The two UT's?!? What is the book that I have then?

[Lalwendë]

I've not heard of there being two UTs, but the title Unfinished tales of Númenor and Middle-Earth is sometimes interchanged with the shorter title Unfinished Tales. They are the same book, you'll be glad to know .

However, if you are buying HoME, the first two books of the series are entitled The Book of Lost Tales Volume 1 and The Book of Lost Tales Volume 2, so when it comes to Lost Tales, there are indeed two different books.

If you're short of cash, why not start collecting the books in the series with those that most spark your interest? There's no reason why you have to read them in order. Look here for more info on each of the books and decide what you most want to read about!

[Aiwendil]

There's no reason why you have to read them in order.

It's not necessary to read them in order, certainly, but the sequential approach does have its virtues. References to material from earlier volumes abound and will go over the head of one who hasn't read them. Overall, I think that reading them in order provides the most coherent, intelligible experience.

[Mithalwen]

That may be true but I bought the first four as they emerged and found them very hard work and that combined with financial and other pressures at the time ( I had started University) more or less put the kybosh on Tolkien for me for a decade or so. When they reprinted them, I had got back into Tolkien and decided I wanted to complete my set regardless (for similar reasons I bought "The Road goes ever on" despite my piano playing not being up to snuff ..) and the "History of the Lord of the Rings" volumes are so much more readable.

I do resolve to read the 12 systematically rather than "dipping" but I still think it is perfectly acceptable to head for what interests you - and it is better to read some out of synch than be put off the whole. We all have our thresh-holds of interest and the early volumes of HoME were possibly mine. We will see when I attempt them again. But I would have been sorry to miss out on some of the gems in the later volumes because of that...

Also, these are not the kind of books that are discounted at the supermarket and I had to order mine unseen ( they are rarely "on the shelf" - even good bookshops may have half a dozen editions of the Rings but have nothing more obscure than UT). It can be a lot of money to spend on a book that doesn't interest you.

[davem]

From David Bratman's essay 'The Literary Value of The History of Middle-earth' in the collection 'Tolkien's Legendarium:

The History of Middle-earth was not designed by its editor for casual reading, and only scattered parts of it have the potential for the kind of widesp-ead popularity that came to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. But ths much of it that can be read as straightforward narrative, ignor the textual notes, by a reader with a sympathetic attitude towards uthor's and editor's intent. And of course it is a tremendously rich source for scholarly study.
ow then should one read The History of Middle-earth? Twelve large, solid, nearly identical-looking volumes can be a daunting prospect. The bvious answer, to begin at the beginning and go on until one has reached end and then stop, does not necessarily apply. Such a reading would give the reader a nearly full picture of Tolkien's creative imagination as applied in his Jegendarium, from the first stirrings of the 1910S to the final] notes of the 197os. But not every reader will want or need such an approach, especially because of the tremendous amount of duplication in differen t versions of the same stories. The volumes are made to be dipped into and consulted, especially by readers already familiar with The Lord of the Rings md The Silmarillion. Which books readers should choose to read for pleasure depend on their individual tastes and interests.
Some Tolkien readers will not get much out of The History of Middleearth. Those who consider the post - Tolkien epic fantasies of Robert Jordan, Terry Brooks, Dennis McKiernan, and David Eddings to be equal in appeal to The Lord of the Rings will probably not enjoy Tolkien's posthumous works. But those who find something special in Tolkien's writing above that of other fantasists can choose from of a variety of material, catering to a variety of tastes:

. Readers who, like Sam Gamgee, want to hear more about Elves, or who are :aptivated by the tales in Aragorn's lay of Beren and Llithien and in Bilbo's poem of Earendil, should read The Silmarillion, which functions as ;reader's edition" of "The Silmarillion," and follow it with The Boof Lost Tales, then with the other History of Middle-earth books, in partular The Shaping of Middle-earth and The Lost Road.
. Readers who most enjoy The Hobbit might also enjoy The Book of Lost Tales, though among Tolkien's posthumous works they should first turn to his children's stories: The Father Christmas Letters, Mr. Bliss, and Roverandom.
. Readers who like Tolkien's poetry for its own sake should definitely read The Lays ofBeleriand.
. Readers who most enjoy the appendices to The Lord of the Rings with their details of kings and genealogies should read Unfinished Tales and The Peoples of Middle-earth.
. Readers who most enjoy Tolkien's storytelling abilities should also read Unfinished Tales, followed by The Peoples of Middle-earth, Morgoth's Ring. and The War of the Jewels, in that order.
. Readers curious about the "making" of The Lord of the Rings, as one might watch a documentary on the making of a favorite movie, should read The Return of the Shadow and its successors in the subseries.
. Readers who come to Tolkicn from his fcllow Inklings, C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams, should read Sauron Defeated for The Notion Club Papers and The Lost Road for the title story.
Readers interested in Tolkienian linguistics will find the glossaries, etymologies, and linguistic essays in The Book of Lost Tales, The Lost Road, The War of the Jewels, a"\d The Peoples of Middle-earth of particular interest.
There is, then, much in The History of Middle-earth to reward the sympathetic eyes of those who care to look. In a famous essay. Tolkien complained that "Beowulf has been used as a quarry of fact and fancy far more assiduously than it has been studied as a work of art" (MC, 5). He did not mean that scholarly quarrying was necessarily a misuse of Beowulf, and still less is it a misuse of The History of Middle-earth, which requires its editor's elucidation merely to be generally comprehensible. But I hope to have shown, as Tolkien did for Beowulf, that there is art in this unique and valuable series of books, and that readers will find their way to it.

(copied with a pen scanner, so please forgive any mistakes in transcription)

[Aiwendil]

I'm not saying that it's morally reprehensible to read HoMe out of order. I'm sure there are many people who don't have sufficient interest for that, and would find it excruciatingly boring.

I'm simply recommending reading them in sequence, based on the immensely pleasurable experience I enjoyed in doing so.

[Encaitare]

I agree partly with Aiwendil and partly with Mith. If you're going to read the first few, I-V, I suppose, then I recommend reading them in order. I read Lays of Beleriand first just so I could get straight to the pretty poetry, and didn't completely understand everything. There were some unfamiliar references that were confusing -- mostly the references to Gnomes confused me until someone very nicely answered my question here as to who they were. BoLT I and II proved exhausting and so I'm taking a short break from HoME for a bit...

I started reading the Return of the Shadow (VI) a while ago, though, and it seemed to me that it can stand alone. The rest which cover the Lord of the Rings (the Treason of Isengard, the War of the Ring) can probably be read without having read the previous ones, too.

[Mithalwen]

You can get the history of LOTR volumes as a cased set (with the bit that overspills in a slim volume) so there is clearly a market for those volumes separate from the hard core full set.

I guess I am a little sensitive because I was taught that it was a character weakness not to finish a book and still feel a little guilty if I don't (unless the book is utter tripe) but while reading all sequentially may well be ideal if you are up to the task, I just wanted to emphasize that it is worth looking at the later volumes even if you are daunted by the early ones.