Anyone else find Lord of the Rings a boring read?

[Tanya (Novel Paperbacks)]

I really want to like it and I can appreciate how beautiful the language is but I am just finding it so dull. I am halfway through The Two Towers and it is so slow and dull. I feel like I can’t call myself a lover of Fantasy unless I at least read it all once. Anyone else feel like this?

[RJ - Slayer of Trolls]

Yes

[Almney]

It is extremely extraneous, but it’s The Lord of Rings, I still have to love it!

[Cindy]

It was the first fantasy series I read. I remember picking it up at about 13 and not putting it down again until I had finished, not sleeping very much to get it done. And I immediately reread it, which may have started my rereading habit.

I loved it then and love it now. The writing is a little odd, especially the way the books are divided and we leave characters for extended periods, but I loved it for all of that.

Maybe it was my age when I first connected with it. Maybe it was that it was my first read in what became my favorite genre.

I know people who can't stand it, and others who only read it because of the movies.

Bored of the rings is popular for a reason I suppose, but it's never been boring to me.

[Mike]

I felt this way at first. Growing up, I enjoyed the Hobbit and reread it several times during my childhood. But try as I might, I couldn't slog through LOTR no matter how many times I tried. I think I got to a quarter into the second book once, but most of my attempts ended with me giving up before the first book was over. This wound up being a contributing factor in my utter disdain for the entire fantasy side of SFF for more than twenty years. One mention in the blurb description on the back cover of swords, magic, wizards, etc. was enough for me to decide this book was crap, and I would put it back on the store shelf.

Around 2005 I decided to give the LOTR film trilogy a shot, and I was surprised to find that I liked it. From there, I decided to try the novels again. Having seen the movies, I was better able to follow the storyline, and found the books much more engaging than I had previously. I've come to enjoy fantasy a lot more since then.

So Tanya, in your case, if you can't slog through the books, I'd suggest watching the films if you haven't yet seen them. If you like them, they may help you with reading the books. Even if you don't like the movies, you'll have only wasted a few hours out of your whole life watching them.

[Ivy]

I didn’t get through LotR when I first tried to read it the summer before The Fellowship hit the theaters (was that 1999? 2000?). Anyhow picked up the audiobooks a few years ago and, after seeing the movies and maturing a bit, found the story enjoyable, the writing lovely. Sometimes you just have to be in the right place mentally to have an author speak to you. Don’t judge yourself a SFF failure for not being crazy about this series. And don’t waste your time slogging thru a book that’s not holding your attention. Life is short, even if you live to your eleventy-first birthday.

[RJ - Slayer of Trolls]

Mike wrote: "I felt this way at first. Growing up, I enjoyed the Hobbit and reread it several times during my childhood. But try as I might, I couldn't slog through LOTR no matter how many times I tried. I thin..."

I could pretty much have written the same post, Mark, although I didn't shun the fantasy genre as a whole. I only tried LOTR once, got about halfway through the second book and just gave it up. I told myself that I had put it down for too long and couldn't remember who all the various characters were, but honestly I just didn't like it much. Like Ivy said, it didn't speak to me.

And, like you, I was surprised to find that I very much enjoyed the movie version. They are still some of my favorite films (although I was disappointed in the 2nd and 3rd Hobbit films which seemed to lose the path somewhere along the way). I've read The Hobbit several times and I like it a lot.

Due to the films, I did eventually go back and read the entire LOTR. I probably won't ever read it again but who knows? Knowing the storyline and having some visual cues to help me with the various locations and characters really helped. I didn't mind at all the changes that were made to the story; in fact I felt like PJ made all the changes that I would have made if I'd been in charge. Sorry Tom Bombadil and the barrow-wights, but you mean nothing to me except wasted space.

[Bobby]

No, I didn't but I get it. I actually think The Hobbit is the best of the books because it's the clearest storytelling.

[Cat]

Yep, very much so. Particularly The Return of the King for me (so much damn walking). But interestingly enough, when I went back later an re-read it (because my husband is obsessed with all of Tolkien's work and I thought I must be missing something) there are actually was more action and interest the second time around. It just hadn't felt like it the first time. So for me personally, it's a book that requires re-reading to be able to get into it. And even then, eh.
The Hobbit is definitely a bit easier to get into stylistically.
And I think that you can definitely love fantasy and not have finished LOTR. There are no rules about it! Life is too short for books you don't enjoy.

[J.J.]

It was never boring to me, either was the Hobbit? My bad for the boredom for those who read it. Probably not your type of fantasy book, hence the many, many types of fantasy stories out there that may be boring to us and not to others.

[Saul the Heir of Isauldur]

When I was in middle school, I tried to get into Lord of the Rings, but I failed miserably. I found the books boring, complicated and needlessly long. I turned to the Hobbit instead and finished it in 9th grade. I still didn't feel up for the task of reading LOTR so I waited until my second year in college. I read all of LOTR in the span of a month and a half. And I loved it.

Having found it boring it at first, I can understand how someone could not like it. I recommend trying it later. If not, it's perfectly fine. Fantasy is a vast genre with more than enough good authors out there, you don't have to stick with the Tolkien School of Fantasy.

You can read different stuff, like Robert Howard, Mervyn Peake, Tad Williams, Andrzej Sapkowski Michael Moorcock and a lot of other authors that are different from Tolkien. LOTR isn't a requirement to be a fantasy fan, but it's certainly one of the gateways into it because it's so popular. I love the books, and I will recommend that you stick with it. But if it's not your thing, it's just not your thing. Simple

[Andrea]

I was pretty young when I read it the first time and I loved it then, but I re-read it recently and yes, I can definitely see why people have trouble getting into this one. But then I'm also someone who has slogged through the Silmarillion, the Book of Lost Tales, the Unfinished Tales and other related writings so I'm pretty good at slogging when I put my mind to it, and compared to those, LotR is a quick and easy read!

Besides, those Peter Jackson movies are pretty accurate, at least as far as LotR (no idea what he was thinking for the Hobbit other than to milk it for all it was worth, those movies will lead you astray as to what Tolkien actually wrote) so by watching that at least you know the story, the characters, and really, all the important bits that a fantasy fan should know, doesn't matter it didn't come from the printed page.

You could read the Hobbit instead, much shorter and lighter and still exposes you to the same world and you can claim you still read Tolkien. And if you're like me, can skip all the dwarf singing, some people love it but songs without music bore me to tears to read.

[Billy Dominguez]

I couldn't even make it to the half way point of The Fellowship of the Ring, is was soo weird and definitely a drag

[SA]

no

[Pat the Book Goblin]

Nope. Can’t relate.

[Haaze]

No!

[[deleted user]]

The first time i read it i felt it was a bit slow in the second book as well....not any more tho

[Jim]

I loved it. I read The Hobbit so many times that when my 6th grade teacher handed out copies I said I'd use my copy at home. She then asked me to read & I recited the first couple of pages from memory.

I always detested the 2d half of The Two Towers. It was terribly boring the first time through, so I never did more than skim it after that. I only read The Tolkien Reader once, could never get into the The Silmarillion, & never tried any other books. To me, the trilogy & its prelude stand just fine by themselves. I saw bits of the movies, but the changes were too much for me to enjoy them.

It's probably been 30 years since I last read them, so I should do so again. I'll see if I can get them as audio books. Never tried that format before.

[[deleted user]]

Those who read The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings in the 60s probably have more appreciation of the stunning originality of the work. I can see how those who grew up with the now very many fantasy authors who owe their genre to Tolkien, Howard, & Leiber might feel the seminal works seem familiar & slow.

Also, I blame George Lucas & Steven Spielberg. Their movies of the late 70s and early 80s forever reduced Western attention spans such that they required something new & startling every 60 seconds.

Kids these days.

[Andrea]

I know some people have issue with The Two Towers because it moves away from our main protagonists of Sam and Frodo and focuses on everyone else. Depending on which characters you get attached to, it can be a big long drag to get back to the parts you care about.

My favorite has always been Fellowship, which is true for the movies as well. I found the Nazgul far more dramatic on their black horses than on their stinky lizard birds. Also having all the main characters together, the mystery of what's going on and setting the premise, and I'd always thought I'd prefer living in Rivendell than Lothlorien :)

[Jim]

Well said, G33z3r.

The second half of the "Two Towers" is just about Frodo & Sam slogging through to Mordor. It is a slog, too. The first half was much better.

[Haaze]

It's all relative....

[Tanya (Novel Paperbacks)]

I’m now starting Return of the Ring. It’s more of a love/hate relationship now. I have loved some parts but then others have just dragged. I really hated the Frodo/Sam bit of the Two Towers but loved the first part with Aragorn etc. The writing is beautiful but I guess I am used to faster paced fantasy books with more going on. I loved the movies. The books are so different.

[Andrea]

Just thought this Tor post was an amusing coincidence given our current discussion

https://www.tor.com/2018/02/07/tbr-st...

[J.J.]

What no one is adding this variable of when it was written and compare it from the year it was written to any other fantasy reads similar to Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit. There was no comparison during that time. If you read it now well you have all these high fantasy, heroic fantasy all these great fantasy who were influenced by Tolkien. Remember the years they were written in people, come on now. Plus this book doesn't have to be read to new people to fantasy as a must to read. Sheesh

I Love Lord of the Rings because I read in my young teens and the hobbit even younger. Some of you people are starting off as adults and had read many better fantasy before LoTR or Hobbit.

[J.J.]

I'm actually getting annoyed with this thread. If your going to judge a book of that kind and the year it was written then add all the variables and comparison to the 'T'. If not, all I see is ignorance.

[Andrea]

J.J. wrote: "I'm actually getting annoyed with this thread. If your going to judge a book of that kind and the year it was written then add all the variables and comparison to the 'T'. If not, all I see is igno..."

Putting something into context can explain why we feel something might be slow, or boring or the language is more stilted, but that doesn't change what I think the initial poster wanted to know.

Given that LotR is considered a must read by the general public for fantasy fans, she just wanted to know if she was in some minority that was missing something by finding it boring, or, did other people have a similar feeling when they read it. Because why else would everyone be running around saying this is the best fantasy book ever, and yet, it seems on this thread, that a large number of people are also saying the found parts of it boring.

This is not entirely the same as being a criticism of the book, at which point yes, you need to take context into account. In fact other books like Dracula are generally considered to be poorly written, or authors like Dickens or Dumas who lived in a time when people got paid by how much they wrote. But they are still classics for various other reasons, like Dickens exposing the living conditions of various classes at the time. But doesn't mean they are equally enjoyable by all (just need to hear my sister continue to complain about her high school torture of reading David Copperfield...)

So it's not ignorance to find something boring if it is boring to you. Even if you know why the book is the way it is, still doesn't magically make it not boring to an individual. One cannot be forced to enjoy something, or feel it is a non-stop action ride when (1) it isn't and (2) such feelings are personal.

As I pointed in my first post I am someone who loves these books but at the same time concedes there are parts that are kind of slow and boring and I have empathy with people who feel they can't force themselves to work their way through it. Even the exalted LotR isn't necessarily perfect! Are we no longer allowed to find fault in such books because they have been elevated to some flawless level?

[J.J.]

Andrea wrote: "J.J. wrote: "I'm actually getting annoyed with this thread. If your going to judge a book of that kind and the year it was written then add all the variables and comparison to the 'T'. If not, all ..."

I myself do think it makes a difference from when what year it was written in compared to modern day fantasy. The whole style has change throughout the decades. If you were from that era when LoTR was written we would probably be in awe, and wow. I just want people to put that into consideration and understand the difference. And I do claim it to be ignorance if you can't put those variables into consideration. For if you don't know the history of when the books are written and compare of with todays work, I'm going to call it ignorance. Ignorance is not a bad word so if anyone took offense, my bad. Era makes a big difference when it comes to books because of the writing styles. And nothing was forced. I was pointing out 'whys' it might be boring to others. Plus anyone in here would take one of their favorite book personal when some don't understand so I explain why it may be boring.. Great books are personal to me.

Plus I like how G33z3r put it as well "Those who read The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings in the 60s probably have more appreciation of the stunning originality of the work. I can see how those who grew up with the now very many fantasy authors who owe their genre to Tolkien, Howard, & Leiber might feel the seminal works seem familiar & slow." He's obviously a great writer, the old guy and was concise with his explanation. I only have a high school diploma so I write a bit rough around the edges.


I've mention before as well Feb 11 "
It was never boring to me, either was the Hobbit? My bad for the boredom for those who read it. Probably not your type of fantasy book, hence the many, many types of fantasy stories out there that may be boring to us and not to others."

[V.W.]

Ive read the trilogy at least a dozen times, perhaps more.

Oddly enough, it's many of the modern fantasy authors I can't read. I do like Jim Butcher and Larry Correia, and the Sandman Slim series if you count that as fantasy.

[Roger]

I find the Lord of the Rings to be sooooo boring, it's just way to much descriptive text and not enough action for me. This one of the very few times where I like the movies more than the books.

[George]

Well, you're probably not going to be able to get into Sir Walter Scott's classics such as Ivanhoe, Rob Roy, etc. which also have a lot of descriptive text.

[Andrea]

The problem is, everyone has their own background. I grew up in the 80 and 90's and I (or anyone else) can't hop into a time machine to experience the book the way it was when it first came out. That's why I'm saying the reaction is personal. I am unable to relive your experience, even if that's to my loss. So while I can intellectually understand the way the book it was written and how it was received then (and I've read all those notes by Christopher Tolkien, no other book am I so familiar with it's background), I can't experience that emotion of awe and novelty directly.

And it's a lot to ask of a person, every time they pick up a book, to research the time period, the other books available at the time, the author's personal history, what the author intended when writing the book and all the other context that goes into analyzing a book. Most people just want to read a book and decide if they like it or not as it stands, with whatever background baggage they might have from their own life experiences.

Just as you didn't intend to use the word "ignorant" offensively, the same is true for the word "boring". Don't think anyone here is saying that because it has some slow bits we should just forget it was ever written and never read it again. In fact I think you yourself are even agreeing that yes, there are slow bits.

And that's all the original poster wanted to know :)

[Martin]

G33z3r wrote: "Those who read The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings in the 60s probably have more appreciation of the stunning originality of the work. I can see how those who grew up with the now very many fantasy ..."

That about puts it into focus for me. Much the same as modern films of the Marvel/DC variety etc the modern media has been dumbed down to such a low level that one weeps.

[thalassic]

I loved the 70s/80s movies when I was a young kid. Like obsessively loved them. I've read the books several times since then and still love them the same as I did when I read them as a slightly older kid. Some of my enjoyment of them is, admittedly, nostalgia, but it's still the high fantasy epic that made me love the genre to this day. The only part that seriously drags for me is the last little bit of The Return of the King. My feeling has always been that the story is over so why is it still going on and damaging the kind of triumphant conclusion?

[Jim]

Andrea wrote: "...And it's a lot to ask of a person, every time they pick up a book, to research the time period..."

Very true. Some books are worth it, but again that's a personal decision. I've found a few worth it, usually due to my curiosity about some overarching interest such as the evolution of SF. It takes far more time & interest than I have for even the most highly regarded classics. I found Gormenghast so impenetrable on several occasions over the years that I never bothered to try to figure out what Peake's excuse was. Just don't care.

Even when I do know & want to know more, it doesn't mean a book will speak to me, though. As much as I admire Jack London, like his other writing, know about his time & personal life, I still couldn't finish The Iron Heel. I subjected myself to enough of that sort of diatribe reading The Jungle a couple of years ago.

[Andrea]

Liz wrote: "I loved the 70s/80s movies when I was a young kid. Like obsessively loved them. I've read the books several times since then and still love them the same as I did when I read them as a slightly old..."

The animated LotR is my favorite version. A lot of people don't seem to like the effect of animation drawn on top of live action but I felt it gave it a very different and creepy feel. But then I grew up with it (never actually saw the Return of the King but that is more in the style of the Hobbit movie right?) and have a huge nostalgic attachment. Along with others like The Last Unicorn, Flight of Dragons and Watership Down.

Jim wrote: "Andrea wrote: "...And it's a lot to ask of a person, every time they pick up a book, to research the time period..."

Very true. Some books are worth it, but again that's a personal decision. I've ..."

I will admit, LotR, or should I say Middle Earth is worth it. I mean it gets a little extreme as you read the notes included with the books and people are debating exactly what year he wrote what. But still knowing what he was doing/thinking at the time was interesting. Also comparing different versions of what he wrote and how it evolved, and even his thoughts on fantasy in general.

[RJ - Slayer of Trolls]

J.J. wrote: "I'm actually getting annoyed with this thread. If your going to judge a book of that kind and the year it was written then add all the variables and comparison to the 'T'. If not, all I see is ignorance."

Sorry if I sound blunt, but if you don't like the discussion, feel free to read some different discussion threads. If I recall correctly I think this is the 2nd time you've suggested that someone is ignorant for disagreeing with your opinion. I wouldn't recommend continuing down that path.

[Allison]

I love these books. But I can totally see how the songs and descriptions of the world that invoke so much for me could drag for different brains. There's definitely a nostalgia element, and the joy of discovery at the right time in my life. I can't unread them to see them now with fresh eyes, but I can imagine that I might not like them as much now, steeped as I am in off-brand Tolkien that epic fantasy became for awhile. Sort of like how I imagine Childhood's End would have been absolutely amazing if I'd read it before any of the other first contact books and movies I've seen. But I read it last year and so I've missed this book that means so much for so many.

[Jim]

J.J. wrote: "What no one is adding this variable of when it was written and compare it from the year it was written to any other fantasy reads similar to Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit. There was no comparison..."

The Worm Ouroboros immediately comes to mind & I think it was published a couple of decades earlier. No one writes in a vacuum, there are always similar books. Beowulf, Arthurian tales, The Oddyssey of Homer, the Oz books, Lord Dunsany's tales, & others were similar in a lot of ways. Add a dash of The Golden Bough & LOTR seems almost inevitable as do the Narnia books. I agree that LOTR stands out in many ways, though.

[thalassic]

Andrea wrote: "But then I grew up with it (never actually saw the Return of the King but that is more in the style of the Hobbit movie right?)..."

Yes, it went back to the purely animated. I was young enough when I first saw them that the animation over live action scenes were very creepy and kind of scary. In retrospect I think it was a pretty groundbreaking effort.

[Andrea]

Jim wrote: "No one writes in a vacuum, there are always similar books."

Tolkien himself admits to being inspired by the norse sagas and other mythologies and folk/fairy tales. Dwarves, elves, and trolls are all norse concepts. But at the same time he wanted to take those inspirations and tell his own story, just for the sake of telling a story.

I might use his version of Beowulf in the bingo challenge for the translation square since I haven't though of anything else yet that would contain a dragon (though in Canada I should have no trouble finding something in French if I put some effort into it). I wonder if the pre-1918 square counts even if I'm reading a later translation but the original was written earlier?

[[deleted user]]

When I was a teen, I loved The Hobbit, but found LOTR tedious and hard to get into. As an adult, it's the reverse.

[Caitlin]

As someone who's loved the fantasy genre since I was a kid, I hate admitting that I can't get through LOTR. I can fully admit everything that it's given to the fantasy genre, the beauty of the languages, etc, etc. I absolutely loved the Hobbit and have read it multiple times. But every time I've picked up Fellowship, I just can't get through what felt like an eternity with Tom Bombabil. I generally don't think of myself as someone who has to constantly have action but apparently more so than Tolkien intended.

[Haaze]

It saddens me that this thread even exists.....

[Cat]

Haaze wrote: "It saddens me that this thread even exists....."

Although I do agree, that it can be very sad when other people don't love a favourite book as much as you do.

I don't think it should sadden you too much- it's a robust book discussion which is part of what being in a bookclub is all about! And there is lots of room for different opinions here, some people agree, some people disagree and most people seem to be somewhere in between. And clearly it's a topic that people are passionate about, which is never a bad thing :)

[[deleted user]]

There's no denying that LOTR has a special place in fantasy, one not occupied by any other work. The mere existence of this thread proves it. Would anyone agonise publicly over finding Game of Thrones boring, or Wizard of Earthsea, or the Narnia books? The implied worry in OP's initial question is that if you find LOTR boring, there must be something wrong with you: you are either a Philistine who can't grasp how wonderful LOTR is, or you are an infidel who has blasphemed by questioning Tolkien's greatness.

Well, of course, this is nonsense. If I may misquote Gag Halfrunt, Zaphod Beeblebrox's private brain care specialist: 'Tolkien's just this guy, you know.' Me, I love LOTR, I could lose myself in it for days, but I can quite understand that it isn't everyone's tankard of fourteen-twenty. Having said which, I should immediately come clean and confess that my favourite tipple isn't the book itself, it's the BBC dramatisation from the early eighties, with Ian Holm as Frodo and Michael Hordern as Gandalf. Better than the movies, IMHO (though I do also like the movies).

There's no sin in finding any book boring. It only becomes a sin if you infer that, because it bored you, the book must be bad. Books are never bad just because some readers are bored by them. It doesn't work like that.

My take on JRRT is simple. Almost everything he published during his lifetime is good (though some of the verse in 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil' is pretty thin stuff), and some of it is superb (Farmer Giles of Ham, for instance, is wonderful, a perfect little gem). Parts of LOTR are also superb, other parts are not, but taken as a whole, it is a stunning achievement. By contrast, everything his son published after he died is - well, I don't want to upset anyone, so I'll just say, not so good. If all Tolkien had ever written is what his son published after he died, we'd never have heard of him, because no publisher would have touched that stuff with a bargepole.

You don't have to like LOTR to be a true fantasy fan. Fantasy is a very broad church. There's room in it for a wide variety of tastes.

[Tanya (Novel Paperbacks)]

I understand that so many love Tolkien’s work. I do too, up to a point. I find it intriguing and much of it beautiful and it was amazing for its time. But I would be lying if I said this is one I would like to read again.

[Andy]

I wouldn’t worry that you didn’t enjoy it. It is all personal opinion after all. I suppose it is expected that a fantasy fan should have read it, but that doesn’t mean they have to like it. As to the time if writing - pfft - books should stand on their own without the reader having to understand why they are important or ‘classic’. Life’s too short to read books other people expect you to be in awe of. I think Pride and Prejudice is drivel despite ‘understanding it’s importance’ etc. I love LotR, but will admit to finding parts dull, especially the first read. Don’t notice them so much now though. However, I think most books have some slower elements. It can’t all be wall to wall action.

[Robin P]

I do think the period and what else is available makes a difference. I found LOTR wonderful when I was about 15 in the late 1960's. I was used to books with a lot of language that took a long time to get going, because I was raised on classics. For instance, Little Women sounds stilted and preachy today, but it seemed like a normal book to me. I think I tried to read LOTR to my daughter when she was maybe 10 or 12 (we used to read at night even after she could read herself) and we didn't get through the first book.

Really with any book, anyone is entitled to their opinion and life is too short to force yourself to read something you don't enjoy. And sometimes what we don't like at one time of life we will like later, or vice versa.

I saw the first movie and felt it left out too much and kept in mostly fighting. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the other two movies. Maybe it could have been better served as a TV series with more time.

[Andrea]

Robin wrote: "Maybe it could have been better served as a TV series with more time"

Given that the full version of the movies were already 4hrs long, times 3 that's already a 12 episode TV series arc :) For myself, I don't like reading battle scenes since I'm not good visualizing them, but why would I pay money to see something on the high-priced big screen if it wasn't action filled and flashy? I watch documentaries and comedies and dramas on TV at home, but the cinema is nearly exclusively something with major special effects (Star Wars, Superheroes, LotR, etc) so I see why they cut the less action-filled parts from the movie.

Back to the book, I also want to note that if something is boring at times, doesn't mean you should automatically drop it, many books are well worth trudging (or skimming!) through the slower bits. But again, if you feel you feel like you'd rather visit the dentist than read another mind-numbing page, then yes, definitely time to stop. Also depends if you are finds parts of it boring or all of it boring.