BBC.com Top 200 books...

[thepixieinside]

I have marked through the books that I have already read and bolded the ones that I want to read.

1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
2. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen
3. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman
4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling
6. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper

Comments

[black_raven135]

I notice that Lord of the Rings has not been one you have read nor is it bolded.
I would highly recommend it be placed in your
'to be read' category.
Trust me when I say, much better than the films.
I am rereading them for the second time and it is like reading them for the first time.
All that said, forget The Hobbit and just read FOTR, TT, and ROTK.

[thepixieinside]

OOPS! I meant to mark it! I have picked it up and read some of it several times. I love the movies, so I DEF. should read the books...Thanks! :D

[black_raven135]

I know you will.......
They are so wonderful....
Jackson rewrote so much that should
have been left alone.....
e.g. in TT they are at Isengarde and
Treebeard is addressing Legolas. I love
what he says to him and Legolas' reply how he wants to visit Fangorn later if he survives
but then notes he would bring Gimli with him who uses his axe not on trees but on orcs.....
Wonderful stuff.
All left out of the film to include other stuff that was never in Tolkien's books.
Do yourself a favor and begin with FOTR
Spare yourself The Hobbit.

[thepixieinside]

OOH! I will remember to start with FOTR...thank you! :D

[yourshrubbery]

*huffs*
And what, praytell, is wrong with The Hobbit?

[black_raven135]

other than putting me into zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
mode, nothing.....
:P

[yourshrubbery]

Wow. Really? I never got bored with The Hobbit.

[black_raven135]

I know....I am probably the only one out
here who frankly finds them annoying and
tiresome.
I think Jackson dismissed a lot which should
have been included in FOTR, TT, and ROTK
in order to accomodate reels of footage,
including the trite lesson on cooking rabbit...
much was left out which deserved to be left in.
A little of the hobbits and Gollum goes a long
way for me.

[yourshrubbery]

"I think Jackson dismissed a lot which should
have been included in FOTR, TT, and ROTK..."

Agreed. Arwen wasn't necessary, honestly. I would have much preferred Glorfindel and maybe even a snippet of Tom Bombadil to a the whole Arwen/Eowyn/Aragorn love triangle. It made me spitting mad that they gave Treebeard some of Tom Bombadil's lines on TT. Although that's probably just me. =D

But I did love the bit about cooking rabbits! That part made me smile.

[black_raven135]

Exactly right about Glorfindel's role
Totally given to Arwen
and the dialogue in Lorien was given to
Aragorn when Legolas did all the talking in
the book......
(I read where in ROTK Jackson finally realizes
he had so little that they dreamed some up)
Also Eomer was at Helm's Deep
and don't get me started on leaving Bombadil
and Goldberry..........

[yourshrubbery]

I know. Trading the character's dialogue just really rubs me the wrong way, for some reason. Aragorn was the leader, therefore he should have had those lines. It doesn't make any sense.

I really wished they had Bombadil in there. But sometimes I think it's better that way. They might have made Bombadil really really terrible. No Bombadil is better than a crappy one.

And the scouring of the Shire! That really ticked me off.

[black_raven135]

re: the dialogue in Lorien between the elves and Legolas ....I credit Tolkien for doing what he wanted with his own material.
What I don't credit tho is Jackson taking words from the mouth of a Tolkien character and giving them to someone else or worse yet entire sections e.g. Glorfindel eliminated and Arwen who existed how much in the books? suddenly becomes prominent......

To me that is real nerve.

[yourshrubbery]

Aye. It makes me worried for The Hobbit movie, but apparently that isn't happening anyway.

The movies WERE good, but they were shoddy interpretations of the books.

"......they were shoddy interpretations of the books"

[black_raven135]

~~~thank you~~~
Exactly what I have felt ever since I read the books in 2004 and now rereading it comes to mind even more....

Re: "......they were shoddy interpretations of the books"

[yourshrubbery]

I haven't read the books in ages! I've moved quite a bit this past year and they've been packed up. I like to read them every year. Don't really know why. I love the fact that they're new every time you read them over.

"..they're new every time you read them over."

[black_raven135]

So true.
I read something last night and said outloud
"I don't remember this from last time!!"
BTW have you ever read any of the Philip Pullman trilogy??