It was shit and you thought that it was a book for children

>>7661816
I don't know you fucking retard, why don't youtell us since you just read it?

what a coincidence i just read the two towers.

was it a book?

>>7661816
I just took a dump. Did it smell bad?

>>7661816
>Asking a liquorice jelly-bean collecting forum to give you your opinion on a book you already read

>>7661829
Not exactly sure what you are asking, but I have a hardcover copy of The Lord of the Rings, which has all the volumes in it, along with the prologue and all the things after the book.

Hope I answered your question.

Or maybe you were just memeing. In that case, meme on friends.

>>7661829
No, it was one third of a book

>>7661816
On it's own merits it was shite.
It would be great if you'd also read the other instalments of the Trilogy+Appendices, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and had a Tolkien encyclopaedia at hand to catch all the references, but by that point your opinion would be too tainted by the time/money spent, and couldn't be trusted to be honest.

>>7661816
I just read your post, was it any good?

>>7664068
No.

Does anyone else feel like lotr get's worse as it goes on? I like whole trilogy, but I think it's clearly better at the start.

>>7664076
Yes. Rotk was kinda boring.
Fellowship was the best, especially the hobbits before getting to bree