How can people think that The Lord of the Rings is boring?

[brooke1994]

I hear many people say that The Lord of the Rings bores them. Yet lotr has plenty of action packed scenes in it. I understand if people are busy, and they have little or no time to read it. The content is the opposite of boring in my view. Despite it's length, it held my attention all the way through. I'm wondering why some people find this story boring?

[Donna]

I am a big fan of Tolkien's, but I think I see what happened here. Some people who could care less about literature went and saw the movies and when they got the books, they expected them, somehow, to be action-adventure books with one big fight scene or chase scene after another. They didn't expect to need strong literacy skills or the attention span that all of his brilliant scene setting and metaphoric skills embraces.

There is a well-documented difference in the attention spans of those who have grown up with computer games, video games and some form or another of mass media in their faces at all times, and those who have grown up with books in their lives as a form of recreation.

It's good that the movies are attracting a wider audience, but some push-back is to be expected.

[Gerd]

Oh, there's the singing, and then there's the endless descriptions of scenery, and some singing, then there's the history that doesn't always pertain readily to the story at hand, and then there's more singing ... it's just not every body's cup of tea.

I'm sure avid fans of Mann's Buddenbrooks are similarily at a loss how one can not love that book, which is, btw., quite easy, not to love that is.

[Elentarri]

I think they find the writing style boring - it's a bit old fashioned when you compare it to something like The Magician by Feist. You have to pay attention when you read Tolkien, otherwise you miss important things, and you need to be able to see Middle-Earth in your mind.

Unless I'm just strange? I can find passages funny when other people don't, like Gimli's comments about the night speech of plants.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Donna wrote: "There is a well-documented difference in the attention spans of those who have grown up with computer games, video games and some form or another of mass media in their faces at all times, and those who have grown up with books in their lives as a form of recreation..."

As an aul'bollix that falls into your description of someone that has "grown up with books in their lives as a form of recreation" and also thinks that LOTR is dull as a wet Wednesday watching paint dry, I feel I have to point out that not everyone's tastes are the same.
Now I'm not afraid of reading epics (either in the sense of big chunky books or in the more traditional sense of things like The Iliad) yet I can't say I enjoyed LOTR.
Now the original post asks why folk actually find it boring...I can really add little to Gerd's comment above: "...there's the singing, and then there's the endless descriptions of scenery, and some singing, then there's the history that doesn't always pertain readily to the story at hand, and then there's more singing ... it's just not every body's cup of tea."
Now the bit I can add: too much of the walking, the riding, the wandering, the striding etc etc etc.

[Mochaspresso]

What Gerd and Old Barb said.....

Fwiw, attention spans are relative because many video games have an epic back history, extremely intricate detail to fantasy world-building and actual game/role playing that requires a level of attention that equals and might even rival the attention that is necessary to follow the story line that is presented in LOTR. Particularly the MMORPG's. Many WoW (World of Warcraft) et all fans are also LOTR fans as well. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that the MMORPG folks tend to also be HUGE LOTR fans. I think people should rethink their condescending attitudes and rethink making unfounded and extremely biased generalizations.

[Violet]

I agree with Gerd about the singing but Mocha also has a strong point.

As for me I think a lot of people are perhaps too used of reading the easy stuff. Like many people think LOTR is similar to HP and Narnia so that's why they gave it a try. But the whole style of writing, language and world building is completely different.

As for the lengthy descriptions of middle earth, I think it only seems tedious to those of us who've read the book after watching the movies because we already know what middle earth looks like.

Regarding "the history that doesn't always pertain readily to the story at hand" -- I just love that!

[Ian]

I didn't read LOTR as a kid because of that precise reason. Now it's my favorite book.

LOTR is tougher reading than the other fantasy books I read as a kid. Tolkien has a large vocabulary and his own complex rhythm to his writing. I remember noticing that by The Two Towers, I had it down and could read it at a decent pace without having to re-read much.

Movies and books now have a much greater emphasis on action and fast gratification than decades ago, when it was published. Hunger Games has brilliant suspense but all the depth of a Facebook game. Some folks just aren't ready to commit a little time for a richer experience. For others, as previously stated, it's just not their cup of tea.

[Mark]

Some people watch movies instead of reading the book, my wife being an English teacher finds that many student tries to pull that off when they have to do a book rapport.

Reading seems to be not done these days unless a certain book is a hype and talked about, like Browns last novel. Then people will more quickley make the effort especially ast he movie is still 2 years away.

[Violet]

You know I think maybe this isn't just supposed to be a story that we read for ourselves. Maybe its also meant to be told in little bits to kids through their childhood. Maybe then we'll appreciate the backstory, songs and poetry more.

Just a thought. Maybe I'll give it a shot if I ever dare to have kids!

[Mark]

I read the book to my kids who loved the tale, as they now love the movies.

LOTR is as one book rather large and somewhat of a large commitment, unless people can reallly enjoy it.

[Violet]

@Mark That's awesome!

[Jennifer]

I think that sometimes the world-building is hard for folks to visualize, I recommend that my students watch the movie first if it's easier, then they have a frame of reference.

That being said, here's a thought. If something is listed as an epic fantasy, you're probably gonna have to actually read more than 100 pages. Epic means "el grande"....lots of pages, lots of volumes. If you don't like to read in the first place, an epic tale is not for you.

Me, I love BIG stories...I have actually gotten to the point that reading a stand-alone kinda invokes a sense of loss.

[Donna]

I loved most of it but the first time I read it through, I got bogged down in the Barrows and put the book down until I heard they were making the movie, then I finished it in record speed (for me.) Pathetic I know.

[Gerd]

Steven wrote: "If someone doesn't like to read, I would question why they are posting on this site."

I would think there are different levels of "do not want to read".
They may still enjoy a gripping story, they are just not as eager to read something for the sole pleasure of reading.

Also, some are patient travellers, that only need to know that they will arrive eventually, for some arriving is all that matters, and they don't care as much for the scenery or the history of where they visit.

Tolkien is an old style story teller, a leisurely traveller or guide one could say, that loves to show you around, and will eventually take a long side path before returning to the main road. Unlike, say, the above mentioned Mr. Brown who will give you the twelve capitals in twelve days tour, which can be fun in its own way.

[Melanti]

Gerd wrote: "Oh, there's the singing, and then there's the endless descriptions of scenery, and some singing, then there's the history that doesn't always pertain readily to the story at hand, and then there's ..."

This. Pretty much. I have a lot of patience, but Tolkien still manages to test it. Even back when I was 10-12 the furthest I managed to make it in The Hobbit was the song about smashing cups and plates. Yawn.

But also, for long-time fantasy readers, in the 80s the fantasy genre was flooded with epic fantasy - many of which shamelessly stole their much of their plots from LoTR. I read a LOT of them as a teen. Probably hundreds. And got sick of them. So now when I go back and try to read Tolkien, it seems very derivative and stereotypical -- not Tolkien's fault, obviously, but I'm not enthralled by a story I've read dozens of times.

I managed to force my way through them (finally!) a couple of years ago but didn't like them much. I can see why other people like him, but I just don't like his writing style or his plots. Or his characters for that matter!

It has nothing to do with not liking to read, or not liking the slow pace, or not appreciating language, or demanding non-stop action. I've read plenty of long slow books with little to no action that I've enjoyed. Just not any that were written by Tolkien.

[[deleted user]]

Honestly, those who think LotR is boring are uncultured swine (to borrow the words of the illustrious Ham from Toy Story). They just don't know what they are missing.

[Jon]

Mochaspresso wrote: "What Gerd and Old Barb said.....

Fwiw, attention spans are relative because many video games have an epic back history, extremely intricate detail to fantasy world-building and actual game/role ..."

Amen, amen, amen.

[Eric_W]

Steven said " Calm down. T..."

What Steven said X 100. I fail to understand this idea that everyone has to like the same stuff and if you don't like what I like you are somehow deficient. Tastes vary, thank goodness. Some people like fantasy, others are repelled by it. Some people like shoot-em-ups, others don't. The reason why some people don't like LOTR is the same reason why some people don't like Moby Dick. I happen to find some biographies and other non-fiction riveting. Many people don't. So what? I happened to have liked LOTR when I read it in college, but I doubt I would enjoy it as much today. I don't like football; my kids love football. Go figure. And it has nothing to do with video games. That's such a shibboleth. Frankly, I thought the original question was rhetorical. :)

[Kelly Brigid ♡]

Maybe some people find it boring because they focus on a lot of different character point of views, and cause this whole book is like over 2,000 pages XD I personally loved it though, this is the best fantasy book ever.

[Troy]

Donna wrote: "I am a big fan of Tolkien's, but I think I see what happened here. Some people who could care less about literature went and saw the movies and when they got the books, they expected them, somehow,..."

Very well said. Exactly how I see it. Loved the books when I was younger. Appreciate them more now though. The films I thought were well done.

Now The Hobbit on the other hand............. the book (singular) is great, but the movies are kinda... meh.

[Ken]

I think people think they're boring because compared to the fluffy fast-paced easy-to-read stuff that is popular now, Tolkien's work is a slow and ponderous meditation. A really well-written one, with a lot more depth to it than the dross of mass-market paperback junk.

But people used to that crap will be in for a shock if this is the first real book they've read.

[Ken]

So why didn't you like it, and what "dense" books did you like Steven?

[James]

Bryce wrote: "Honestly, those who think LotR is boring are uncultured swine (to borrow the words of the illustrious Ham from Toy Story). They just don't know what they are missing."

## A little harsh, possibly XD

Someone mentioned "instant gratification" - which makes a lot of sense. Perhaps the cultural differences between England & the US - countries with very different literary traditions - play a part.
TLOTR isn't a novel, let alone three novels, & it's not the kind of book one can take up at random. The HP books can to some degree make sense if read out of order, in a way that the three volumes of TLOTR can't. Possibly because Tolkien's universe is much more thoroughly imagined than the universe of HP. Gimli's song about Durin the Deathless does not stand alone, just as the Lay of Earendil does not stand alone - they rely for their full effect on knowledge of the Silmarillion - which is not everyone's cup of tea anyway.

[Gerd]

Steven wrote: "It was like reading a book from the point of view of someone that was going mad."

That's probably because he was, it was Dick's last wasn't it?



"But people used to that crap will be in for a shock if this is the first 'real book' they've read."

Always love to see elitist remarks like that made by 'readers'.

[Anisha]

Why I find LOTR boring - detailed descriptions which are actually not interesting (unlike Amitava Ghosh, whose descriptive writing is fantastic), language is not particularly novel or interesting, nothing quotable. I understand it might have been great at the time it was written (to be honest this doesn't convince me since there was some really good literature written at that time) - I read this 2 - 3 years back and it was not impressive especially after all the hype (to clarify, I have only seen the second movie and don't remember it at all). And the claim that this was supposed to be mythology really infuriates me! Real mythology is beautiful, with beautiful language - even if translated.

[Daniel]

LOTR is boring to anyone who doesn't like fantasy, let alone epic fantasy. That means that people who have read 'real' books might still get bored by LOTR. It isn't just "short attention span", it's "I couldn't care less about these boring pseudo-medieval stories!"

I'm far more inclined towards Dune than LOTR.

[Geoffrey]

Eric_W wrote: "Steven said " Calm down. T..."

What Steven said X 100. I fail to understand this idea that everyone has to like the same stuff and if you don't like what I like you are somehow deficient. Tastes v..."

I read the Bible when I was 6 and told me parents that it was cool stuff and at age 14 read LOTR twice I was so enamored of it. Now at the age of .......ahem....collecting SS, I have tried to read both, oh. so boring.

[Jingizu]

Anisha wrote: "Why I find LOTR boring - detailed descriptions which are actually not interesting (unlike Amitava Ghosh, whose descriptive writing is fantastic), language is not particularly novel or interesting, ..."

Well, I found LotR beautiful, and the language used was exceptional and beautiful to me. Especially reading LotR again after The Silmarilion was a great experience.

I can't really understand that people find it boring, except one reason i.e. everyone has different taste. I'm a historian, so I found his history and back story very interesting.

Some say his characters aren't fully developed and to that I agree. To some extent his characters are incidental to the story itself. He even alludes to it when Sam and Frodo discuss what Bilbo told them, that the story continues, but the characters come and go.

[Jingizu]

Tolkienite3791 wrote: "I did actually really enjoy the chapters with a lot of dialogue, such as The Breaking of the Fellowship, The Bridge of Khazad Dum, The Uruk-Hai, The Voice of Saruman, and The Palantir. The detail chapters can get boring, The Council of Elrond-32 pages, 8 STRAIGHT of which Gandalf speaks-was a killer. "

lol, for me the Council of Elrond was one of the best chapters in the book. Especially if you haven't read The Silmarillion yet.

[Geoffrey]

Tolkienite3791 wrote: "Oh hahaha well do you still enjoy the movies?"

I thought LOTR was funtastic, the Hobbit entertaining but deeply flawed.

[Jingizu]

Tolkienite3791 wrote: "Yes the whole Kili/Tauriel thing was awful. There is no greater love story than that of Aragorn and Arwen. Their story is beautiful and the most powerful love story of all time."

Oh yes fully agreed! The Tauriel character was completely unnecessary IMO, they just added her to have some female element in the movies. And the love story between her and Kili, a dwarf, was totally ludicrous!

A dwarf and an elf falling in love? ROFLMAO at the absurdity of it.

As to Arwen and Aragorn, absolutely beautiful love story. Although after having read The Silmarilian, I just slightly prefer the love story of Beren and Luthien.

[Jingizu]

Yah, I'm also female and didn't mind either that Tolkien's work is mostly male dominated. Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn, they are all great characters.

The Silmarillion is a great read! More historical-like than the fluid stories of LotR and The Hobbit. Also some strong women characters such as Luthien, Galadriel, Idril and Nienor...

[David]

Take Peregrin Took and Meriadoc Brandybuck for instance. Could you tell those two apart? I couldn't. To me those two was completely interchangeable.
Now, I was with you up to that point -- I can see how some of the characters (Eomer, Boromir, Butterbur, Celeborn, etc.) might seem a bit flat. But this example weirds me out, because Merry and Pippin are established from the very beginning as a contrasting pair. They could hardly be more different. Merry is quiet, thoughtful, studious, interested in history and reasons. A think-before-you-do kind of person. Pippin is exuberant, impetuous, up for anything -- the class clown, the Darwin Award candidate, always leaping without looking.

But then, I have no perspective on these books. I sat down and read them through practically nonstop when I got them for Christmas at age 11, and have read them (or parts of them) dozens of times since then, including a few times in French. If there's a way to find them boring, I haven't found it.

[Jingizu]

Percy wrote: "I just don't get it. I honestly don't. I've read a lot of books over the years, most of them fantasy, but I've never read anything as tediously dull as Lord of the Rings. The farther I advance into..."

LOL, nah no hate mail. Everyone has their own taste... :P Personally I love it and I am currently rereading if for the umpteemth time.

[Mark]

Walk for a bit. Camp and sing a song. Walk some more. Sing another song. Yet more walking. Fight scene. Walk and meet new people. Sing a song. Run for a bit. BIG SPIDER! Battle. Climb a mountain. Another battle. More walking. The End.

[Malgorzata]

I respect Tolkien's heritage and I think Middle-Earth is one of the most complex and detailed fantasy worlds ever created.

But.

Compared to some modern fantasy books, like Sapkowski's Witcher saga or Scott Lynch's Gentlemen Bastards, I find LOTR rather slow. I blame it on the fact that the books were written a long time ago, so the writing style appears stuffy and not particularly dynamic. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the books, but there are other fantasy novels that I found more entertaining.

[Jingizu]

@ Eeaeneoo - where does Tolkien abuse the deus ex machina plot devise in Lord of the Rings?

It is precisely his descriptions and back stories that, the richness of the world he created, that I love about his work. But different strokes for different folks I guess...

[Jingizu]

@ Eeaeneoo - never suggested you have ADHD at all. Reading a lot of history and back story of a fantasy world is not everybody's cup of tea. Nothing to do with attention span, just with personal preference. Like some people love reading descriptive and extended battle scenes, while I don't. etc.

I love history and I love the formal and descriptive language used by Tolkien, so for me it was a joy to read. Also devoured The Silmarillion and reread it many times.

I did ask however where you found that Tolkien over-used deus ex machina in Lord of the Rings?

[Steve]

See my review. It is a slog...and I have read doorstoppers by Pynchon, Joyce, Barth and Df Wallace. So it's not length of story that is an issue.

[Jingizu]

@ Eeaeneoo - yes, it is pure nonsense for people to list such things as ADHD for not liking Lord of the Rings.

As for the deus ex machina, I have read that article that you linked before and don't agree with it.

1. - is in The Hobbit, not Lord of the Rings, so I won't address it here.

2.The change of wind direction in The Return of the King, which turns the tides of battle in Gondor's favour.
- the change of wind is not a DEM, it is foreshadowed by the very title of the book. Aragorn has revealed himself as Elendil's heir, not only to the people of the coastal settlements but also to the dead oath-breakers and most importantly, to Sauron via the palantir. The King is returning which turns the tide of the battle. There is much made of the Kings of the Numenorians, their semi-divine bloodlines etc. and they were chosen by the Valar to be the kings of men.

3.The appearance of Gwaihir and other Eagles who constantly save Gandalf whenever he is in a hopeless situation.
- constantly is an over-statement. The Great Eagles are the servants of Manwe, the king of the Valar and they can and only do intervene when things look hopeless. They also owe Gandalf a couple of favours.

4.Gollum's fall destroying the One Ring entirely by accident.
- most definitely NOT a DEM. It was not sudden or out of the blue. It is foreshadowed in the first book already when Gandalf states that "my heart foretells me that Gollum still has a part to play", which is one reason that Gandalf forbid the Mirkwood elves to kill him. Gollum didn't appear out of nowhere, he has been following Frodo, guided Frodo and followed him again. Getting the Ring was Gollum's only purpose and aim in life.

Foretelling and foreshadowing is a constant in Tolkien's fantasy mythology. Several people have the gift of foresight, i.e. Elrond, Aragorn, Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Gilraen (Aragorn's mother, as well as his grandmother) etc. etc. Simply put, it is magic in a fantasy novel.

But this is just my take on it, and in Lord of the Rings there's a lot of things that only make sense if you've read The Silmarillion as well.

[Jingizu]

@ Tolkienite - oh the Children of Hurin! Love that story, so terribly sad.

The Silmarillion reads a bit more like a history than one continuous story, but the imagination behind it and the intricate details in the world building is marvellous, for me anyway ;P

[Jingizu]

The favour is that Gandalf saved the life of the king of the Giant Eagles. That is why the eagles consented to save Gandalf and Bilbo and the dwarves in The Hobbit.

Gandalf was only saved once in Lord of the Rings by the eagles, i.e. when he was captured by Saruman. Gwaihir heard from other birds about Gandalf's captivity and decided to rescue him.

Galadriel sent the eagle Gwaihir to bring him to her after his fight with the balrog.

It is never made exactly clear who sent the eagles to the last battle before the Black Gate, but it is hinted at and generally speculated that it was Manwe himself.

No, I wouldn't recommend The Silmarillion to you. If you didn't enjoy Lord of the Rings, you will almost certainly dislike The Silmarillion.

[Dylan]

Jingizu wrote: "Gollum's fall destroying the One Ring entirely by accident.
- most definitely NOT a DEM..."

As you mention, it was foreshadowed early on in the story that Gollum will play a part, so his role is definitely not out of the blue. But there is another interesting thing...

Right before Frodo and Sam reach the Crack of Doom, Gollum catches up and suddenly attacks Frodo. At that moment, the Ring itself is very "alive" with power due to its proximity to its place of origin.

Frodo fights off Gollum and curses him in the name of the Ring. In other words, invoking the Ring's power into that curse. He says something like, touch me again and you yourself will be cast into the fires of Mt. Doom.

Several minutes later, Gollum does touch Frodo again, bites his finger off. The Ring is still around Frodo's severed finger, meaning that Frodo is still the master of the Ring at that moment, and his curse still holds. Gollum is cast into the fire by his own desire and Frodo's curse. Thus the Ring essentially destroys itself.

All of this follows directly from the previously set up events in the plot. Definitely not a Deus ex Machina.

[Jingizu]

@ Tolkienite - the moth thing was only in the movie, not the book.

@ Dylan - a very good point! :)

[Jingizu]

"The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness."
— J.R.R. Tolkien on flying the One Ring to Mount Doom

from The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, 210 From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman

[James]

Since the Eagles are the Eagles of Manwe - as per the Sil - they are not just any old birds; they are very significant, because they belong to the Lord of the Valar. Who has eagles, partly because Odin has ravens and Zeus has an eagle. Zeus also wields the thunderbolt.

The Eagles' presence at Mount Doom is particularly appropriate, because the Eagles flew to Numenor very shortly before its Downfall - and the downfall of the Barad-dur is described in language that echoes the description of the Downfall of Numenor. Sauron is getting a taste of his own medicine, and this time, his downfall is final.

[Dylan]

The Eagles: my take on this is a little different. First, if the reader has not read the Silmarillion, or even the Hobbit, they should still be able to believe the events in the book are plausible. That may be a little difficult when the Eagles seem somewhat out-of-the-blue.

However, the Eagles are not a Deus ex Machina, because they do not resolve anything in the plot. They arrive at the Battle, but their presence does not affect the outcome of that Battle. It is the destruction of the Ring that ultimately decides that Battle -- a battle which would have been futile otherwise.

Gandalf then elicits their help to rescue Frodo and Sam, but the outcome for Middle Earth -- the downfall of the Dark Lord -- would have been the same even if Frodo and Sam had died (which they had already resolved to do).

Lastly, it's a personal opinion of mine that the real climax of the story is not the destruction of the Ring, but is in fact the Scouring of the Shire. (Because this is the last trial which the Hobbits must face, entirely on their own). But even if the Eagles had never come, and Sam and Frodo had died on the slopes of Mt. Doom, the outcome would have been the same for the Hobbits of the Shire, because it was Merry and Pippin who led and organized the uprising against Sharkey (Saruman), with minimal help from Sam, and almost none from Frodo.

[Dylan]

I'm just saying that while it may be an implausible turn of events, it's technically not deus ex machina.

A deus ex machina is a literary device that is considered "bad" specifically because it brings about resolution to plot lines in ways that don't follow from the events of the plot up to that point.

[Dylan]

People might disagree that the extraction of Sam and Frodo is not essential to the plot. In which case I would concede that it could be considered a DEM.

But I don't think it was essential. It's just bonus for our beloved characters to survive. But everything else gets cleared up. Sam & Frodo's role is done at this point in the story.