I completely agree.
Although ‘The Hobbit’ is a children’s book, it introduces some key characters and plot elements.
As stated, provided you’re a reader then tackle the books. (I read them in one fell swoop during my school holidays.)
Next comes the films (extended edition highly recommended!)
Finally have a go at the online roleplaying game ‘Lord of the Rings Online’. This was written by true fans of Tolkien and is a wonderful experience.
It was in reading the Two Towers where I almost gave up. Personally, I would recommend the movies, the first book, and then dipping into the second and third for a deeper experience of the parts that interested you.
I’m a fan of the mythos and the world-building. I’ve read the Silmarillion. I can tell apart Celeborn from Celebrimbor, Manwe from Nowe, Beor from Barliman Butterbur, and Nargothrond from Thangorodrim. But I’ve never gone back to read the three books again.
I also recommend Bored of the Rings.
[DEL][COLOR=“Black”]Machete[/DEL][/COLOR] Orcrist Order! 
CMC fnord!
I’m aware. The Hobbit was assigned reading for us in 7th grade. I fell in love with it. I think the lighter tone is exactly why I like it more.
Add a third vote to Miller’s suggestion. Though I’d read The Hobbit first. Like so:
The Hobbit book
FOTR movie
FOTR book
Two Towers book
Return of the King book
Two Towers movie
Return of the King movie
All movies in Extended Edition if possible, especially The Two Towers, which I think is especially poorly edited in the cinematic release.
Never, ever watch the Peter Jackson The Hobbit movies.
Actually yes.
Only thing I’d add to this is saying books “first” implies there is any need to EVER watch the movies. 
I’m not a huge of a fan of the books as some around here, but did read them at least 5-10 times. Was SO looking forward to the movies, but found them terribly unsatisfying. I’m well aware that mine is a minority opinion.
It’s been many years but I remember enjoying the animated version of The Hobbit from 1977.
Features Brother Theodore as Gollum!
Boogies don’t like machines more complicated that a garrotte or a Luger.
They stay by themselves except when a hundred or more may dry gulch a lone farmer or hunter.
Whoa, this is exactly what I came in here to say. I had tried to slog through LOTR and had real difficulties – I just couldn’t picture it somehow, and there are so many similar names that I had trouble differentiating a number of characters. Then I saw The Fellowship of the Ring and it all clicked for me. I went back to the first page and didn’t stop until I had devoured all three books, then finally read The Hobbit, then read The Silmarillion, then went back and reread the trilogy before the second movie came out.
Come to think of it, it’s about time to reread the series again.
The books, then The Very Secret Diaries, then Bored Of The Rings, then the movies, then the limited edited beers, then the breakfast cereal, then the t-shirts, then the replica swords.
Don’t read Bored of the Rings unless you like really terrible, witless, massively dated parodies.
Hey! Bored of the Rings is excellent, witless, and massively dated.
Someone missed a real bet by not producing a BOTR movie to play between The Two Towers and Return of the King. It would have cost next to nothing to make, and could have been a cult classic for aeons…just like the book.
Hash boo Valvoline!
Read the books, and I would also say that if you’re not reading it for children (or are a ten year old yourself) don’t bother with The Hobbit. I don’t think most adults would enjoy it very much because it is a children’s book. If, however, you have the opportunity to read it to children (which I’ve done several times), you’ll find it’s phenomenal for the audience.
But the reason I say “read the book” is that the book has, I would say, an idea, a vision so to speak, which works very well from beginning to end. (I’ve found this while reading it as a middle aged man several times to children, aside of having read it several times as a teenager.) It works. It works very well. – The movies are good in many regards but the vision of the book is not captured; I would say that the idea of the story is not transferred from the book to the movies.
So read the books first and see if Tolkien’s “vision” captures you, before looking at Peter Jackson’s visualization of it. I think Jackson missed the point(s) and I’m afraid that his movies might get in the way of the story that captured so many for so long, if you read the books after you watched the films.
While I would generally agree with that, I have to say the movies matched my visualization almost spot on. PJ did a phenomenal job of bringing the books to life.
Do not, I repeat, DO NOT see The Hobbit movie(s) before reading any of the books or seeing an of the LotR movies.
The part of that sentence following the close parenthesis could have been omitted.
I read the trilogy avidly at the age of 12 after being given a copy of *Fellowship *by a schoolmate. I then bought *The Hobbit *and was disappointed by the juvenile tone. And that’s despite the fact that even LOTR *starts out *as a bit of a children’s book, gradually growing more serious over the first few chapters. This makes me disagree with those who recommend reading *The Hobbit *first. I might never have bothered with LOTR if I had done so.
I had that on betamax. Love it still! Even if it is HIGHLY abridged version of the book, it is still way better than Peter jackson’s padded for profit phobbit.
Calm down.
You are going to bust something.
One of my favorite parts is Strider taking the broken sword out, it falls apart, and the orcs fall down laughing their asses off, and the hobbits slit their throats.
I’m always a books-first kind of guy.
And as an addendum to all of the people saying not to bother with the Hobbit movies: The animated one actually isn’t all that bad. Peter Jackson’s versions, though… yeah, don’t bother.