bit of a tangent, but he's one of my favorite characters.


 I liked Bombadil too.


----------



## Angela

Aravis60 said:


> I liked Bombadil too.


same here... it was probably the most noteable omission from the story that I noticed.

Just got back from the CoinStar and am on my way to Amazon to purchase Hobbit and LOTR!! WooHoo!!


----------



## katsim

I hope they also release The Silmarillion on Kindle. I liked reading about some of the stories that are mentioned in passing in the LotR, and as a kid I delighted in memorizing the various poems/songs in it. 

I liked the Tom Bombadil character, too.


----------



## PJ

Angela said:


> same here... it was probably the most noteable omission from the story that I noticed.


Although not actually an omission the changing of Faramir into a more devious character is what bothered me far more.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

hazeldazel said:


> Is it just me, or did anyone else really miss not having Tom Bombadil(sp?) in the movies? I mean, I knew the character wouldn't be in the movies because it was a bit of a tangent, but he's one of my favorite characters.


Definitely with you on that. This is one of the reasons I have to read the books again. I need to revisit favorite parts that PJ had to cut.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

PJ said:


> Although not actually an omission the changing of Faramir into a more devious character is what bothered me far more.


What bothered me more was the scrunching down of the entire Faramir/Eowyn relationship to one "look" at Aragorn's coronation. I think it would have been better to leave it out entirely.


----------



## Aravis60

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> What bothered me more was the scrunching down of the entire Faramir/Eowyn relationship to one "look" at Aragorn's coronation. I think it would have been better to leave it out entirely.


I liked the Faramir/Eowyn story and was sad that it was left out. Come to think of it, I don't know that there were any parts of the story that I didn't like. I gues they couldn't put them all in the movie...


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Harvey said:


> I'm disappointed that I haven't been able to get any of my daughters to share my love for LOTR, and I think it's partly because they're used to the thrilling pace of the Harry Potter books.


Harvey, when the girls are old enough, you might want to watch the movies with them. They will probably be more interested in reading the books, then, and they'll be old enough to appreciate them more.

It worked with my daughter (an avid non-reader at the time, but now an avid reader) and _Gone With the Wind_. The first book I got finally got her interested in was ... of course ... _Outlander_.


----------



## PJ

When I first tried to read the Hobbit when I was in Jr. High I didn't like it either.  I was hooked when I heard an audio recording on the radio one year when I was packing to go home from college.  There are some great recordings of the books out there.  If you take driving trips with the girls you might try popping one in the car stereo for the trip.  My sister's kids used to love to listen to them.  They now read the books of course.


----------



## KBoards Admin

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> Harvey, when the girls are old enough, you might want to watch the movies with them. They will probably be more interested in reading the books, then, and they'll be old enough to appreciate them more.
> 
> It worked with my daughter (an avid non-reader at the time, but now an avid reader) and _Gone With the Wind_. The first book I got finally got her interested in was ... of course ... _Outlander_.


It's a good idea, but in my case my girls are so terrified of 'intense' movies, so that might be a stretch! It took a year for me to convince them to watch E.T. with me, and then we had to do it in the afternoon, with all the lights on.

That's funny about your daughter and Outlander. My girls won't be allowed to read Outlander until they're thirty.


----------



## r0b0d0c

I'm reading The Hobbit first, and plan on tackling LOTR next! 

Where would seasoned Tolkien fans recommend reading "The Children of Hurin?" (the other Kindleized Tolkien book available, so far)


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Probably after Hobbit and LotR. . . .after all, it was published way after so most fans only got to read it long after they'd read the others.  But I've actually not gotten to it yet, so I could be off base.

Ann


----------



## mwvickers

r0b0d0c said:


> I'm reading The Hobbit first, and plan on tackling LOTR next!
> 
> Where would seasoned Tolkien fans recommend reading "The Children of Hurin?" (the other Kindleized Tolkien book available, so far)


I believe it is a book of the history leading up to LoTR, like _The Silmarillion_. If so, my personal recommendation is to read it after the others.

I say this because the LoTR is more of a story, and the books on the history and legends behind it can seem slower and a little more dry at first. I find them more interesting, however, if I have already read LoTR and I can fit it into the epic story, knowing what things are referring to.


----------



## Forster

Harvey said:


> It's a good idea, but in my case my girls are so terrified of 'intense' movies, so that might be a stretch! It took a year for me to convince them to watch E.T. with me, and then we had to do it in the afternoon, with all the lights on.
> 
> That's funny about your daughter and Outlander. My girls won't be allowed to read Outlander until they're thirty.


How old are your daughters? You might consider reading aloud to them The Hobbit and then maybe the LOTR. It takes a quite a while but it is good family time. When my kids were younger I read them all the Narnia series, the Little House on the Prairie series and of course the Hobbit and the LOTR. Reading with Dad made for an enjoyable experience which otherwise may have been too much to tackle on their own. I can't remember how many times I heard "Just one more chapter Dad". We always started an hour or so before bedtime.


----------



## KBoards Admin

That is great, Forster, you have really enriched their lives with that. My girls are 11. I wish I had thought to read them The Hobbit, they might actually still like that. We read together the LHOP books and some of the Narnia books as well, that was wonderful. I actually learned a lot from the LHOP books. And we read Harry Potter 1 together, then they took off with that and reach the rest of the series to each other. Those times reading with them are among of my favorite memories, and hopefully among theirs too!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

The Hobbit is a book for children - written as such, and developed from Tolkien's own storytelling to his own children. It was published by pure accident, but that's another tale and I won't bother anyone here about it unless requested . . . I'm a bit of a Tolkien scholar - I even write tengwar "get a life - Ed"). Lord of the Rings, which started out as a sequel and a children's book imploded into Tolkien's lifelong obsession with his Silmarillion writings and his translation of the Finnish sagas. It's not the easiest of reads and a strangely structured novel (Tolkien never claimed to be a novelist), and it is certainly not a children's book. However, LOTR gets into the blood until it becomes your blood. It is so visceral that it has become the most read book of the 20th century (discounting the Bible and, strange bedfellow, Dracula - speaking of blood and visceral).

Edward C Patterson


----------



## mwvickers

edwpat said:


> I even write tengwar


Can you pm me with any information regarding how you would even go about learning tengwar?


----------



## Forster

As much as I love the LOTR and it is unquestionably the most read series I have by a mile, I was never ever able to get myself to finish the Silmarillion and I've tried at least twice and own two copies of the DTB.  

Funny thing is my youngest son tried to read it at one time also and he couldn't finish it either.  I asked him how far he made it, around 100 pages.  I laughed as that is about exactly where I always gave up too.

Keep in mind I rarely put down a book and will struggle through even the most mediocre of tomes once I start them even though quite often I am sorely disappointed upon finishing the work.  It is a rare bird indeed that I actually have to give up on.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

Forster:

Silmarillion is an acquired taste and should be read like . . . The Bible . . .in bits and pieces. Tolkien is cursing me. It's a massive backstory for thousands of novels he never wrote, and the one he did. There are few things as beautiful in the Enlgish language than the opening creation of Silmarillion. Then it get . . . well, biblical, and since it's not religion, only the brave go forward. I mean, in order to understand Silmarillion, you need to read C. Tolkien's 13 volumes. What fun is that except for the Tolkien scholar.

Ed Patterson


----------



## Forster

Ed:

That is probably where I've gone wrong.......my perception as to what the book was and what is was not.  My Tolkien paradigm was set after reading The Hobbit and the LOTR and well I was expecting more of that.

I may have to give it another go.

Although I've never been able to make it all the way through the Bible either.


----------



## mwvickers

edwpat said:


> Forster:
> 
> Silmarillion is an acquired taste and should be read like . . . The Bible . . .in bits and pieces. Tolkien is cursing me. It's a massive backstory for thousands of novels he never wrote, and the one he did. There are few things as beautiful in the Enlgish language than the opening creation of Silmarillion. Then it get . . . well, biblical, and since it's not religion, only the brave go forward. I mean, in order to understand Silmarillion, you need to read C. Tolkien's 13 volumes. What fun is that except for the Tolkien scholar.
> 
> Ed Patterson


I agree. I have started it for the second time (I gave up once), and I am enjoying it now that I stopped trying to think of it as a novel or story and more as a poetic and deep way of explaining the origins of Middle Earth and the people groups in it.

Indeed, _Silmarillion_ is very beautiful in its crafted use of the English language, but it is not a light or quick read.

I have recently started really reading and studying both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. I am currently reading small portions of the _Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, and I find it fascinating to hear his thoughts on the process of writing LoTR, though my wife thinks I'm insane. LOL

I would love to be a Lewis and Tolkien scholar, even if it is only in my own mind. LOL


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Harvey said:


> It's a good idea, but in my case my girls are so terrified of 'intense' movies, so that might be a stretch!


I was thinking more like 15 or 16. They are way too young, now. I'm always surprised when I see 11 and 12 year old kids reading LotR. It's great that they read it at that age, but I'm not sure how much they really get out of it.



> It took a year for me to convince them to watch E.T. with me, and then we had to do it in the afternoon, with all the lights on.


When ET first came out, I took my eight year old daughter. She had to comfort me when I thought ET was dying. "Don't worry, Mom. It's only a movie."   



> That's funny about your daughter and Outlander. My girls won't be allowed to read Outlander until they're thirty.


My daughter was 19 when she read it. But I know the feeling. I have two girls, and I didn't even want them to date until they were thirty. Somehow they managed to become adults in spite of me.


----------



## Forster

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> I'm always surprised when I see 11 and 12 year old kids reading LotR. It's great that they read it at that age, but I'm not sure how much they really get out of it.


Speaking from personal experience, a lot. You'll have to pardon the pun, but those books _Kindled_ my love affair with reading adult sized novels.


----------



## mwvickers

Forster said:


> You'll have to pardon the pun, but those books _Kindled_ my love affair with reading adult sized novels.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Forster said:


> Speaking from personal experience, a lot. You'll have to pardon the pun, but those books _Kindled_ my love affair with reading adult sized novels.


See, and I was still reading Nancy Drew at age 11. Guess I was a late bloomer.


----------



## Forster

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> See, and I was still reading Nancy Drew at age 11. Guess I was a late bloomer.


I actually read quite a few Nancy Drew books when I was younger. 

Granted a bit unusual for a youngish boy to be reading, but hey they were my moms from when she was a young girl and she gave them to me to keep.....and I was probably out of things to read at the time. She also had some Beverly Cleary books and a few Hardy Boys novels as well. My daughter has since absconded with them.


----------



## Mekanamom

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> What bothered me more was the scrunching down of the entire Faramir/Eowyn relationship to one "look" at Aragorn's coronation. I think it would have been better to leave it out entirely.


I'm pretty sure they included more of it in the extended version of the movie.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Mekanamom said:


> I'm pretty sure they included more of it in the extended version of the movie.


I'm going to have to put the extended version on my Christmas list. I hear it's well worth the money.


----------



## r0b0d0c

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> I'm going to have to put the extended version on my Christmas list. I hear it's well worth the money.


I've been waiting for the Blu-Ray version of the LOTR trilogy, and was disappointed to see that the INITIAL Blu-Ray release is NOT the extended version ---> that will be released later on Blu-Ray. Will those greedy Hollyweird b*ast*rds never stop trying to milk every cent out of the unwary public with these deceptive tactics? Makes me cheer the "pirates" on......


----------



## Aravis60

mwvickers said:


> I agree. I have started it for the second time (I gave up once), and I am enjoying it now that I stopped trying to think of it as a novel or story and more as a poetic and deep way of explaining the origins of Middle Earth and the people groups in it.
> 
> Indeed, _Silmarillion_ is very beautiful in its crafted use of the English language, but it is not a light or quick read.
> 
> I have recently started really reading and studying both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. I am currently reading small portions of the _Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, and I find it fascinating to hear his thoughts on the process of writing LoTR, though my wife thinks I'm insane. LOL
> 
> I would love to be a Lewis and Tolkien scholar, even if it is only in my own mind. LOL


I, too, am a huge fan of Tolkien and Lewis. When I was in college, I actually got to meet someone who was a student of both men in England when he was younger.


----------



## mwvickers

Aravis60 said:


> I, too, am a huge fan of Tolkien and Lewis. When I was in college, I actually got to meet someone who was a student of both men in England when he was younger.


Now that would have been neat. I don't think I would have been able to stop asking that person questions about both men.


----------



## Aravis60

mwvickers said:


> Now that would have been neat. I don't think I would have been able to stop asking that person questions about both men.


It was wonderful. He even worked with me when I was writing a paper about Lewis.


----------



## Tris

The closest I ever got to C.S. Lewis is seeing the writing desk (which he supposedly actually wrote the series on) and "wardrobe" when I visited my friend at Wheaton College.  Though I think I will definately read both series when I have children.  My friend literally grew up seriously poor and her fondest memories we when her father read her the Narnia series (with different voices for each character) every day.  Till this day she is a huge bibliophile...just like me.  

Tris


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

An interesting tidbit about Lewis and Tolkien. Although the best of friends (until late in their lives, when they became estranged), Tolkien thought the Narnia books "twaddle" and publicly trashed them as unworthy of ink. On the other hand, Lewis wrote the forward in the original FOTR, praising it as manna from heaven. Go figure.

I personally don't quite agree with Tolkien's harsh condemnation of his friends efforts, but I have never liked the Narnia books. When I saw Prince Caspian (the movie) it was one of the few times that the film was far superior to the book, which is structurally flawed and overwrought with allegory. Perhaps it was this Bunyanesque allegory that Tolkien detested. He often stated his dislike for allegory. Then again, he also hated Lewis' space books.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## mwvickers

edwpat said:


> An interesting tidbit about Lewis and Tolkien. Although the best of friends (until late in their lives, when they became estranged), Tolkien thought the Narnia books "twaddle" and publicly trashed them as unworthy of ink. On the other hand, Lewis wrote the forward in the original FOTR, praising it as manna from heaven. Go figure.
> 
> I personally don't quite agree with Tolkien's harsh condemnation of his friends efforts, but I have never liked the Narnia books. When I saw Prince Caspian (the movie) it was one of the few times that the film was far superior to the book, which is structurally flawed and overwrought with allegory. Perhaps it was this Bunyanesque allegory that Tolkien detested. He often stated his dislike for allegory. Then again, he also hated Lewis' space books.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Though Tolkien expressed his dislike of the Narnia books, I believe it was mainly the "allegorical" nature of the books, and the fact that they lack the depth of LoTR. Lewis, however, vehemently denied that the Narnia books were allegory, so that is interesting. I think, however, that Tolkien's dislike of the Narnia series has been somewhat exaggerated in many Tolkien studies, unfortunately. I can easily see Tolkien calling them twaddle, but he often seemed to sound harsher than he meant, based on his letters. LOL

As far as the space books, Tolkien did not hate them (at least, not one of them) according to one of his letters. There were linguistic aspects he did not care for (Tolkien as big into linguistics, words, names, etc.), but the overall story was something he liked. Again, at least according to one of his personal letters.

Still waiting to hear about how you learned to write tengwar.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

mwvickers:

I think some of Tolkien's frustration with his colleague was their various competitions (wagers, if you will) to complete stories, where Tolkien, the niggler never could, while Lewis accomplished in a flash.

As for tengwar, there's a course on-line in the writing - even a character set and a typing aid. There is also a Quenya course and one in Sandarin (although Tolkien never fully finished Sandarin as a language). Tengwar can be applied however to any spoken language. For example, the tengwar on the LOTR book covers is English written in Tengwar, not Elvish tongue(s). There are people who have mastered quenya (sandarin is as difficult as Cherokee - which I do know), the high speech, but although printed out the course and the various dictionaries (how many trees died for that effort, forgive me Fangorn), its slightly less useful than Cherokee (which I only use in my own literature). Tengwar is fun, especially if you use a calligraphy pen. But, of course, I'm a sinologist by degree and have worked with original 12th century Chinese texts. In fact, there's a reverse similarity between the Chinese written character and tengwar. While you can use tengwar to write any language, Chinese characters serve many different languages. The simplified Chinese character now deployed by the People's Republic is fast destroying that basic inherent pan-literate nature of the Chinese languages. Did you ever ask why in a Chinese movie, there are subtitles in Chinese characters? China has 12 separate languages (they're not dialects - but languages), but while Mandarin (_kuo-hua _ - lit. country speech) is spoken by the actors, the written language is shared by all the languages (_wen_ being the written language), so a person in Shang-hai (_Wu-hua _ - Wu speech) may not understand the actor, but they can follow the bouncing ball, so to speak.

Aren't you glad you asked? I will see if I have the links to the tengwar and elvish sites still, and will post them. I am at work, and those links are on my home computer.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## mwvickers

edwpat said:


> mwvickers:
> 
> I think some of Tolkien's frustration with his colleague was their various competitions (wagers, if you will) to complete stories, where Tolkien, the niggler never could, while Lewis accomplished in a flash.


Very true. At the same time, I kind of respect Tolkien for that because the works he did complete are so much richer and deeper than the others.

By the way, I hope you didn't take my post as being argumentative. I didn't intend for it to sound that way. I'm sure you've found this out already, but when studying the lives of Tolkien and Lewis, there are variations on many aspects of their lives, and some people interpret different things through different lenses, so to speak.

Makes it all the more fascinating. Kind of like a puzzle that you have to figure out. LOL



> As for tengwar, there's a course on-line in the writing - even a character set and a typing aid. There is also a Quenya course and one in Sandarin (although Tolkien never fully finished Sandarin as a language). Tengwar can be applied however to any spoken language. For example, the tengwar on the LOTR book covers is English written in Tengwar, not Elvish tongue(s). There are people who have mastered quenya (sandarin is as difficult as Cherokee - which I do know), the high speech, but although printed out the course and the various dictionaries (how many trees died for that effort, forgive me Fangorn), its slightly less useful than Cherokee (which I only use in my own literature). Tengwar is fun, especially if you use a calligraphy pen. But, of course, I'm a sinologist by degree and have worked with original 12th century Chinese texts. In fact, there's a reverse similarity between the Chinese written character and tengwar. While you can use tengwar to write any language, Chinese characters serve many different languages. The simplified Chinese character now deployed by the People's Republic is fast destroying that basic inherent pan-literate nature of the Chinese languages. Did you ever ask why in a Chinese movie, there are subtitles in Chinese characters? China has 12 separate languages (they're not dialects - but languages), but while Mandarin (_kuo-hua _ - lit. country speech) is spoken by the actors, the written language is shared by all the languages (_wen_ being the written language), so a person in Shang-hai (_Wu-hua _ - Wu speech) may not understand the actor, but they can follow the bouncing ball, so to speak.
> 
> Aren't you glad you asked? I will see if I have the links to the tengwar and elvish sites still, and will post them. I am at work, and those links are on my home computer.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Hey, I learned something new today. 

Thanks!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

I knew where you were coming from on the discussion. There was no argument in the tone, and I didn;t take it that way.

Namarie
(Now you should know at least that much Quenya) lol

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## mwvickers

edwpat said:


> I knew where you were coming from on the discussion. There was no argument in the tone, and I didn;t take it that way.
> 
> Namarie
> (Now you should know at least that much Quenya) lol
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


It means, "farewell," right?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

You got it. There's a famous poem (at least in the Tolkien world) called The Namarie. The original Farewell poem in Quenya can easily be found by googling, and it is truly beautiful (the poem, not googling), and written by Tolkien, who was a poet before he was a novelist. He translates his own work and includes it in LOTR in the scene that Peter Jackson calls "The giving of the gifts," but Tolkien calls The Namarie, and Galadrial has the poetic honors. (Even Jackson has her raise her hand to the travelers displaying Adamant and whispering "Namarie"). Tolkien's poetry horripilates. I love the three part eulogy that opens The Two Towers over Boromir's remains. "Where is the horse and rider," which Jackson transposes later in that film for Theoden's pre-battle speech. (I love this stuff, as you can see) I also love when in the Jackson film, the words of one character winds up in the other. Like Aragorn's soliloquy over Eowyn in the House of Healing ("The shadow clinging to the cold morning mist) turned into dialogue for Wormtongue. And Frodo's dream of the glass veil of death when at Tom Bombadil's transformed into Gandalf's explanation of the afterlife to Pippin. And that leads up back to Namarie, which of course is a poem about passing into the farlands and returning to Valinor. (Sigh). Any morning that I can discuss Tolkien and his wonderful work about life and hope is a good morning indeed.

Edward C. Patterson
Frodo Lives


----------



## mwvickers

edwpat said:


> You got it. There's a famous poem (at least in the Tolkien world) called The Namarie. The original Farewell poem in Quenya can easily be found by googling, and it is truly beautiful (the poem, not googling), and written by Tolkien, who was a poet before he was a novelist. He translates his own work and includes it in LOTR in the scene that Peter Jackson calls "The giving of the gifts," but Tolkien calls The Namarie, and Galadrial has the poetic honors. (Even Jackson has her raise her hand to the travelers displaying Adamant and whispering "Namarie"). Tolkien's poetry horripilates. I love the three part eulogy that opens The Two Towers over Boromir's remains. "Where is the horse and rider," which Jackson transposes later in that film for Theoden's pre-battle speech. (I love this stuff, as you can see) I also love when in the Jackson film, the words of one character winds up in the other. Like Aragorn's soliloquy over Eowyn in the House of Healing ("The shadow clinging to the cold morning mist) turned into dialogue for Wormtongue. And Frodo's dream of the glass veil of death when at Tom Bombadil's transformed into Gandalf's explanation of the afterlife to Pippin. And that leads up back to Namarie, which of course is a poem about passing into the farlands and returning to Valinor. (Sigh). Any morning that I can discuss Tolkien and his wonderful work about life and hope is a good morning indeed.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson
> Frodo Lives


I am stirred by your knowledge and respect of the works. I majored in English in college, and my I greatly look up to both Tolkien and Lewis. I never had time to read them much while in college, and I am starting to read more of their works (and more about them) now. Both of the men led deep lives and have deep works (both fiction and non-fiction). There is so much there to learn. LOL


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

I believe that the more you now about Tolkien's life, his letters and the copious content of his son's 13 volume work on his father's evolution, the better the LOTR read will be. For instance, most Tolkien fans know that JRR was in the trenches of WWI at the Battle of the Soame. In the trenches he started writing The Last Cottage, about a mariner arriving at the last Cottage, a haven at the edge of the sea, where he is told an epic legend. Of course, that Cottage evolves over the years into Rivendell. BUT I don't think people realize that when Tolkien describes the Dead Marshes, he's describing the Battle of the Soame - the rain soaked pits with the dead floating face up and ghastly forever to be recalled by Gollum who tells us (or at least the Hobbitses) to "Don't follow the tricksy lights." It's also fun to map the names of rivers and such in LOTR to the local forrest streams and landmarks in and around Oxford. I enjoy discovering various cross references to things like Giants (Ents in old English) and Woses (Forest gremlins). My favorite tidbit is the name Tolkien, which is derived from an old German word Tulkuen, which mean "half-wit," which in Old Welsh is . . .Samwise.To me there's not accident that Samwise closes the work, and that Tolkien patterned the duality between Frodo and Sam as that between a WWI Officer and his enlisted aide-de-camp, and that the roles are merged at the end of the book. Samwise, that is Tulkuen, Gamgee.

I'm puling now.

Ed Patterson


----------



## mwvickers

edwpat said:


> I believe that the more you now about Tolkien's life, his letters and the copious content of his son's 13 volume work on his father's evolution, the better the LOTR read will be. For instance, most Tolkien fans know that JRR was in the trenches of WWI at the Battle of the Soame. In the trenches he started writing The Last Cottage, about a mariner arriving at the last Cottage, a haven at the edge of the sea, where he is told an epic legend. Of course, that Cottage evolves over the years into Rivendell. BUT I don't think people realize that when Tolkien describes the Dead Marshes, he's describing the Battle of the Soame - the rain soaked pits with the dead floating face up and ghastly forever to be recalled by Gollum who tells us (or at least the Hobbitses) to "Don't follow the tricksy lights." It's also fun to map the names of rivers and such in LOTR to the local forrest streams and landmarks in and around Oxford. I enjoy discovering various cross references to things like Giants (Ents in old English) and Woses (Forest gremlins). My favorite tidbit is the name Tolkien, which is derived from an old German word Tulkuen, which mean "half-wit," which in Old Welsh is . . .Samwise.To me there's not accident that Samwise closes the work, and that Tolkien patterned the duality between Frodo and Sam as that between a WWI Officer and his enlisted aide-de-camp, and that the roles are merged at the end of the book. Samwise, that is Tulkuen, Gamgee.
> 
> I'm puling now.
> 
> Ed Patterson


Clearly I have to read more. LOL


----------



## mwvickers

_The Hobbit _ is selling for $7.99. Was it $9.99 before, or am I mistaken?


----------



## Forster

mwvickers said:


> _The Hobbit _ is selling for $7.99. Was it $9.99 before, or am I mistaken?


No The Hobbit as near as I can tell started out at $7.99. IIRC it was just the separate titles in the LOTR trilogy that were $9.99. I bought The Hobbit the first day at $7.99.


----------



## mwvickers

Forster said:


> No The Hobbit as near as I can tell started out at $7.99. IIRC it was just the separate titles in the LOTR trilogy that were $9.99. I bought The Hobbit the first day at $7.99.


Thanks. I was hoping it had dropped in price (always a good sign), but $7.99 still isn't bad.


----------



## geniebeanie

reI have to disagree,The LOTR Books are much better than the movies,  Jackson changed too much.  I shudder to think that people who never read the books think Arwin rescued Frodo from the Ringraths, That the shire was unchanged at the end of the book.  Tolken must have rolled over in his grave.  I have read these books for many years and they are precious and good friends.  The movies were the difference between eating in a fine resturant and a fast food place.  They are the movies acording to Jackson with a little tolken throwned in.


----------



## Gertie Kindle

geniebeanie said:


> reI have to disagree,The LOTR Books are much better than the movies, Jackson changed too much. I shudder to think that people who never read the books think Arwin rescued Frodo from the Ringraths, That the shire was unchanged at the end of the book. Tolken must have rolled over in his grave. I have read these books for many years and they are precious and good friends. The movies were the difference between eating in a fine resturant and a fast food place. They are the movies acording to Jackson with a little tolken throwned in.


I was disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire was not included.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

Having read the book 37 times, I can say that Jackson had little choice but to present it on screen the way he did. The spirit of Tolkien's themes are intact. Many of the changes were laudable and Tolkien would have applauded them, although he never wanted the books interpreted on film. Much of the added material came from other Tolkien works or the appendices. The Arwen insertions are mostly from the appendices and make sense if you were making a balanced film. The Scouring of the Shoe decision was a good call, as Tolkien never knew how to end he book (and this comment from a person who worships him), and the Old Forest sequences were vestiges of the original draft that Tolkien probably should have revised out with his 90th revision. The multithreading of the telling was necessary since Tolkien's 6 books are single threaded. It as colossal task to smash it altogether on a streamline. The production values matched Tolkien's niggling spirit. On the whole, INHO, the film was 85% Tolkien and 15% Jackson, and I would rather have the film (and my favorite Elijah Wood big blue saucer eyes) than not. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Kindle Mommy

edwpat said:


> Having read the book 37 times, I can say that Jackson had little choice but to present it on screen the way he did. The spirit of Tolkien's themes are intact. Many of the changes were laudable and Tolkien would have applauded them, although he never wanted the books interpreted on film. Much of the added material came from other Tolkien works or the appendices. The Arwen insertions are mostly from the appendices and make sense if you were making a balanced film. The Scouring of the Shoe decision was a good call, as Tolkien never knew how to end he book (and this comment from a person who worships him), and the Old Forest sequences were vestiges of the original draft that Tolkien probably should have revised out with his 90th revision. The multithreading of the telling was necessary since Tolkien's 6 books are single threaded. It as colossal task to smash it altogether on a streamline. The production values matched Tolkien's niggling spirit. On the whole, INHO, the film was 85% Tolkien and 15% Jackson, and I would rather have the film (and my favorite Elijah Wood big blue saucer eyes) than not.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Well said!


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Kindle Mommy said:


> Well said!


Ditto. I was just _hoping _that the Scouring of the Shire would be included because it's one of my favorite parts.

Yes, I liked the way PJ included parts of the appendices into the movies. Arwen's end was so sad.

If PJ's LotR movies inspire people to read the books (like myself), then more power to him.


----------



## drenee

The price of this Trilogy has actually dropped to $14.04.  I called my son this morning to tell him I had added a gift card to my account and he should go ahead and get the Trilogy while it's 15.95 and before it jumps in price.  He told me to go ahead and get it and have it sent to his Ipod.  When I klicked onto it, the price had dropped.  I didn't expect that.
deb


----------



## Gertie Kindle

drenee said:


> The price of this Trilogy has actually dropped to $14.04. I called my son this morning to tell him I had added a gift card to my account and he should go ahead and get the Trilogy while it's 15.95 and before it jumps in price. He told me to go ahead and get it and have it sent to his Ipod. When I klicked onto it, the price had dropped. I didn't expect that.
> deb


I don't even feel bad that I paid the higher price. I was just happy to get it. Happy for you, though.


----------



## intinst

Gertie Kindle 'Turn to Page 390' said:


> I don't even feel bad that I paid the higher price. I was just happy to get it. Happy for you, though.


Same here. The satisfaction of finally having it on the KIndle far outweighs the few cents in price drop to me.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

I would have paid $10.00 for each just to have them on my Kindle, where they belong.  Hey come to think of it . . . I did.

Edward C. Patterson
Who prides himself as a Tolkien scholar, which means I live my life a "faerie."


----------



## drenee

I thought 15.95 was a great price.  I was completely surprised it dropped even lower.
deb


----------



## luvmy4brats

The single books have all dropped to $7.99 except for Children of Hurin. That $9.72


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

What's my bid for a Kindle version of The Philosopher's Stone for $30.00?  (Just kidding). Do send me money, just some prozac.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## hazeldazel

wow, been loving the discussion on the LOTR and Tolkien, I see i gotta re-read the books (again).  I was also disappointed that the scouring of the shire wasn't included, especially as they filmed it to some extent.  Even if Jackson didn't want to spend a lot of screen time on it, just showing the hobbitses rebuilding as they returned would have been nice.  Kinda showing that there's always hope.  Did I miss something or what the heck was that whole thing about Arwyn dying and then not dying in the movie?!?  Maybe it's been too long since I've read the books but when I first saw that it was like, huh?


----------



## davem2bits

Has anyone heard much about this new book?


----------



## Gertie Kindle

hazeldazel said:


> wow, been loving the discussion on the LOTR and Tolkien, I see i gotta re-read the books (again). I was also disappointed that the scouring of the shire wasn't included, especially as they filmed it to some extent. Even if Jackson didn't want to spend a lot of screen time on it, just showing the hobbitses rebuilding as they returned would have been nice. Kinda showing that there's always hope. Did I miss something or what the heck was that whole thing about Arwyn dying and then not dying in the movie?!? Maybe it's been too long since I've read the books but when I first saw that it was like, huh?


Arwen died in the Appendices. In the movie, when her Elrond told her what he had foreseen, Arwen was walking through the autumn woods in a dark cloak. That was the scene in the Appendices when she walked into the woods after Aragorn died and laid down in the fallen leaves and sort of faded into them. That was so sad. She died all alone.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson

She dies all alone, because she was now a mortal and had given her passage to Valinor to Froddo. She says to Frodo in her Namarie at Isengard - "All my grace I pass unto you." Of course, the second Isengard scene is not in the film (as it is on the road back to the Shire) but Boyens moves the quote to Arwen in her attempts to save Froddo at the Bruinen.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Gertie Kindle

edwpat said:


> She dies all alone, because she was now a mortal and had given her passage to Valinor to Froddo.
> Edward C. Patterson


I know.


----------



## Greg Banks

Funny, but I guess the Scouring of the Shire was a favorite for everyone, because I missed it to. According to footage in The Fellowship of the Ring when Frodo has the scene with Galadriel, I've always assumed that Peter Jackson must have filmed at least some of those scenes (looked too elaborate to have been done as an aside for just that brief moment), so I'm thinking (hoping) that we'll see it one day in maybe a 10th Anniversary Edition or something.


----------



## Mikuto

Sorry to bump an old thread, but has anyone bought and read the book for the Kindle? I'm wondering if it's all good formatting wise, as some of the comments suggest that it's not.


----------



## mwvickers

Mikuto said:


> Sorry to bump an old thread, but has anyone bought and read the book for the Kindle? I'm wondering if it's all good formatting wise, as some of the comments suggest that it's not.


If you are referring to the trilogy, I have it. I have read a small portion of the first part of it (concerning hobbits, etc.). The formatting has been great to me, so far. I cannot speak for further in.

There is a working TOC, and it is linked not just to each book within the trilogy, but to every section within each book.

I think it's great.


----------



## intinst

There are a few typos and some odd linespacing, but not too bad, I am half way through the triolgy


----------



## mwvickers

intinst said:


> There are a few typos and some odd linespacing, but not too bad, I am half way through the triolgy


I've heard that there are some issues in the trilogy that may not be present in the individual volumes of the works.

Can anyone confirm this? Does anyone have the individual volumes? If so, have you noticed anything?

If there are issues, I may request a refund for the trilogy (though it's been a few weeks since I bought it) and purchase them individually instead.

I've also heard there are issues with _The Hobbit_. Has anyone noticed any there?


----------



## Andra

I read _The Hobbit_ and aside from the odd line spacing and weird spelling, it was fine.
I did notice that when there was an illustration, the title would usually end on the page before or the page after.
I haven't gotten far enough into the trilogy to notice anything bad. The TOC seems to be pretty thorough and I checked random links and they all worked fine.


----------



## Cardinal

I want to buy the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings on the Kindle.  I was wondering if they are the full unabridged versions?  For Lord of the Rings I haven't decided if I am going to go with the three individual books or trilogy version, but whichever, I do want to make sure nothing has been cut out.  Thanks!


----------



## intinst

Yes, these are the full versions, I have read them through. The trilogy keeps things a little neater on the Kindle, less books to keep track of.


----------



## ak rain

I really like it if trilogies are together, with a linked TOC. I wish I could connect my other series.

this is a nice full edition

sylvia


----------



## Cardinal

Good to know! I figured the trilogy had a big chance of not being complete.

While we are on the subject, does anyone know if the original Shannara Trilogy (Sword, Elfstones and Wishsong) is complete?

Here is a link to it:

http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Shannara-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B000FBFMZM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1268525786&sr=1-2


----------



## lilkahuna

Does the Kindle version of the LOTR trilogy have the talk feature ?


----------



## intinst

lilkahuna said:


> Does the Kindle version of the LOTR trilogy have the talk feature ?


The main page at Amazon says that text to speech is enabled.


----------



## G. Henkel

Interestingly, I just noticed that the complete trilogy is no longer available on Amazon. They only sell each volume separately now.


----------



## Zauberer

Guido Henkel said:


> Interestingly, I just noticed that the complete trilogy is no longer available on Amazon. They only sell each volume separately now.


I just noticed this too and it concerns me. Further, "The Two Towers" isn't available either so you can't even buy the trilogy on Amazon right now. I checked B&N and you can still get the trilogy for the Nook, as well as "The Two Towers." Any reason they would no longer list the book on Amazon? I e-mailed their customer service and got this reply:


> Just so you know, The Two Towers of the Lord of the rings Trilogy isn't currently available for Kindle and we are not aware about when it will be back.


----------



## jason10mm

I wonder if some of this "available/not available, $5 now $9" stuff is a way the publishers are trying to train us to BUY NOW instead of waiting for presumed inevitable price drops, particularly on catalogue titles. With e-books they can change the price almost daily, so it can fluctuate with current popularity or coinciding events, such as the Game of Thrones TV series and the Martin books.


----------



## Zauberer

I would prefer that to not even having the trilogy at all any more. What good is the first and third volumes without the second? Is it possible they are updating the trilogy with improved formatting because you can still buy it at B&N for the Nook?


----------



## Tris

Zauberer said:


> I would prefer that to not even having the trilogy at all any more. What good is the first and third volumes without the second? Is it possible they are updating the trilogy with improved formatting because you can still buy it at B&N for the Nook?


I bought my trilogy back when they were just out and still in one complete collection. So perhaps it is true that "Two Towers" is being corrected. Has anyone actually asked Amazon?

I wonder if B&N updates their ebooks the same way Amazon does...or do they even care to?

Tris


----------



## G. Henkel

Neither Amazon nor B&N are "updating" books or correcting them. They have absolutely nothing to do with this. This is all handled by the publisher. Amazon and Barnes&Noble are merely distributors who put out whatever is made available to them by the publishers.


----------



## MarkPaulJacobs

First time I heard of this...


----------



## jongoff

I have to admit, there's something _wrong_ about reading the Red Book of Westmarch in digital format. Tolkien should be in a heavy tome, covered and dust, like the chronicle in Balin's tomb, without the orcs and goblins, of course. I don't know, but there's something gratifying about pulling down my leather bound copy of the LOTR and opening it read from it's pages. It just seems like this is where one should go to find Middle Earth. That said, you just have to have LOTR available in case you get a sudden craving for Elven weybread.


----------



## gregoryblackman

Like most children, this was the first adult novel I ever attempted to tackle as a child.  It took me forever, but was one of the most enjoyable memories I have today.


----------



## Tara Maya

Are the appendices included?


----------



## Tara Maya

jongoff said:


> I have to admit, there's something _wrong_ about reading the Red Book of Westmarch in digital format. Tolkien should be in a heavy tome, covered and dust, like the chronicle in Balin's tomb, without the orcs and goblins, of course. I don't know, but there's something gratifying about pulling down my leather bound copy of the LOTR and opening it read from it's pages. It just seems like this is where one should go to find Middle Earth. That said, you just have to have LOTR available in case you get a sudden craving for Elven weybread.


Imagine your kindle is a magic leaf, upon which the pages appear and vanish as you stroke the sides...


----------

