How does it read? I'm not a native english speaker, but

>>9239546
Its basically YA level, so you should be fine.

>>9239546

It's not difficult, but sometimes Tolkein loves to go into pseudo-archaic biblical language and I don't know if you can handle that or would want something more natural.

>>9239546
It's pretty long but it's not hard to read otherwise.

>>9239546
You'll want to start with The Hobbit.

>>9239546
It's not that hard, but it probably is too long. Just read The Hobbit first.

>>9239546
>I'm not a native english speaker
Good luck reading Tolkien senpai

>>9240653
He's really not bad. Archaism of mode, but not vocabulary or grammar.

I once trolled a Korean into trying to read Milton ("just find a version with modernized spelling", lolz). That one hurt.

A good book would be The Great Gatsby.

>>9239546
I feel like it could harm your english more than improve it.

A lot of people here will take this the wrong way, and I might be talking out my ass cause I'm native english but it's probably not an easy read for your first english book. Most books are a lot easier than the lord of the rings. It's slow, it's dry, it's long, it uses old fashioned grammar, it uses a fairly wide vocabulary. Sure, it's piss-easy for a native speaker who reads regularly, but 99 percent of all books written in the last few decades would be way, way easier. Hell, most critically acclaimed books from the last few decades, or even from the time LOTR was published, would be much easier.

So it's not a hard book, but it's also not so easy that I'd recommend it as someone's very first english book. You might be fine, you're english seems really good, but it's definitely not the lazy man's option.

>>9239546
Try the Crying of Lot 49.

>>9239546
>Also, for the non native english readers, what was your first book in the english language?

LotR was actually the first book I read in English, I was like 13 or 14 at the time. It's not particularly difficult.

>>9239546
it's shit

Hobbit is great tho

>>9241167

In reference to >>9241097 I should add that while it's fairly easy to read, the old-fashioned language left a strong impression on me, which will probably keep influencing my writing to the grave. Like, it took me a long time to realize words like "thus" sound kinda silly today. So yeah, it might not be a good choice for your first book in the English language.

>>9239546
Tolkien is fine. Like others said, the vocabulary is 100% contemporary English, Tolkien understood language and knew that random archaisms were nonsensical (unlike a lot of later fantasy writers). A lot of people say his writing is stiff, but personally I like it.

LotR is pretty big though, The Hobbit is much simpler and shorter, Children of Hurin is shorter and similar in style to LotR.

>>9241183
"Thus" is perfectly acceptable in written formal English. Not in spoken English, of course.

>>9241394
I can't imagine a situation where you could unironically write "thus" without coming across as a pretentious, fedora-tipping faggot. Maybe in some archaic university class detached from the norms of the surrounding society.

>>9241632
Maybe you should take some classes other than high school creative writing, you redditor faggot.

I see thus used all the time in both logic/proofs and research papers