[HN Gopher] JRR Tolkien reads from The Hobbit for 30 Minutes (1952)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       JRR Tolkien reads from The Hobbit for 30 Minutes (1952)
        
       Author : bookofjoe
       Score  : 307 points
       Date   : 2026-01-07 14:43 UTC (5 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.openculture.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.openculture.com)
        
       | krupan wrote:
       | This is so good. You can tell that Andy Serkis based his gollum
       | voice off of this.
        
       | ParentiSoundSys wrote:
       | I wonder what Tolkien would say of so much of the symbolism from
       | his novels being used to bootstrap a horrible dystopian control
       | grid? Would he approve or disapprove? The way that orcs are
       | dehumanized you have to wonder.
        
         | usrnm wrote:
         | > The way that orcs are dehumanized
         | 
         | Orcs aren't human, though. If anything, they were deelfized
        
         | gambiting wrote:
         | >>The way that orcs are dehumanized you have to wonder.
         | 
         | If anything, it's their portrayal in the Rings of Power that is
         | idiotic(trying to humanize them) - they aren't human, they
         | don't have families or friends or internal lives and
         | psychological doubts going through their heads - they are meant
         | to be a force("force" like in "force of nature") of evil, not a
         | misunderstood and exploited race of intelligent beings.
         | 
         | For an actually interesting take on "hey what if the orcs are
         | actually intelligent people" there is The Last Ringbearer by a
         | Russian author, presenting LOTR from the perspective of
         | Mordor(it's not a good book, but was an amusing read)
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
         | 
         | I will however agree with you that it's truly insane how we
         | have a global survailence company that is used to spy on
         | citizens and destroy democracies worldwide that is literally
         | called Palantir. Like, no one working there is seeing it?
        
           | avadodin wrote:
           | are we the baddies?
        
             | ParentiSoundSys wrote:
             | wink wink
        
           | klondike_klive wrote:
           | There must be some pretty industrial strength
           | compartmentalising going on.
        
           | Cthulhu_ wrote:
           | Palantir, Anduril, Istari, and there's even a home security
           | one called Sauron, you can't make this shit up.
           | 
           | Back in my day, LotR names were used for cool metal bands
           | like Gorgoroth, Amon Amarth, Cirith Ungol, Carach Angren,
           | Burzum, etc.
        
             | ekianjo wrote:
             | There is band called Silmarils as well
        
             | GuinansEyebrows wrote:
             | the tolkien metal world continues: One of Nine put out a
             | killer record on Profound Lore last year.
             | https://oneofnine.bandcamp.com/album/dawn-of-the-iron-
             | shadow (skip the first track if you don't care for "dungeon
             | synth"). i'm not a big fan of keyboards in metal but the
             | rest of the instrumentation is so good i can forgive it :)
        
           | Ntrails wrote:
           | > we have a global survailence company that is used to spy on
           | citizens and destroy democracies worldwide that is literally
           | called Palantir. Like, no one working there is seeing it?
           | 
           | The Palantir are not evil creations in the book iirc. They
           | were used by the great kings to see whatever they wished.
           | 
           | Heck, even in the book Aragorn uses the Palantir to make a
           | critical decision turning the tide of battle.
        
             | actionfromafar wrote:
             | In the book the Palantir are technically neutral devices
             | for Seeing things, that, it turns out, are inherently prone
             | to misuse and once used for Evil, are incredibly difficult
             | to use in any other way.
             | 
             | A better metaphor (accidental or not) for surveillance
             | technology I've never seen.
        
               | wyldfire wrote:
               | > A better metaphor (accidental or not) for surveillance
               | technology I've never seen.
               | 
               | "We are easily corrupted"
               | 
               | [1] https://www.westword.com/opinion/opinion-palantir-
               | technologi...
               | 
               | [2] https://www.pogo.org/investigates/stephen-miller-
               | conflicts-o...
        
               | actionfromafar wrote:
               | Edit: it just occurred to me that the book describes a
               | kind of filter bubble, too. The Palantir stones are
               | inherently incapable of showing false data. But they
               | became tuned over time to show _highly_ editorialized
               | video clips which supported a specific ( _Evil_ )
               | narrative. That (IIRC) included future projections of
               | possible outcomes.
               | 
               | Denethor (?) tried to use a Palantir for good, but went
               | mad after viewing its selections for years.
        
               | Ntrails wrote:
               | Denethor was allowed to see what Sauron wanted him to see
               | and nothing more, because he lacked the ability to
               | control the stone away from Sauron. The parallel falls
               | apart somewhat since here his access was essentially
               | controlled by a third party.
               | 
               | (you might argue it reflects certain social media
               | outcomes ofc)
        
               | db48x wrote:
               | > once used for Evil, are incredibly difficult to use in
               | any other way.
               | 
               | That's not true. They were only dangerous to use as long
               | as an insanely powerful immortal demon god had one. If
               | you used a Palantir he would notice and draw your eye
               | toward him. He could then make you see what he wanted you
               | to see, unless you were strong enough to resist. He
               | corrupted Saruman and Denethor merely by talking to them,
               | showing them misleading things, and convincing them that
               | he could not be defeated by any means. Kill Sauron and
               | the Palantiri are safe to use again.
               | 
               | The tools are neutral. It is the users who are good or
               | evil.
               | 
               | It's the same with the Throne of Amon Hen, fwiw. It's
               | only dangerous to use because Sauron will notice that
               | you're using it.
        
               | actionfromafar wrote:
               | TIL. So it's an even better analogy. Tech is not a
               | problem unless Sauron can read our positional data and
               | control our attention machines in our pockets.
        
               | davidrupp wrote:
               | > Kill Sauron and the Palantiri are safe to use again.
               | 
               | Alt: Be Aragorn and wrest control of the Orthanc stone
               | from Sauron.
        
           | Finbel wrote:
           | It sounds like Tolkien didn't quite agree with the simplified
           | take that Orcs are "just" a force of evil
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien%27s_moral_dilemma
        
             | gambiting wrote:
             | To me it sounds more like he really wanted to give them
             | some agency and the ability to speak, but then was unable
             | to resolve the moral dilemma that came out of it - with
             | different works suggesting different "solutions" to it. As
             | the Wiki article points out, Tolkien was a devout Christian
             | and part of his world view included beings which were wholy
             | and irredimably evil while still able to speak and reason
             | on some level. When you look at Christian iconography, you
             | don't really have theologians saying "well when you have
             | angels slaying demons, are the demons really evil or are
             | they just misunderstood". That's your orcs. Since Tolkien
             | really cared about world building he wanted to make it fit
             | neatly in the myth of creation but as far as I can tell -
             | he was never able to do it neatly.
        
           | mwcz wrote:
           | I've not seen Rings of Power and I don't plan to, but I'd
           | just point out that the Silmarillion describes the origin of
           | orcs as being an exploited race of intelligent beings, elves
           | who were captured and tortured until their forms became what
           | we know as orcs.
           | 
           | "... all those of the Quendi [elves] who came into the hands
           | of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison,
           | and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and
           | thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy
           | and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the
           | bitterest foes."
        
             | gambiting wrote:
             | And as this wiki article posted in other comments very
             | nicely explains, Tolkien never came to a good and final
             | conclusion on how this all really worked, with different
             | explanations in different works of his. The "they were just
             | evil force that could be killed without remorse" theme is
             | the dominant one, because it works in the context of the
             | story and the worldbuilding that he did for it.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien%27s_moral_dilemma
        
             | the_af wrote:
             | Like the sibling comment remarks, Tolkien never fully
             | embarked on this path.
             | 
             | He had a problem: as a Catholic [1], he thought every
             | creature deserved pity and second chances (you can see this
             | when Gandalf rebukes Frodo when he says "it's a pity Bilbo
             | didn't kill Gollum"). If the Orcs are really "fallen
             | Elves", they deserve pity and maybe mercy; they are worthy
             | of redemption. Yet Orcs in LotR are to be killed on sight;
             | there's only _one_ passage in all of LotR where the Hobbits
             | reflect on the corpse of an Orc with any kind of attempt at
             | insight.
             | 
             | For Orcs to be a thing to be destroyed without mercy,
             | unworthy of redemption, they must have not be corrupted
             | souls. Yet here Tolkien found another stumbling block:
             | according to his Catholic-influenced vision, Evil cannot
             | create, only corrupt and destroy. So Morgoth couldn't have
             | created Orcs, he must have used existing souls as raw
             | material.
             | 
             | Tolkien never resolved this conundrum.
             | 
             | ----
             | 
             | [1] someone in another comment argued quite convincingly
             | that Catholics at times had no trouble murdering other
             | Christians over doctrinal affairs, so let's add a
             | qualification here: "Tolkien's Catholic-influenced
             | morality, which was his own nonetheless".
        
             | GuinansEyebrows wrote:
             | > I've not seen Rings of Power and I don't plan to
             | 
             | i say this as a die hard Tolkien fan, having read (most of)
             | HOME: i enjoyed Rings of Power quite a lot and i'd
             | recommend it to anyone who enjoys the extended world of
             | middle earth. the casting is great, i actually did enjoy
             | the picking at the question of orcish morality, and because
             | amazon was willing to throw millions at it, it _looks_
             | fantastic for a tv show.
             | 
             | it doesn't follow canon (some weird squashing of timelines
             | re: ringmaking, the akallabeth etc) which seems to upset a
             | lot of geeks. however, one thing to keep in mind when
             | interacting with extended works based on Middle Earth is
             | that Tolkien didn't necessarily set out to codify
             | everything perfectly (and what was there was definitely the
             | result of his obsession and great care for the world he
             | built). one of his stated desires in writing LOTR was to
             | establish a modern mythology that other people could
             | write/create within, so the fiction could take a life of
             | its own. maybe he wouldn't always like the ways people
             | built on his work, but that's the risk he took when he
             | explicitly set out to invent a mythology for others to
             | interact with.
             | 
             | we're still going to ignore the hobbit movie trilogy,
             | though.
        
           | bell-cot wrote:
           | > Like, no one working there is seeing it?
           | 
           | "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
           | his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton
           | Sinclair (1878 - 1968)
           | 
           | "Because Pharaoh is paying daddy, and we need the money." -
           | Unknown laborer at the Pyramid of Djoser, c. 2660 BC,
           | explaining to his son why he's making a giant pile of rocks
           | in the desert.
        
             | folkrav wrote:
             | I mean, I did leave a role because the things we were doing
             | clashed heavily with my principles (ad-tech adjacent). I
             | had the luxury of doing so - an opportunity arose somewhere
             | else, I could afford to make the move, etc.
             | 
             | But it's also hard for me to imagine someone that today,
             | chooses to interview and take a job at Palantir, and not
             | know what they're up to, who Thiel is and what he stands
             | for.
        
               | GuinansEyebrows wrote:
               | i think anyone on HN employed by arms manufactures or
               | surveillance tech has a resume good enough to get hired
               | pretty much anywhere that doesn't do those things.
        
           | the_af wrote:
           | > _For an actually interesting take on "hey what if the orcs
           | are actually intelligent people" there is The Last Ringbearer
           | by a Russian author, presenting LOTR from the perspective of
           | Mordor(it's not a good book, but was an amusing read)_
           | 
           | I found The Last Ringbearer a book good! Of course it's not
           | in the same league as LotR, it's not engaging in vast myth-
           | and world-building, but it's a well-written, fun book that
           | manages to be engaging. Even knowing it was an alternative
           | take to LotR, I wanted to know what happened!
           | 
           | For everyone who has not read it, it's not simply a "let's
           | retell LotR, only from the perspective of the Orcs". It's a
           | brand new "adventure" so to speak, which shifts the point of
           | view but also describes new events. It starts _at the end_ of
           | the War of the Ring, with Mordor defeated.
        
             | gambiting wrote:
             | I mean, I really did actually enjoy reading it. But like
             | with a lot of Russian literature - it does have a habit of
             | spending several pages just monologuing here and there -
             | but it is a "fun" read.
        
         | bananaflag wrote:
         | I'll just leave this here:
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien%27s_moral_dilemma
        
           | ParentiSoundSys wrote:
           | Fascinating thank you. I was only aware of the surface level
           | concern around the orcs.
        
           | mwcz wrote:
           | That's both a very good description of Tolkien's struggles
           | with orcs, and a writing style that feels out of place in an
           | encyclopedia. The Halls of Mandos are described as a halfway
           | house.
        
           | bell-cot wrote:
           | > J. R. R. Tolkien, a devout Roman Catholic, created what he
           | came to feel was a moral dilemma for himself with his
           | supposedly evil Middle-earth peoples like Orcs [...] so
           | killing them would be wrong without very good reason. Orcs
           | serve as the principal forces of the enemy in The Lord of the
           | Rings, where they are slaughtered in large numbers in the
           | battles of [...]
           | 
           | Admitting that there's a _very_ wide diversity of beliefs
           | under the  "Roman Catholic" banner - historic Roman Catholic
           | armies have been eager participants in well-documented
           | battles for the past 1,500 or so years. I'd assume that
           | Tolkien would have had a wide variety of perfectly historic
           | Roman Catholic arguments to chose from, to justify his
           | fictional slaughter.
           | 
           | (If I recall, the orcs slaughtered in LoTR are pretty much
           | all soldier or near-soldiers. Do orc women, children, or
           | other non-combatants ever appear in the story?)
           | 
           | In many ways, that Wikipedia article feels like a Hays Code-
           | era whitewashing of Roman Catholicism.
        
             | the_af wrote:
             | Your criticism of Catholicism is valid, but regardless:
             | this dilemma of Tolkien is real, and well-documented (e.g.
             | in his letters, etc).
             | 
             | He really did struggle with this, re: the origin of the
             | Orcs, whether they had souls, whether it was ok to default
             | to massacring them without second thought, etc. He never
             | really resolved it.
             | 
             | Most Tolkien fan communities are aware of this dilemma,
             | it's one of those well-known things, along with "did
             | Balrogs have wings?", "couldn't they just fly to Mount Doom
             | and drop the ring?" and "why did Sauron need to put his
             | power within a ring, anyway?".
        
               | bell-cot wrote:
               | Yes - I am not saying that JRRT _himself_ was anything
               | less than saintly, or did not struggle with the issue.
               | 
               | My issue is with the Wikipedia article's heavy
               | identification of JRRT's personal dilemma with the Roman
               | Church and its doctrines. _Historically_ , for that
               | Church - one could just assume that the orcs were
               | Protestants, so slaughtering them was perfectly okay.
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
        
               | KineticLensman wrote:
               | > "couldn't they just fly to Mount Doom and drop the
               | ring?"
               | 
               | If the allies were counterfactually sensible enough to
               | fly the ring to Mordor, Sauron could have been
               | counterfactually sensible enough to station an Orc/Troll
               | Battlegroup at the Sammath Naur, with a Nazgul combat air
               | patrol.
        
               | bell-cot wrote:
               | If trying to rationalize things - I'd say Sauron knows
               | that giant eagles are a thing, and able to serve as
               | mounts. So to prevent Western aerial reconnaissance and
               | insertion/extraction of observers/spies/special forces in
               | Mordor, he's got to have some sort of aerial observer /
               | aerial denial systems going. Which systems would make a
               | "fly the Ring to the fire" gambit too risky.
               | 
               | (Vs. voice-of-canon Gandalf makes it clear that anyone
               | seeking to _destroy_ his Preciousss is simply beyond
               | Sauron 's Vile McEvil worldview.)
        
               | KineticLensman wrote:
               | Exactly.
               | 
               | In fact, when Gandalf catches up with
               | Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli in 'The White Rider' chapter, he
               | explicitly tells them that Sauron has committed a major
               | strategic blunder: attacking too early, as soon as he
               | thought the Ring was in play. If he'd kept some forces
               | back to guard Mt Doom, he'd have been alright. Especially
               | because, as later becomes clear, Mt Doom isn't a normal
               | volcano where you could just lob the Ring in from your
               | low-flying eagle. The Cracks of Doom are in a chamber
               | deep inside the mountain.
        
               | bell-cot wrote:
               | Speaking of things needing rationalization: Smelting
               | iron, which the dwarves are supposedly past masters of,
               | requires furnaces which routinely exceed 1,500 degC. Vs.
               | even exceptionally hot lavas are considerably _colder_.
               | So why bother forming a Fellowship of the Ring, or
               | embarking on a long  & dangerous journey to Mt. Doom,
               | when it'd be vastly quicker & easier to smelt local?
        
               | the_af wrote:
               | Mount Doom is magical/mythic in nature, the birthplace of
               | the One Ring, while the Dwarven forges aren't.
               | 
               | Quoting Elrond during the Council at Rivendell:
               | 
               | > _"It has been said that Dragon-fire might melt and
               | consume the Rings of Power, but there is not now any
               | dragon left on earth in which the old fire is hot enough;
               | nor was there ever any fire, save the fire of Orodruin,
               | that could melt the One Ring."_
               | 
               | Also, the Dwarves that took the One Ring for melting
               | would have likely fallen under its influence, postponing
               | the destruction and ultimately keeping the ring as a
               | keepsake, tool or weapon, like most living creatures
               | would... except for _some_ brave Hobbits, which took a
               | longer time to be corrupted.
               | 
               | More fundamentally, this is not the kind of mindset with
               | which Tolkien wanted us to read LotR. It can be done for
               | fun, but if done seriously, it'd be missing the point.
        
               | the_af wrote:
               | Note I wasn't really trying to go into the argument, just
               | pointing out these are well-known and very debated topics
               | in Tolkien fandom.
               | 
               | My own opinion is that debating this is missing the
               | point. Tolkien was about the hero's journey, which
               | necessitates the hard path to victory. It's not at all
               | about flying a modern superweapon into Mount Doom; that's
               | too literal a reading.
        
         | KineticLensman wrote:
         | Tolkien's orc dialogue in TLOTR is actually very humanised in
         | some ways - the orcs moan about their bosses, complain about
         | rival teams, are concerned about completing their tasks, being
         | punished for failure, etc, etc. When they aren't fighting, they
         | come across as petty functionaries in a totalitarian state.
        
         | FridayoLeary wrote:
         | It's a fantasy novel written primarily for entertainment. It's
         | hard enough to write dwarves and elves, orcs are a necessary
         | plot device. If you want you can imagine them as pitiable
         | creatures who have been deprived of free will and have no
         | choice but to act the way they do and loath themselves for it.
        
           | the_af wrote:
           | > _It 's a fantasy novel written primarily for entertainment_
           | 
           | On one hand, you're right.
           | 
           | On the other, it's unfair to Tolkien and to the scholars who
           | study his work. He spent a lot of his life and effort towards
           | developing this world, he deeply pondered the moral
           | implications and theology of his world, and for all his
           | denial of there being any analogies to the real world, you
           | can see he considered them (he did describe modern men in the
           | modern world as "Orc-ish", etc).
           | 
           | All of this to say we cannot just dismiss it as "it's a
           | fantasy novel".
        
         | gregw2 wrote:
         | Do you mean the palantir or the rings?
        
           | gregw2 wrote:
           | I find Tolkein's depictions on his original jacket covers of
           | the Rings of Power and the one ring and the "all seeing eye"
           | that accompanies them quite evocative:
           | 
           | https://imgur.com/CZSNpiS
           | 
           | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/The_Fellowshi.
           | ..
        
             | gregw2 wrote:
             | As many of you no doubt know, some people (did you know
             | even 3 days after Hiroshima?![1]) likened Tolkein's One
             | Ring to the power of the atomic bomb developed in the same
             | era: a technology molded by hidden genius, capable of
             | unspeakable power so deadly it must actually /not/ be used,
             | but instead, must be carefully guarded by a small band
             | until it can be destroyed. So that true peace is possible
             | again.
             | 
             | Tolkein of course denied this[2] .... and the timing wasn't
             | right[3] and ... he wasn't a big fan of allegory[4], right?
             | 
             | However, perhaps he foresaw, however unconsciously or
             | through shadow knowledge shared by others or Bentham's
             | Panopticon[5] or seen too by Orwell' 1985[6], the coming
             | surveillance state.
             | 
             | After all, in the trenches of WW1 he took his place
             | managing signals communications in a battalion[7] and when
             | WW2 arrived was approached to be a cryptographer, (even
             | taking four days of preparatory courses on the subject![8]
             | Before getting turned down[9].).
             | 
             | Foresaw what and shared how you ask?
             | 
             | That other, subtler, great Tool of Power to come out of WW2
             | -- the use of, and covert exposure of, signals encryption.
             | 
             | Encryption exerts its power in a manner not unlike one of
             | the key functions of the rings... Anyone bearing the One
             | Ring or the nine, who then puts on the ring -- like using
             | encryption -- instantly makes themselves "hidden" to the
             | mortal fellows around you.
             | 
             | But tragically, the prolonged use and reliance upon such
             | power deepens and ensures ever increasing temptations and
             | corruptions.
             | 
             | And such ring (encryption) use -- most unintuitively and
             | dangerously -- makes you more, not less visible to the
             | maker of the rings.
             | 
             | (Just as cyphertext stands out in a sea of plaintext.[10]
             | (See Tor today[11], or in WW2 the then-novel phenomena
             | known as radar traceback.[13] Or the then-novel-but-even-
             | more-covert encryption traffic analysis[14].)
             | 
             | Perhaps he saw. And knew.
             | 
             | ...
             | 
             | And why too the numeric gap between 1 ring, 3 for elves, 7,
             | and the 9? Nobody knows for sure[15].
             | 
             | Perhaps too some linguistic colleague had whispered to the
             | maker-of-languages (languages as obscure at that time as
             | those of the Apache Code Talkers[16] and similarly perhaps
             | unappreciatedly utilitarian) that... we already had "5
             | Eyes"[17]??
             | 
             | Perhaps then Tolkein knew? And passed on the word, for
             | those willing to hear...
             | 
             | Poor Tolkein, he became beloved by the very Morlocks[18],
             | err, 'easily corruptible men of middle earth" he warned
             | about.
             | 
             | ...
             | 
             | [1...18] Out of time! References available upon request. Or
             | web search... Don't get me started on how this all connects
             | to the Eye of Providence[19] or the Eye of Horus[20]! ;)
        
               | KineticLensman wrote:
               | > Tolkein of course denied this .... and the timing
               | wasn't right
               | 
               | Just to expand on this, substantial portions of LOTR were
               | written well before the atomic bomb became public
               | knowledge, e.g. Tolkien had written first drafts of Book
               | 4 (Frodo's journey to Mordor with Sam and Gollum) by
               | 1944. In other words, it was already a fundamental plot
               | point that the ring should not be used even as an
               | ultimate weapon.
               | 
               | The depiction of war in LOTR is perhaps more closely
               | associated with Tolkien's personal experiences in the war
               | of 1914-18. The dead marshes in particular have
               | similarities to the trenches of WW1
        
         | rdtsc wrote:
         | > I wonder what Tolkien would say of so much of the symbolism
         | from his novels being used to bootstrap a horrible dystopian
         | control grid?
         | 
         | What is that referring to? Some new LotR adaptation or some new
         | game?
         | 
         | > The way that orcs are dehumanized you have to wonder.
         | 
         | Why would they be humanized, they are not human?
        
       | Angostura wrote:
       | Is there a version minus the music?
        
         | grumbelbart2 wrote:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c6mcEPhhRg&list=PLMMxav_zz6...
        
           | Angostura wrote:
           | Thank you _so_ much
        
           | mihaic wrote:
           | I can't believe Angostura prefers grumbelbart2's link to
           | OPs...
        
       | wewewedxfgdf wrote:
       | This is the most magnificent audio version ever recorded of The
       | Hobbit - by Nicol Williamson in the early 1970's.
       | 
       | Zip file with mp3 in it:
       | 
       | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b2aPKgVVguOKMOOqWskaliOviYr...
       | 
       | Best enjoyed on a rainy afternoon in an armchair with a cup of
       | tea.
        
         | wigster wrote:
         | nice - gandalf meets merlin. do love Nicol Williamson
        
         | nihakue wrote:
         | Excellent, but my favourite has to be the Rob Inglis recordings
         | (of both The Hobbit and LOTR). The songs are top notch, and his
         | voice is perfect, esp. for the tone of the Hobbit.
         | https://archive.org/details/TheHobbitAudiobook/The+Hobbit/Ch...
        
           | mwcz wrote:
           | Martin Shaw's recording of the Silmarillion is similarly
           | wonderful.
        
             | iammiles wrote:
             | While we're at it, Christopher Lee's narration of Children
             | of Hurin deserves a mention.
        
           | grumbelbart2 wrote:
           | > but my favourite has to be the Rob Inglis recordings
           | 
           | Impressive, very nice. Let's see Paul Allen's recording.
        
           | subpixel wrote:
           | These really blew me away. I have a theory that he recorded
           | the narration and dialogue of each character individually and
           | then it was all edited together - it seems impossible to
           | switch back and forth between such incredible character
           | deliveries on the fly. Or perhaps this is just how that kind
           | of work is done. Regardless, an amazing job.
        
         | dtgriscom wrote:
         | Goodness gracious; I remember having a copy of that in my
         | teens. Wonderful.
        
         | loloquwowndueo wrote:
         | If you're sitting on an armchair not really doing anything
         | else, why not just read the book?
         | 
         | Reserve audio versions for when you genuinely can't look at the
         | book because you're doing something else.
        
           | fsiefken wrote:
           | hi loloquwowndueo, i was thinking the same thing, but then I
           | thought why you would prefer reading a book while sitting
           | instead of listening - is it about efficiency and that if you
           | CAN read one should (you use the imperative) read? I also
           | have this view, but when I was young and an avid reader I
           | also enjoyed radio stories immensely as my imagination was
           | also activated. As in the past we were an species with a
           | predominantly oral cultural transmission, arguably more
           | 'embodied', there could be something to say for attending a
           | theatre version in preference of a book. On the other hand,
           | reading often is faster, but it's indirect, you translate the
           | symbols into your imagination yourself, on the upside you
           | perhaps train your mind more. So both have their advantages,
           | one is not necessarily better. I notice I am often looking
           | through a lense of efficiency and then make choices where I
           | loose a certain experience - sitting in the dark listening to
           | someone telling a story instead of reading can be equally
           | wonderful.
        
             | bombcar wrote:
             | Reading is faster - a reason not to do it! There's a reason
             | that rituals across time and space have had readings from
             | time immemorial- and not just because of the cost of
             | printing.
             | 
             | Especially with a work like LotR it can be very tempting to
             | skim parts; the audiobook will just continue on, which can
             | help you encounter passages you'd normally have skipped
             | over.
        
               | thombat wrote:
               | Absolutely! I'd read LotR many times before I first read
               | it aloud as a bedtime story season and was abashed to
               | find how much I'd been skipping over, mostly
               | parenthetical details of geography and world-building,
               | while hastening in pursuit of the plot, like the holder
               | of a big box of bonbons gorging target than savouring.
        
               | bombcar wrote:
               | Exactly - it's somewhat akin to listening to an album in
               | one sitting vs the songs on shuffle mixed with others;
               | but even moreso.
               | 
               | It wasn't until I had an audiobook version that I "sat
               | through" all the poetry and tree-descriptions, and it
               | _was_ worth it.
        
           | daeken wrote:
           | Some people just prefer to listen. I read well and I read
           | quite quickly -- I don't know how many books I've physically
           | read, but it's gotta be in the high hundreds at least -- but
           | over the past ~10 years I've switched primarily to
           | audiobooks. Rather than being something that I enjoy while
           | I'm doing something else, I typically do something mindless
           | with my hands (weave chainmail, cross stitch, sew) in order
           | to give my full attention to the book.
        
             | michaelmior wrote:
             | > I typically do something mindless with my hands (weave
             | chainmail, cross stitch, sew)
             | 
             | For me, that's exactly the sort of "something else" I
             | interpreted the previous comment to refer to.
        
             | fifticon wrote:
             | same, I do it whenever I oil the trebuchets.
        
           | copperx wrote:
           | What kind of virtue signaling is this?
           | 
           | My memory works much better when I hear something than if I
           | read it, when it comes to non technical stuff.
        
           | gwbas1c wrote:
           | I generally prefer reading, but I don't judge people who
           | prefer listening. My wife sometimes plays audiobooks for our
           | kids, I read them.
        
             | mlyle wrote:
             | I really wish I could make myself listen.
             | 
             | The times I have just sat and listened to a well-told,
             | well-paced story have been magical.
             | 
             | But the dopamine hit of reading -too quickly- competes; the
             | pressure to "be busy" wins and makes me impatient for the
             | spoken word by default.
             | 
             | The defaults are too high. I'd be better off reading less
             | but reading more slowly, and listening sometimes.
             | 
             | But this is not the highest priority problem to fix,
             | either, and I can't fix everything.
        
           | noahjk wrote:
           | The Hobbit was specifically written to be read out loud, if I
           | remember correctly.
           | 
           | Would you also suggest to the families in the 30s & 40s that
           | listening to the popular radio shows while sitting in the
           | living room could have been a better experience if they had
           | just read the transcript, instead? Or that they should have
           | been multitasking during the shows, else it was a waste of
           | their time?
        
             | mitthrowaway2 wrote:
             | Or for most of human history for that matter, stories have
             | been listened to rather than read. It might be fun to
             | participate in this tradition.
        
           | rhyperior wrote:
           | Haven't you ever experienced having a story read to you, and
           | falling into deep immersion and visualization?
        
           | cush wrote:
           | Honestly, you probably don't even take reading seriously if
           | you're reading the book. If you're sitting on an armchair not
           | really doing anything else, you should be reading from clay
           | tablets, as Tolkien would have wanted.
        
             | loloquwowndueo wrote:
             | Wow hyperbole and personal attack, all in a single post.
        
               | cush wrote:
               | Read the room
               | 
               | (see what I did there?)
        
             | bombcar wrote:
             | To be fair, Tolkien probably have more in common with
             | audiobooks and reading of works than reading them from
             | printed pages - given his scholarly pursuits were of oral
             | traditions.
        
         | senderista wrote:
         | Andy Serkis's audiobook of The Hobbit is pretty amazing.
        
           | eunoia wrote:
           | His full Lord of the Rings audiobook is likewise incredible.
        
         | CGMthrowaway wrote:
         | In case people dont want to download a 250MB zip just to check
         | it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy91aWaC9ag
        
       | alex1138 wrote:
       | Of course he didn't live to see the Peter Jackson movies but I
       | think I've heard his son didn't like them
        
         | ekianjo wrote:
         | The Hobbit movies had nothing to do with the books.
        
           | alex1138 wrote:
           | Sorry, I meant LOTR
        
             | ekianjo wrote:
             | Even the LOTR adaptation is questionable. Gandalf kicking
             | Pippin (the exact opposite of what happens in the book),
             | the lack of the scouring of the Shire, and super-Legolas
             | right out of a Marvel movie...
        
               | christophilus wrote:
               | Legolas was kind of super in the books, though. I think
               | Faramir was the worst character assassination in the
               | movies.
        
               | teddyh wrote:
               | Also Gimli.
        
               | KineticLensman wrote:
               | Also Pippin and Merry, who are basically annoying
               | teenagers in the films, even if they do some useful
               | things.
        
               | deeg wrote:
               | I have a lot of criticism for some of the plot changes
               | that jackson made but I'll credit him for this: his films
               | are the first dramatic sword & sorcery type movies that
               | got the tone right and aren't cringe worthy. The previous
               | attempts at LOTR are awful.
        
               | cubefox wrote:
               | The LotR movies were a high water mark, even if they
               | aren't perfect. I wish Peter Jackson made a movie for
               | _Children of Hurin_ , though that's probably not
               | happening for many reasons.
        
               | jltsiren wrote:
               | There was Conan the Barbarian before them. But pretty
               | much everything else in the genre was mediocre or cringe-
               | worthy.
               | 
               | On the other hand, I remember fondly the movie nights a
               | local sci-fi club used to run until the mid-2000s. There
               | were so many terrible Conan clones that were enormously
               | entertaining. And there were some brilliant moments in
               | the early LOTR movies. Such as "Where There's a Whip".
        
               | sonofhans wrote:
               | I agree with you about Conan the Barbarian being a high
               | note. That movie doesn't get enough credit. There are
               | very few better in the whole genre.
        
               | boredhedgehog wrote:
               | I think what Tolkien would have hated the most was
               | Aragorn murdering the Mouth of Sauron. Stylistic choices
               | are one thing, but turning morality on its head is on
               | another scale.
        
               | alex1138 wrote:
               | This is wildly unrelated and I apologize but it reminds
               | me of Apollo 13 vs From The Earth To The Moon (which Tom
               | Hanks directed so one suspects he had more creative
               | freedom)
               | 
               | FTETTM has artistic license. There's no record of Collins
               | (Apollo 11) saying "If you had any balls, you'd say 'oh
               | my god! what is that thing?', scream and cut your mic"
               | but it's very in line with his general character, you can
               | imagine it happening
               | 
               | Apollo 13 put in a bogus argument with Swigert after the
               | oxygen tank exploded
               | 
               | I will never not despise "artistic license" which is just
               | simply _wrong_
        
               | aleksiy123 wrote:
               | That's scene is extended edition only tho
        
               | bigstrat2003 wrote:
               | The LOTR movies are great _movies_ , but are pretty poor
               | _adaptations_. I don 't mind changes which were necessary
               | due to the medium (e.g. cutting Tom Bombadil, which just
               | would bloat the movie without adding anything crucial to
               | the story). But Jackson went beyond that and made changes
               | (for example, having Faramir give in to the temptation of
               | the Ring for a time) because he disagreed with Tolkien's
               | story (that specific change was explained in terms of
               | Faramir's character in the book "doesn't work with the
               | way we are trying to portray the Ring"). That's crossing
               | a line, imo.
               | 
               | The Hobbit movies, on the other hand, are both bad
               | adaptations and bad movies. Truly awful stuff.
        
           | mwcz wrote:
           | The M4 fan edit was quite good.
        
         | bombcar wrote:
         | We know what Tolkien felt about other earlier adaptations and
         | even have some suggested comments.
         | 
         | I think he'd have serious issues with things but not
         | necessarily what everyone picks up on.
        
       | haunter wrote:
       | My favorite recent LotR media:
       | 
       | There is a Lord of the Rings MMO (like World of Warcraft) and a
       | guy made a video recording a walk from the Shire to Mordor. Like
       | you can just walk from the Shire to Mordor in the game. And it's
       | almost 10 hours long in real world time to do that! But on top of
       | that the whole journey is narrated by the Lord of the Rings audio
       | book, with the relevant parts of the journey.
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/LYipECdYpXc
       | 
       | Incredibly relaxing
        
         | dtgriscom wrote:
         | A nice, relaxing trip to Mordor.
        
         | vhtr wrote:
         | Oh man, something to watch and listen to in the evenings to
         | come, thank you!
         | 
         | I don't have experience with the LotR Online outside of small
         | clips here and there, but for the past 5 years or so I have
         | been enjoying a bit more retro LotR "mmorpg", a free-to-play
         | MUD that has been in development since 1991 or something:
         | https://mume.org/
         | 
         | In MUME (Multi-Users in Middle Earth) getting from Bree to
         | Mordor by walking won't take you 10 hours, but maybe 10 minutes
         | at most. However, the trip and the destination will be full of
         | dangers, whether it's from pve or pvp side of things.
         | 
         | As a side note, MUME is being developed by volunteers, and I
         | believe the game itself is still ran on some Swiss University
         | servers, where it all began, heh.
        
           | vitorfblima wrote:
           | Back in the day I used to log in to a MUSH called Elendor
           | (telnet).
           | 
           | It was simply magical and I have many good memories venturing
           | through middle-earth and meeting fellow chars.
        
             | vhtr wrote:
             | It is crazy to me how captivating and immersive text-based
             | games can be. I've been exploring them for fun in recent
             | years, the roots of modern mmorpgs. Fun to come across
             | stuff you still have in modern games. :)
        
         | SockThief wrote:
         | That is so good! Thank you!
         | 
         | Do you happen to know where does the narration by Andy Serkis
         | come from? Is it a game? An audiobook?
        
           | cpburns2009 wrote:
           | Andy Serkis did a narration of the Lord of the Rings books a
           | few years ago. My guess is it comes from that.
        
           | SketchySeaBeast wrote:
           | Andy Serkis has versions of _The Hobbit_ , _The Lord of the
           | Rings_ , and _The Silmarillion_ all on Audible.
        
         | bombcar wrote:
         | It's my book and they'll walk if I tell them to!
        
         | Aromasin wrote:
         | I recommend trying to visit the ArdaCraft minecraft server.
         | They're trying to faithfully recreate the LotR world at 1:58
         | scale, and I've spent some time attempting to do the whole walk
         | over some evenings the past few months. It's absolutely
         | incredible the amount of love and detail has gone into crafting
         | the world.
        
         | FergusArgyll wrote:
         | He simply walked into Mordor?!
        
         | russellbeattie wrote:
         | Ha! I watched it for a little while on 2x and it was very cool.
         | Then Frodo hit the river and dives in, swimming across with
         | perfect freestyle form like Michael Phelps!
         | 
         | I literally guffawed and thought, "Well, that's one good way of
         | avoiding the dark riders." Makes that dramatic jump to the
         | barge a little less intense. ;-)
        
         | chiph wrote:
         | It's about a 12 minute walk in Austin, from Hobbiton Trail to
         | Mordor Cove.
         | 
         | https://maps.app.goo.gl/EgUb7EXTaHguiPKJ7
        
       | mexicocitinluez wrote:
       | People who don't like "On The Road" should listen to Jack read it
       | in his own voice.
        
       | weslleyskah wrote:
       | It is amazing how Lord of the Rings persists in the world.
       | 
       | Christopher Lee reading the Children of Hurin is also fantastic.
        
       | nelblu wrote:
       | tangential comment, but if anyone is interested in one of the
       | best (imo "legendary") audio books on LOTR look no further than
       | Phil Dragash : https://archive.org/details/tlotrunabridged.
        
       | elcritch wrote:
       | Okay who's going to clone this using AI and have it read the
       | entire book? Anyone?!
        
       | willdotphipps wrote:
       | I drink in his old local. A bit weird in there I would imagine if
       | you're an American. Although I am a bit American and it is a bit
       | weird in there.
        
       | harywilke wrote:
       | Ranged Touch's Shelved By Genre podcast is doing an entire year
       | on The Hobbit + Lord of the Rings.
       | https://rangedtouch.com/2026/01/02/the-hobbit-part-1/
        
       | russellbeattie wrote:
       | I listen to a lot of Audiobooks and some authors are really,
       | really not suited to read their own works of fiction.
       | 
       | Some are definitive, however. If you haven't heard Douglas Adams
       | read all his books [1], you're definitely missing out. They're
       | harder to track down, and not the best quality as most are copied
       | from old tape cassettes, but I love listening to the genius at
       | work.
       | 
       | Yahtzee Croshaw reading his books is fantastic [2]. As is Patrick
       | Rothfuss reading _The Slow Regard of Silent Things_ [3].
       | 
       | A more recent author I listened to was Adrian Tchaikovsky reading
       | _Service Model_ [4]. He was so good, I checked to see if he had
       | theater training! Really great.
       | 
       | 1. https://youtu.be/F_tcznHREXE
       | 
       | 2. https://www.youtube.com/live/NNpQROC7dWA
       | 
       | 3. https://youtu.be/wm6T7uUr_C8
       | 
       | 4. https://youtu.be/Myl1ChiFGTw
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-12 23:01 UTC)