# Is the Hobbit Necessary for Enjoyment of LotRs?



## HLGStrider (Feb 22, 2006)

There have always been "back door" readers of series, those who pick up book two before book one, read the _Princess and Curdie_ before the _Princess and the Goblin, _the Lord of the Rings before the Hobbit. . . Whether intentionally or unintentionally.

I'm not one of them. I am nearly nuerotic about reading things in the correct order. Even series that don't really matter (Nancy Drew and serial stories. Who really cares whether you read _Shadow Ranch _before or after _The Thirteenth Pearl_, they are in no way connected. The only difference is that she gains a steady boyfriend in book six or seven (the one with the diary, it is sad that I know this.) and who cares because Ned is really a boring character with even less development than Nancy. . .but still I had to read all 56 original Nancy Drews in order of the little numbers on the back of the spines, no questions asked. I was a strange ten-year-old.

However, we now have a whole new generation of Ringers who may not even know that there is a Hobbit. These readers may very well have seen the movie before reading the books and already know enough of the basic plot that they don't need the Hobbit's background, if they even know that the prequel exists. They may simply pick up the Lord of the Rings (heaven forbid) because they saw a copy with Orlando Bloom on the cover. . .gasp. . .and thought, "Hey, it's the cute pirate guy!" So, anyway, I am sure they are out there, Hobbitless Ringers. 

I thought, this has to have happened, and it really isn't such a hugely bad thing to read books out of order, but doesn't it lessen the enjoyment of Lord of the Rings not to read its shorter predecessor? What would that be like, not to have a previous friendship with Bilbo and Gandalf? Or would we all be better off for not having heard the Elves sing that annoying ding-dong the witch is dead down in the Valley song before meeting Elrond? 

What do you think?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Feb 22, 2006)

Tolkien himself regreted the childish tone of The Hobbit; I don't think that TH is necessary in order to fully enjoy LotR - but I may be biased since I didn't read these books in the 'proper' order.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 22, 2006)

I read the Hobbit first and liked it but I have not reread it in some time in comparison to the Lord of the Rings which I generally pick up once a year, to read excerpts if not a complete re-through. 

So, even though I did things "right" I would agree that you can let the Lord of the Rings stand alone . .. and that the Hobbit can stand alone as well. They are complete books without each other.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Feb 22, 2006)

Is it necessary? Most emphatically NO.
Is it a bonus? Yes, but only if one doesn't base one's opinions of LotR on one's opinions of The Hobbit.


----------



## YayGollum (Feb 22, 2006)

Is that The Hobbit book necessary for any enjoyment at all of that The Lord Of The Rings story? No. Easily, no. Plenty of people have enjoyed that The Lord Of The Rings story before reading that The Hobbit story before. Plenty of people have made that knowledge public on this particular website thing. But then, maybe you never noticed that, HLGStrider person. Anyways, I, of course, also make a large deal about reading bookses in chronological order. When crazy author types don't write them that way, I have to read them in publishing order, but once everything is done, I have to reread the entire series the way that I think that I should have.  oh well.


----------



## DGoeij (Feb 23, 2006)

Necessary? No, I don't think so. I personally read the after I finished LotR, simply because I was not aware of its existence at the time. Since it was a much simpler story (almost boring at times), compared to LotR, I mainly read it to find out about Middle Earth some more.

I somehow feel its better for the enjoyement of both stories to read them in the chornological order, but considering the information available in LotR, I think you can quite easily enter ME through the LotR, without starting out in the Hobbit.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Feb 23, 2006)

I think those who read LOTR first and then discover TH later are in for a serendipity. And if one happens to read the bridge material in Lost Tales (how and why Gandalf and Thorin met at Bree in the first place), that makes it even more fun.

Barley


----------



## mjb0123 (Feb 24, 2006)

The Hobbit does not have to be read first. It is like all the other back stories before LOTR--it is mentioned enough in LOTR to give you a taste of it but does not have to be read first.

It would be like saying you HAD TO read The Silmarillion and all the other books before you read The Hobbit. I mean, isn't that really the "correct" order? 

Matt


Visit The Butcher Shop!
http://mjb0123.blogspot.com


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 24, 2006)

To me the Sil is the equivelent of a history book or religious text behind a historical novel, so I think it would almost always benefit from being read second. 

Of course, I have never heard of anyone reading the Sil first on their first time through Tolkien, and it would be interesting to find someone that had to see if the tone of the Sil eased them into the work or not.


----------



## Hammersmith (Feb 24, 2006)

I read The Hobbit first, and very much enjoyed it. When reading The Lord of the Rings, I already had a world in mind to base these new characters in, and everything just...fit. To this day The Hobbit is my clear favourite out of the two, and I think it's due to reading it first several times before even realising that there _was _a sequel.


----------



## Aglarband (Mar 18, 2006)

I read the Hobbit before LOTR and I must say I liked knowing the back story. I mean, if you havn't read the Hobbit, you don't know what makes the Baggins so special in comparison to other Hobbits.


----------



## Shireman D (Mar 18, 2006)

Interesting; JRRT was not aware of how the links would work between the two - doesn't he write somewhere that he really did not realise the significance of the Ring when it was first found? - and he had already got the outline of so much in his head if not actually sketched out.

I _think_ it might be possible to see the two works as _both_ growing out of the wider scheme that he had already developed (to justify the existence of his languages). I read LOTR first and only came to TH much later but I did decide to read TH with my children first before moving on to LOTR because it led them into the grander scheme more easily.


----------



## baragund (Mar 21, 2006)

My thinking is along the same lines as Shireman D's. If you are a young whipper-snapper (say, less than 12 years old), The Hobbit would be a more effective introduction to Middle-earth and would facilitate "graduating" to LOTR. At least that's how it worked for me and my kids. If you are starting to read Tolkien's works as an adult, then starting with LOTR would be fine and The Hobbit could be considered a pleasant and light-hearted prequel.


----------



## Snaga (Mar 25, 2006)

I read the Hobbit as a very young orcling (10-ish I guess), and really enjoyed it. I tried soon after to read Lord of the Rings two or three times before I managed to drag myself through what I found at the time to be a very slow start, and get into the meat of the story. I have to say that if I hadn't liked the Hobbit so much, I might not have bothered. Although, my attention span has improved somewhat since then!


----------



## Maedhros (Apr 11, 2006)

From _LOTR:_


> To his astonishment and terror, and lasting delight, Sam saw a vast shape crash out of the trees and come careering down the slope. Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to him, a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mûmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty..............
> Sam drew a deep breath. 'An Oliphaunt it was!' he said. `So there are Oliphaunts, and I have seen one. What a life! But no one at home will ever believe me. Well, if that's over, I'll have a bit of sleep.'


From _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil: OLIPHAUNT_


> Grey as a mouse,
> Big as a house,
> Nose like a snake,
> I make the earth shake,
> ...





> Or would we all be better off for not having heard the Elves sing that annoying ding-dong the witch is dead down in the Valley song before meeting Elrond?


This is the problem really. I would say that a great number of readers just don't appreciate the magic of the songs and poems, not only in _The Hobbit_ but in _LOTR_. As I have been reading about ME, I have found out that while the story is excellent, what truly sets it asides for me, is the poems and songs, there are just amazing, and while a person can enjoy the story of ME without having read _The Hobbit_.

From _The Hobbit_


> Chip the glasses and crack the plates!
> Blunt the knives and bend the forks!
> That's what Bilbo Baggins hates-
> Smash the bottles and burn the corks!
> ...


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 11, 2006)

I would agree with you on most songs, but somehow that "Hey Jolly Jolly" one just makes me cringe. It does not seem at all in keeping with the Elves who appear later on in the series. 

I love the Dwarf songs. I love the "Fifteen birds in five fir trees" and almost all the others, but the Elf song just doesn't seem to fit. Of course, I haven't read the Hobbit in probably two years and I can't remember the text as well as I'd like, but still I remember finding that song just plain annoying.


----------



## Wolfshead (Apr 11, 2006)

Many years ago I learned to skip the songs and poems in TH and LOTR. They just take too long


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 11, 2006)

Wolfshead said:


> Many years ago I learned to skip the songs and poems in TH and LOTR. They just take too long



As the geologist said, "My sediments exactly!" 

Barley


----------



## Maedhros (Apr 13, 2006)

> Many years ago I learned to skip the songs and poems in TH and LOTR. They just take too long


This is just plain sad.  



> As the geologist said, "My sediments exactly!"



Sadly, you have not really read neither of those books then.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 13, 2006)

Maedhros said:


> This is just plain sad.
> 
> Sadly, you have not really read neither of those books then.



Oh please, _give me a break!_ I've been reading them over 40 years. I and all other readers have the right to read them in the way we enjoy. If we don't match your lofty standards, that's just tough!

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Apr 13, 2006)

Yikes! Having a bad day, Barliman Butterbur person? The poor Maedhros person only seemed to me to be full of sorrow and confusion that you and the Wolfshead person seem incapable of enjoying things the way that he does. Anything especially aggravating about someone who merely wishes for the maximum amount of enjoyment for all?  I saw nothing in the Maedhros person's post to imply that he could have been informing you as to what his opinion on what your rights happen to be or that his standards are even on the same scale as anyone else's.  

For any who might wish to dissect posts to find a way to induce unprovoked annoyance, the aforely written stuff was written mostly to express shock and confusion. The suggestion that the Barliman Butterbur person was having a more inconvenience-oriented day was designed to prevent further antagonism from brewing. Yay for pointing out that not all antagonism pops into existence by way of apparently unreasonable ducts, yes?  

Hm. But then, I would guess that some could be insulted by that second paragraph, though. Assuming that people can be overly sensitive and require explanations for what should be obvious. oh well. I have run into plenty of that stuff. 

Also, I muchly enjoy pretty much all of the songs and poems that the Tolkien dude came up with. Very fun. I have no problem with the elf song in that The Hobbit book, beside the way. I enjoy seeing all elves as achingly annoying and pure evil, as they seem to be in that story.


----------



## HLGStrider (Apr 13, 2006)

In Barli's favor, Maedhros, there is no reason to be high handed about this. For goodness sakes, we're here for the enjoyment of literature and no one has to like the whole of the book. We're not all here because we are the same person. It's ok to like/dislike different parts of the book. Unless we go for a "divinely inspired/guided and therefore perfect" Tolkien theory. . .


----------



## Maedhros (Apr 14, 2006)

> Oh please, give me a break! I've been reading them over 40 years. I and all other readers have the right to read them in the way we enjoy. If we don't match your lofty standards, that's just tough!


It is funny really. Last time I remember, both _LOTR_ and _The Hobbit_ are made up of prose, poems and songs. If a person choses to read only the prose, he/she is not reading the whole book. Simple.

It is sad because I used to be like that. I too used to skip them. Fortunately for me, I read _The Cottage of Lost Play_ and I fell in love with JRRT'S poetry. I was blind before, the beauty and the magnificence that I had lost and just found was unimaginable. It was like reading a new book.



> In Barli's favor, Maedhros, there is no reason to be high handed about this. For goodness sakes, we're here for the enjoyment of literature and no one has to like the whole of the book. We're not all here because we are the same person. It's ok to like/dislike different parts of the book. Unless we go for a "divinely inspired/guided and therefore perfect" Tolkien theory. . .





> I saw nothing in the Maedhros person's post to imply that he could have been informing you as to what his opinion on what your rights happen to be or that his standards are even on the same scale as anyone else's.



Of course, I could be wrong about JRRT's poetry.
From the _Letters of JRRT: 306_


> My 'poetry' has received little praise – comment even by some admirers being as often as not contemptuous (I refer to reviews by self-styled literary blokes). Perhaps largely because in the contemporary atmosphere — in which 'poetry' must only reflect one's personal agonies of mind or soul, and exterior things are only valued by one's own 'reactions' – it seems hardly ever recognised that the verses in _The L.R._ are all dramatic: they do not express the poor old professor's soul-searchings, but are fitted in style and contents to the characters in the story that sing or recite them, and to the situations in it. ....


----------



## baragund (Apr 14, 2006)

Tolkien's poetry helps bring Middle-earth to life for me. I guess that is the neat thing about poetry. It appeals to the heart while prose appeals more to the brain. At its best, poetry can stir a more vivid picture in the mind and touch a person more effectively than even the best written prose.

The thing is, a person can't "devour" a long stretch of poetry like a novel (At least I can't.). The words need to be savored and that can be an annoyance in an exciting book like LOTR where the reader wants to find out what happens next. I can understand the tendency to blow by the songs and poems in order to get on with the story at hand.

Soooo.... Barley (and anybody else who tends to skip the poems and songs), I invite you to revisit Tolkien's poetry in The Hobbit as well as LOTR. I think you will get a kick out of the Dwarves' song as they cleaned up Bilbo's dishes and the Orcs' song as they drove their captives to meet the Great Goblin. The more serious poems and songs in The Hobbit and LOTR will give you pleasant interludes and a surprisingly vivid view into the Elder Days.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 14, 2006)

baragund said:


> ...Barley (and anybody else who tends to skip the poems and songs), I invite you to revisit Tolkien's poetry in The Hobbit as well as LOTR. I think you will get a kick out of the Dwarves' song as they cleaned up Bilbo's dishes and the Orcs' song as they drove their captives to meet the Great Goblin. The more serious poems and songs in The Hobbit and LOTR will give you pleasant interludes and a surprisingly vivid view into the Elder Days.


It's not that I don't skip them because they are inferior poetry. They add a unique atmosphere and perfume without which LOTR simply wouldn't be the same. But for me they usually act as a hindrance and sometimes a sudden stop to the forward motion of the action. Occasionally (very occasionally  ) I stop to read a bit of them, but I almost always lose patience and go on with the story. However I do enjoy all the poetry and songs from _The Hobbit!_ 

So with the permission of one and all (even without it), I will continue to read Tolkien in whatever strange twisted warped manner happens to give me maximum reading pleasure at any given moment. 

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 14, 2006)

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own fancies and preferences when it comes to reading and enjoying the good professor's work. However, the opinions of "professional" critics or any sort of "majority" who scoff and look down at JRRT's poetry mean diddly squat to me. Personally, I simply love and adore Tolkien's collective body of poetry from the jolly, lighthearted songs in _The Hobbit_ and the contemplative pieces from _The Cottage of Lost Play_ (mentioned by Maed) to the bitter-sweet song of the Ent and Entwife and Galadriel's atmospheric lament in _the LOTR_. 

Not only will I _not_ skip the poems upon my n-th rereading of the main works, I will often read them several times, sometimes concentrating on specific stanzas or verses that I find of especial beauty, or even recite them aloud!  

I've long ago come to the discovery that the amount of appreciation a person has for poetry mirrors the type of character they are and determines which people they will divine a kindred spirit in. 

Anyhow, I've never viewed Barley as an especially poetic soul, so I guess that's all as it should be.  And don't worry, Maedhros, I've always known you had the inclination for poetry in you, even before you yourself were aware of it.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 14, 2006)

Ithrynluin said:


> ...I've never viewed Barley as an especially poetic soul, so I guess that's all as it should be.



One can have a poetic soul without being especially moved by poetry...  But you're right in that I virtually never go looking for poems to read. My first preference is to listen to a piece of music. That said, the poets that I have deliberately read with sure and steady enjoyment include Walt Whitman, e.e. cummings, William Pillin, Don Blanding and Robert Service, although the latter two are more balladeers than they are poets. There was a time in college when I was exposed to German poets of the Romantic to early Modern eras — Schiller, Rilke, etc. — and believe me, the German poetry of that age is quite pungent and wonderful!

Barley


----------



## Mike (Apr 14, 2006)

I am never one to skip a good poem, and both novels offer a goodly selection of excellent pieces. They are enjoyable on their own, but I find them to be even better when read within the text--Tolkien knew exactly where to put his songs and poems where they would be most effective, and I come to a deeper understanding of the story and the poetry when the poem is read in context of the story. (Now say that sentence three times as fast).



> Not only will I _not_ skip the poems upon my n-th rereading of the main works, I will often read them several times, sometimes concentrating on specific stanzas or verses that I find of especial beauty, or even recite them aloud!


 
Indeed. How many times have I caught myself reciting "the Road goes ever On" at the strangest times.



> That said, the poets that I have deliberately read with sure and steady enjoyment include Walt Whitman, e.e. cummings, William Pillin, Don Blanding and Robert Service, although the latter two are more balladeers than they are poets.


 
Robert Service! One for the Klondike again!
(I have several books of his collected works, and when I was in elementary school even recited one of his poems in a competition--and recieved first place!)
I'll have to say Tomas Hardy may be one of my favourite poets. That and the Scop who told the tale of Beowulf.

And, on back to the thread topic, I would have to say that my not having read the Hobbit before The Lord of the Rings had no affect on my enjoyment of the latter work. I actually read "The Lord of the Rings" backwards my first time--starting with "The Return of the King" and ending with "The Fellowship of the Ring'--so my perceptions towards this may be somewhat skewed. All in all, though, "the Hobbit" is an excellent read on its own and i would recommend it to all-whether you've read "the Lord of the Rings" or not.


----------



## baragund (Apr 14, 2006)

An aside:

For those of you who find the published Silmarillion too dense or even dry, I recommend reading _The Lays of Beleriand_, vol. III of HOME. The Lay of Leithian and the Lay of the Children of Hurin bring those tales to life much better than the prose in The Silmarillion.

Well, they did for me. It's a pity Tolkien never finished them.


----------



## Maedhros (Apr 22, 2006)

> Of course, everyone is entitled to their own fancies and preferences when it comes to reading and enjoying the good professor's work. However, the opinions of "professional" critics or any sort of "majority" who scoff and look down at JRRT's poetry mean diddly squat to me. Personally, I simply love and adore Tolkien's collective body of poetry from the jolly, lighthearted songs in The Hobbit and the contemplative pieces from The Cottage of Lost Play (mentioned by Maed) to the bitter-sweet song of the Ent and Entwife and Galadriel's atmospheric lament in the LOTR.


Jeje. Well Ithrynluin, you wanted me to spice things up, and so I have.  



> For those of you who find the published Silmarillion too dense or even dry, I recommend reading The Lays of Beleriand, vol. III of HOME. The Lay of Leithian and the Lay of the Children of Hurin bring those tales to life much better than the prose in The Silmarillion.


Yep. That was a great day for me. It was a Sunday, and I just finished reading HOME II and then began reading HOME III, and I have to say that it was awesome, it took me until Monday to finish HOME III but I remember the experience was great. I just couldn't stop reading, the poems had such great beauty and excitement, and I was like wow.

From the _Lays of Beleriand_


> Then Húrin answered, Hithlum’s chieftain—
> his shining eyes with sheen of fire
> in wrath were reddened: ‘O ruinous one,
> by fear unfettered I have fought thee long,
> ...



Oh, and baragund, what was the difference between a freeway and a highway?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 22, 2006)

baragund said:


> ...For those of you who find the published Silmarillion too dense or even dry, I recommend reading _The Lays of Beleriand_, vol. III of HOME. The Lay of Leithian and the Lay of the Children of Hurin bring those tales to life much better than the prose in The Silmarillion.



Thanks for the tip, I'll check that out!  And yes, I am one of those who find the Sil just too dark and _depressing_ for enjoyable reading. For me, it _informs_ without _entertaining._ I don't think it would ever make it as a musical...  

Barley


----------



## baragund (Apr 24, 2006)

How about a Mel Brooks comedy, Barley?

_♫Springtime, for Morgoth, and AAAngbaaand...♫_


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 24, 2006)

baragund said:


> How about a Mel Brooks comedy, Barley?
> 
> _?Springtime, for Morgoth, and AAAngbaaand...?_



Now yer talkin'!  Hey, how'd you get those musical notes??? And speaking of Mel Brooks, I was watching _Control Your Enthusiasm_ the other night, and the episode featured Mel Brooks and his late wife Anne Bancroft. The storyline was that his Broadway hit _The Producers_ was driving him mad: it was so incredibly successful that he wanted it to flop so that he and Anne could finally have some time off from the endless round of shows, Green Room affairs, parties, etc. — they just wanted some quiet peaceful alone time together.

So they put Larry Davis (I think that's his name) into the show because he was so unutterably bad, certain that he'd cause the show to close. But it backfired — he blew his lines so horribly that the audience started walking out, which was exactly what Brooks was hoping for. But Davis came to the footlights and started improvising standup comedy to the point where the show became a smash hit even more, and Brooks was stuck with it more than ever — really funny, and it was good to see Anne Bancroft one more time.

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Apr 26, 2006)

Tolkien sure wrote some beautiful poetry, but I personally find the poems in _The Lord of the Rings_ and _The Hobbit_ to be of very varying standard. And the best of his poems can, in my opinion, be found in _HoME._

Nothing beats reading _Kortirion among the Trees_ on a warm day in spring-time, with the singing of birds and rustling leaves as background "music."


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 26, 2006)

Arvedui said:


> Tolkien sure wrote some beautiful poetry, but I personally find the poems in _The Lord of the Rings_ and _The Hobbit_ to be of very varying standard.



You put your finger on it. He writes a great tale, but a sure and steady poet he's not. I give him high marks for enthusiasm, sincerity and depth of feeling, but it doesn't always distill down into beautiful poetry. I suppose now I will be branded a heretic... 

Barley


----------



## Mike (Apr 26, 2006)

I'm sharpening my stake and pouring gasoline on the pyre right now...


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 27, 2006)

Either that, or we should dunk him in tar and coat him with feathers. But I think we should at least leave the freedom of choice to Barley.


----------



## Arvedui (Apr 27, 2006)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> You put your finger on it. He writes a great tale, but a sure and steady poet he's not. I give him high marks for enthusiasm, sincerity and depth of feeling, but it doesn't always distill down into beautiful poetry. I suppose now I will be branded a heretic...
> 
> Barley


Well, they better build the pyre big enough to make room for to stakes, then.


----------



## baragund (Apr 27, 2006)

All the more reason to get yourself a copy of The Lays of Beleriand, Barley. I found _The Lay of the Children of Hurin_ to be particularly vivid and moving. I picked up a used hard cover edition from Amazon for less than $10. 

Keep in mind I am NOT a poetry guy. (My usual idea of good poetry starts starts off with _There once was a man from Nantucket..._.) But I found myself really getting into the Lays. The _Children of Hurin_ lay uses a peculiar celtic-style structure that is almost narrative but not quite. But whatever it is, it's really effective.

As for the musical notes, I opened a blank Word document, pulled down the Insert menu, selected Symbols, found what I wanted and then cut and pasted them into my post. Strange but they did not appear correctly on my screen so I just thought they got messed up. I'm glad they worked for you.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 27, 2006)

baragund said:


> All the more reason to get yourself a copy of The Lays of Beleriand, Barley. I found _The Lay of the Children of Hurin_ to be particularly vivid and moving. I picked up a used hard cover edition from Amazon for less than $10.



One of these days, one of these days... 



> Keep in mind I am NOT a poetry guy. (My usual idea of good poetry starts starts off with _There once was a man from Nantucket..._.)



Who blew his nose in a bucket...



> As for the musical notes, I opened a blank Word document, pulled down the Insert menu, selected Symbols, found what I wanted and then cut and pasted them into my post. Strange but they did not appear correctly on my screen so I just thought they got messed up. I'm glad they worked for you.



They showed up on the website, but transformed into question marks when I did your quote.  

And as for you _fair-weather friends_ sharpening your stakes and gathering your faggots and flame, know ye that I have been conferred with Powers by the witches in Harry Potter's world: burn me and it will simply tickle! In fact, I might repeat it just for fun! 

Barley


----------



## Persephone (Jun 28, 2006)

It is not a required read, but enjoyable nonetheless. Also, it is a story that can stand on its own, I mean without LOTR afterwards. I love The Hobbit and love Bilbo's adventure than Frodo's. It's also funnier than LOTR. 

I think rather than The Hobbit, The Silmarillion is, in my opinion, a must if you wish to really get deeper into LOTR since Sil essentially explains the origin of the war that ended in LOTR.

Then again, that's just me.


----------

