SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
What Else Are You Reading?
>
Should I start reading the LOTR series?
message 51:
by
Jim
(new)
Jun 27, 2014 08:11AM
It's interesting. Some people think of it as a series, some think of it as one book :-)
reply
|
flag
The Lord of the Rings proper is meant to be one book; it was only the exigencies of publishing that caused to be initially issued in three volumes. What I call the "Matter of Middle-earth" can be considered a series.
who says jk rowling didn't read LOTR's? 'cause I think she did.
Don wrote: "who says jk rowling didn't read LOTR's? 'cause I think she did."There was a link someone posted earlier where she gave an interview and she said she didn't like fantasy books and didn't finish reading it.
In a word, yes. LOTR is one of the defining pieces of contemporary western literature. My personal opinion is that Tolkien was a good writer but not a great writer. His prose is as plodding as the Fellowship's journey. But what makes it is that he tells a most wondrous story, a story the likes of which the world had never heard.I think it's a real shame that people these days come to Tolkien after reading a lot of other fantasy first. It is far better to start there. And once you've started there you realize that a great number of other fantasy books need not have been written in the first place.
Yes you should read them. I am finishing them up right now and they are great. Are there slow parts? Definitely, but still excellent books.
Tyler, if you think Tolkien's good who are the greats in the genre?
I'm one of the people who thought that Rowlings, Tolkien references were homage well done... not as some say theft.
I definitely do not agree that Tolkien's prose is plodding! It is written beautifully as prose was written at that time. So now we do it differently but not necessarily better :)
I'm in the process of working my way through the books at work. It's a very rare occurrence that I get a chance to read while on shift so something that I would read slowly anyway (mainly because of the language, it always slows me down) is perfect, I don't get impatient about being interrupted when we get a call. I've read them before and I think I'll be missing Tom Bombadil out this time, but I love the books.
Stan wrote: "Look, everyone else has sort of missed the point.Yes, you should read Lord of the Rings, but not because it's the most important work in the fantasy genre (though it is).
You shouldn't avoid the..."
Excellent review, Stan! LOTR is not to be gulped but lingered over like a fine meal or fine wine! There's nothing quite like it. Oh and I enjoy the poetry and Tom Bombadil.
Oh. Stan's comment!I can only agree with that one. :)
Especially since I don't know why people often don't like 'slow' books. You can't travel from The Shire to Mount Doom in under a week. Okay, jokes aside.
Books with a slow pace can actually be really great and I guess you can rarely find that in books published in the recent years since the market for books changed a lot.
Some books which are considered 'slow' actually dwell on some things too long. LotR on the other hand gives you lots of plot which makes things seem slow and long but that doesn't mean that the 'slow' parts are boring. It just means there are things happening that are not action-y.
Don wrote: "who says jk rowling didn't read LOTR's? 'cause I think she did."Just saw this one. A JK Rowling interview from 2012:
Any literary genre you simply can’t be bothered with?
“Can’t be bothered with” isn’t a phrase I’d use, because my reading tastes are pretty catholic. I don’t read “chick lit,” fantasy or science fiction but I’ll give any book a chance if it’s lying there and I’ve got half an hour to kill.
I was a bit curious to see if her views had changed at all from 2005 (see my earlier post, # 50 on this thread) to the present. Apparently not.
Rather an odd statement coming from a Hugo winner, but such is life. Though my understanding is that she's actually never even bothered acknowledging her win.
I read it dozens of times in my teens and twenties. Recently read it again and was pleasantly surprised at how much deeper it was.Reading The Silmarillion also helped there, to catch all the allusions, but do not -- repeat, DO NOT -- read that one first. It is much farther from LOTR and The Hobbit than they are from each other.
Whether you should read it depends on whether you think amazing books should be read.
Megatherium wrote: "Don wrote: "who says jk rowling didn't read LOTR's? 'cause I think she did."Just saw this one. A JK Rowling interview from 2012:
Any literary genre you simply can’t be bothered with?
“Can’t..."
I find that incredible. How can she not read the genre she writes in?
there are too many Tolkien references in Harry Potter for that to be true.
Don wrote: "there are too many Tolkien references in Harry Potter for that to be true."Er -- where?
Observation: Get your hands on all three books before starting to read. I first read it in one intensive weekend in my early teens. I can not imagine having to wait to get the next volume; it would have been agony.
Ursula K. LeGuin reports having been on the library steps the next morning after having checked out Fellowship and started to read the evening before.
So, just in case you're like us -- have them all at hand.
batilda bagshot- baghot row.harry and frodo both carried a supernatural wound from the enemy.
for starters
frodo and harry both orphans and unlikely heroes.
Don wrote: "frodo and harry both orphans and unlikely heroes."That is entirely too common in fiction in general to be a reference by itself.
"Bagshot" sounds like an English name to start with; the others fall into the category of "tropes" which Tolkien and Rowling could have scooped out independently from the "cauldron of Story."
if you don't wish to see Rowling's homage to Tolkien then by the dementors... or is it black riders? you don't have to. and not even giant forest spiders will persuade you.
Don wrote: "if you don't wish to see Rowling's homage to Tolkien then by the dementors... or is it black riders? you don't have to. and not even giant forest spiders will persuade you."Well, yeah. Dark frightening creature is hardly a link so astoundingly unique as to point to connection.
Don wrote: "old man willow and the whomping willow"The dangerousness of willows is a trope traced back for centuries.
Elm do grieve.
Oak do hate.
Willow do walk.
If yew travels late.
I've only encountered two dangerous willows that come to mind. but you make excellent points Mary.
Well worth taking the tine to read. They can be a bit if a slog but are so worth it! The back story and details in the book are part of what I found really made the books. Unfortunately a lot of this had to be missed out in the films for the production so the film s are by far inferior to the text , even if it takes you all year . . . go for it!
I would have to say yes. LOTR are such important literary works that pieces of them are spread throughout modern culture, literature, music, rpgs, and video games.
I would also say yes! I've read them several times over the years & they get better to me every time. Right now I'm starting over with Fellowship of the Rings & reading along with my son & we have discussions about it. He's 17 & not a very avid reader so its taking him awhile but this will be the 1st book he ever reads all the way through!
No. There are so many wonderful books available - don't read a book you don't want to just because someone says you should. Of course, I'm biased right now. I just wasted a day reading The Hunger Games. :(
LOTR is always a fantastic choice! But always start it with Hobbit then trilogy.
Be forewarned that it and The Hobbit are very different books.
Mary wrote: "Be forewarned that it and The Hobbit are very different books."Very. I loved The Hobbit and despite several tries cannot get into LotR.
I read The Hobbit for the first time last month. I finished it in about 4 or 5 days. It was good, knew the whole story, but enjoyed it.
Should you read The Hobbit and LotR?Yes.
It's the mortar that almost every fantasy story has been in part built with since its release. It's like studying latin to learn the romance languages that came from it.
You start to see a lot of similarities...
I tried to read LotR many many moons ago and gave up - it was too slow. I tried again about five years ago and guess what - I gave up, it was too slow.I only really started reading them because that was what everyone was telling me I had to do; saying they were the ultimate fantasy books and as a true fan of fantasy I just HAD to have read them.
Why, why trudge through a book you think is dull? The literary importance of a book doesn't really matter if you're reading for fun - you should read the book if you want to, not because you think you have to.
Having said that, and listening to what everyone else has said, maybe I'll give The Hobbit a go, and if I like that, maybe, just maybe I'll give LotR it's third and final chance...
Lauren if it matters at all, I much preferred LotR to The Hobbit.Not sure why, but I did.
I bought The Hobbit last night, and WOW yes I completely see the difference between the two - It's like comparing a latte to an espresso, The Hobbit it a much more gentle introduction to Tolkien's style. Chris, which book did you read first?
Read it, but feel free to skip the songs.
I read it many, many years ago and I found it enthralling and boring at the same time. Can't make a decision for you, but I suppose I would recommend it if you have a great memory, a love of fantasy and lots and lots of time. Good luck.
Gav451 wrote: "Read it, but feel free to skip the songs."I always skip the songs:)
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)The Silmarillion (other topics)
