The Lord of the Rings
discussion
Inattentive and Un-appreciated
I agree completely. This can be rated 1 only out of complete ignorance of literature in general.And, yes, I also skipped some of the poems. ;)
But it's dreadful dull! Surely 1 star is optimistic?I read it and thought it was dull (just my opinion...and that's all it is an opinion), but I understand the fact that folk love it...and that's fine for them.
But I get what is being said, giving a book a rubbish rating without actually reading it is a bit off.
In the case of LOTR, it is not the popularity that's the key, but the quality. It's being hailed as one of literary masterpieces of English language literature and for good reason. No modern author can reach the same mastery of language given the much shorter time they can use to write their books (because of publisher and market pressure).Even if I sometimes read a book that I do not enjoy myself, I cannot give it 1 if I can clearly see that it is written extremely well and is - objectively (or as close as I can judge it) speaking - a good or great book.
Mark wrote: "...and Baywatch is the greatest TV show of all time..."But it is! Well, that and the Sopranos...for entirely different reasons sir.
But regarding rating LOTR 1 star...what are we rating?
If it's my own experience of the book (which I tend to use as the litmus on this site) then I give it 1 star. If we must take into account sales and whether it conforms to someone else's criteria of great use of language then I'm at a loss. Who's criteria do we use? A fusty old oxbridge don that wallowed too much in Anglo-Saxon poems? Or James Joyce? Or Anthony Burgess? Or George Orwell?
But I note that even though Marko and Zinny above give it 5 stars they admit to skipping songs and poems. Surely if you skip any of it you can't justify the full 5 stars...so to play devil's advocate: if it's felt that 1 star is being a slave to fashionably negative reviewing of LOTR then surely giving 5 stars when part of the text is skipped is equally reactionary.
But back to Baywatch now...
I've read it 5 times in two different languages - I have the right to skip sections of it on later read-throughs... ;)But, yes, Tolkien's stories may contain too little action for today's generation and they are perhaps better server with the theatrical cuts of the movies. I'd guess these same people would also find Patrick O'Brian's excellent Aubrey/Maturin books too slow for them (and pointless since most of the books don't have that strong a plot and focus mostly on characterisation and atmosphere).
Oh, c'mon, if I would dare to pick up anything by Jane Austen I might end up one staring it, too. Keep in mind that the star rating only indicates the personal enjoyment of the rater.
It is a valid opinion to say:
"The book bored me witless, it's a one star book for me."
(I actually would have to say that about Dune, which makes it no less a masterpiece of SF writing)
If the book is good, it will get a lot of better ratings for each one star it receives and the end note pendles out. Also, ratings are non descript, they tell you few if anything about the quality of a book, that is what reviews are for!
Right you are, of course. Lost sight of it myself for a moment there. Been reviewing games for gaming mags for a long while and there it is always important to remain objective and not let your fandom or dislike for certain genres to affect your ratings.But here it is naturally meant to be a completely personal opinion! :)
Wait a minute! Is this turning into a rational discussion?Huzzah!
One thing I don't really understand about LOTR is the level of evangelism that some readers have for it. There are a few books that I truly love and will geek out over and encourage folk to pick up (The Count of Monte Cristo; War and Peace; The Brothel in Rosenstrasse: An Extravagant Tale; and recently anything by Jim Thompson)...but the all consuming passion that LOTR engenders in some readers bewilders me.
In a way I can see why if it is the book that first truly turned someone on to reading "real books". But to return to it over and over (fair enough if it's your thing) and learn runes (OK, I'm getting edgey) and memorise family trees (is there a wild look in the eyes yet?) and in some cases learn elvan (elfan?)...at this point I feel confused and possibly slightly frightened.
I hope that doesn't come across as insulting to a fan of LOTR (but feel free to be outraged if you can translate this into one of JRRT's mock old Welsh/Saxon hybrid tongues...in runes), but I really would like to try and understand why this particular book does this to some folk.
The book enchants people because they can see a carefully crafted new world through everything that's put on its pages. As I said above, modern fantasy authors rarely (read: never) have the time (or determination) anymore to craft their imagined worlds as carefully as Tolkien did (he spent decades on it, crafting cultures, languages, histories, gods, spirits etc.) and that really makes a difference. The passion comes through on every page, as does his craft with language in general.But, yes, I've always just enjoyed it as a story and I never tried to learn the family trees or languages (but I do know that there were at least two or three different elven languages, not just one). I did pick up the runes when I was a wee lad and read The Hobbit, but I cannot remember half of them anymore.
BTW: go and try to read the Silmarillion if you ever want to be really surprised by what Tolkien wrote. When you read a pageful of text listing all the various names that one character was known as at different times and in different places (as well as some of his/her family tree) before you get into the story (for a while, until another character comes along), you really start to wonder what the guy was about... ;)
I gave it a 2 star rating because, even thought it had a few interesting parts, it went on and on about landscapes and walking. Why did everyone have 2 or 3 names? I gave up keeping them strait because there was too many people, with too many names.
Caitlin wrote: "it went on and on about landscapes and walking..."Aye, there's that too. Like a very detailed travelogue. Happier with an OS map, a good pair of boots and a bottle of Highland Park for the bothy...actually see the landscape then...mind you I used to go out on the hills with a guy that was a huge LOTR fanboy and he did hint that it was the book that got him into mountains in the 1st place.
Caitlin wrote: "I gave it a 2 star rating because, even thought it had a few interesting parts, it went on and on about landscapes and walking. Why did everyone have 2 or 3 names? I gave up keeping them strait bec..."They have several names, because names were not tagged onto them like they are in the modern day. Even in the real world, in the past, many people received additional names based on their deeds from the people they met (if they travelled a lot).
I beg to differ on the part of the "on and on about landscapes and walking" as well. When I first read the trilogy in my teens, I think I agreed with that, but when I read it again later on, there was no such feeling at all. I think most of the feeling comes from one's young age and - for older people - perhaps the modern age as well (we don't have time to stop and enjoy the scenery anymore, everything has to happen immediately).
Mind you, I'm one of those persons who watched "The Master and the Commander"'s cut scenes and wished that they had been included in the movie (quiet scenes of the ship sailing, Maturin sitting on the deck, writing into his journal etc.).
Mark wrote: "Ahh the old 'I love this so if you don't... there must be something wrong with you' argument. I read LOTR over 20 years ago and tried to re-read again recently but found it crushingly dull. It is w..."Thats is not entirely true, There are many book out there which are ought to be free of rating from people who have barely touch the book or finish reading it.
Fot example I just finished reading Dracula by Bram Stoker, and while this book has funny writing style. As the story is being told or plot along using letters between characters or news story of the events. It was hard to follow and even harder to understand all that is happening.
Clearly half way through the book I would have given it 2 stars but after completing the book, it jump to about 3.5 stars.
The ending, and battles were all written in a such powerful way that LOTR is bound to hit all kinds of emotion from anyone who can understand the language.
Zinny wrote: "There are many book out there which are ought to be free of rating from people who have barely touch the book or finish reading it..."Surely if the rating is justified in the review (if one is posted) then it can't be argued with too much.
Some books just rub you the wrong way, and while I understand how that might feel almost insulting to those that love a particular book it's something you have to accept, unless somebody is really just trying to be rude.Although, if a book really did grate on you, and not on immovable moral grounds so, in some cases it can be worth the effort to return to it when you're somewhat older. Each story has its time when it works best for us, sometimes it's just that this time hadn't come yet.
I read LOTR during my stint with the army, that was the perfect reading place for me, we had lots of time to bridge and nothing to do but read. Tolkien is perfect when you really have the leisure to just read along, and sometimes just to read for the love of the language used, or a certain character, when nothing really seems to happen in the story.
Well, and then there's the singing, which I hear a lot of people complain about, even Tolkien fans. :D
Personally, I love LOTR and The Hobbit both. But I struggled with every page of the Silmarillion- it reads like a history textbook to me.One of the comments above strikes the heart of this discussion, tho- the star ratings are your personal experience with the book, and should be taken with an appropriate dosage of salt.
I've read this a number of times now, since my first reading in my teens (I'm now 54). In the past couple of years I've started keeping a copy I have of all three books in one volume beside my bed, so I can pick it up anytime. When I finish, I start it again, so I'm always somewhere in the book, to be picked up whenever I'm in the mood.I guess you could say it's my all-time favorite story.
I personally LOVE LOTR, but I have never understood why people get so attached to something that they can't recognize that not everyone will feel the same way.I just published a novel. I know that some will love it and some will not. It just won't be their cup of tea. I expect to get a few negative reviews. However, I decided before I submitted it for publication to remember that it is an opinion.
I just hope there are those who love it too. ;)
This is my favourite book, but I can understand how some people might not like it. I don't think we should judge people for not liking it, just as other people shouldn't judge those who love Tolkien. People may like/dislike it for the characters, the language, the plot or many other things. The rating system certainly can't differentiate between all these. If you love it, you love it. If you don't, you don't.By the way, am currently re-reading it for the eighth time, and am falling in love with it all over again.
It's because of the times. Tolkien wrote during an era where everyone lived at a slower pace, quality was a character trait, and we didn't have to "produce" massive amounts of work to be considered successful. Today, we live in a society that demands a complete story in a 20 second commercial. The motto of the day is "let the reader create his/her own world, a writer is simply there to sketch it in". And yes, there is quite a bit of descriptive language. Why? Because Tolkien didn't grow up watching scene after scene flash in rapid succession. It's the same with Opera or Theatre. A death scene pre-TV/movie mania lasted a good 20 minutes. People reveled in the drama. Today, if it's longer than 2 minutes it "drags on too long".
Tolkien could spend ten pages describing the colors of a mountainside. Frankly, that writing style doesn't work for everyone. I mean the whole, "This can be rated 1 only out of complete ignorance of literature in general." theory is cute and all, but it doesn't seem well thought out. I had a difficult time with Tolkien's pace, but his world building is the best.
Elizabeth wrote: "A death scene pre-TV/movie mania lasted a good 20 minutes. People reveled in the drama. Today, if it's longer than 2 minutes it "drags on too long". ..."
Yeah, a twenty minute death scene sure would kill your work today. :D
Tolkien was an academic, and I feel that this shows in his writing. It is dull and plodding in many places and, as has been said, there are pages and pages of descriptions of mountains and trees and things.Also, the characters aren't really very fleshed out - and I'm not just talking about the women and villians. All of the characters are "types", and that's totally fine, but to act like they're these deeply complex characters is a bit much, in my opinion.
I also hated - HATED - the "let's tell everything that happened from Frodo and Sam's perspective... and then let's go back and tell the same time period from everyone else's perspective". I know the various reasons as to why it was done this way, but that doesn't change the fact that I hated it when I read it.
I read to be entertained, and when I'm bored I'm not being entertained.
FWIW, I loved Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, which is an 800-some-odd-page book where almost nothing happens. It's very much a character driven story, very thin on the plot, especially in the first half of the story, but I absolutely loved it. (Of course, I can also see how it wouldn't be to everyone's tastes.)
I mention this only as an example to show that my attention span is quite adequate.
Of course, I did always stay until the end of class, I do have the patience to finish long books (including LotR, even though I was bored much of the time), and I even somehow managed to get good grades, despite my obvious intellectual inferiority because I didn't love a particular book. *dramatic eye roll*
Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: "FWIW, I loved Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, which is an 800-some-odd-page book where almost nothing happens. It's very much a character driven story, very thin on the plot, especially in the first half of the story, but I absolutely loved it. (Of course, I can also see how it wouldn't be to everyone's tastes.) ..."
I'm quite the opposite, I loved Tolkien but I couldn't get through Jonathan Strange; although I did love her writing style, I just couldn't get into the story.
I thought LOTR was very GOOD, but I didn't really enjoy reading it. If the 1-star score on goodreads is for "didn't like it" then people have every right to rate something as 1-star. Obviously if 1-star were defined as "waste of time, utter rubbish", then it would be a bit harsh. But "didn't like it" is a personal judgement.I thought I was being generous with my two stars. I reiterate, it was very good, but I didn't enjoy it. Not because I have a poor attention span, thank you very much!
I'm with Colleen: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell was a masterpiece by direct comparison. Maybe not "technically", but what is art - if not to provoke or to be enjoyed? LOTR did neither.
*ducks*
I agree. People could think it's well written but still not like it. The stars are for how people like it.
I am a complete Tolkien and lotr fanatic and I love every single bit of his work. He was a genius who completely created his own languages, histories, world and races from his imagination. Reading one of the biographies written about him made me love his work even more. I love picking up the books and being taken into a completely different world, one that I love to escape too. The books are of course, not everyone's cup of tea and the stars are there for people to rate them based entirely on their opinions; but I for one love them and will continue to read them every year as I have done since I was 12 (am now 19). 5 out of 5 for my favourite book and my favourite author.
Tolkien is my inspiration. I tried to create a world and a history or it, but it failed epically. I tried to create mythical creatures too, but they turned out like Hobbits with a different name.Anyway, I have to agree with Rebecca with about everything. I do have a hard time admitting that it isn't and won't be everyone's cup of tea. I always argue to try and make it that way, but not everyone is going to like them.
I think this book could never be rated less that 10, I'm sorry. People who rate it less obviously haven't read it, or don't know good literature when it slaps them in the face. I read the entire thing, poems, appendixes and all. I'll have to admit I'm obsessed with LotR and proud of it (I even know how to spell my name in Elvish but that's beside the point). Yes I understand that people may not like it because the language is difficult and it is sometimes a bit slow. But there's no denying it is the most beautifully, best written book in existence. :D
It's funny, to me, how some people don't seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion. ;)
It's my opinion! :) I just talk about it like a fact because I'm a little bit obsessed and my opinion on the matter is very strong.
Dalia if you love it and know your name in Elvish good for you. It's all to easy to criticise and destroy and not so easy to create and love. I also love LOTR and was ecstatic when the films came out. My mum use to read The Hobbit to me and my brother when we shared a bath when we were little so Tolkien has always been a favourite author of mine. You go for it girl. Nice to hear someone being positive and enthusiastic. Not everyone has to love it like we do but if it gives people pleasure then that has to be a good measure of how successful the novel is.
Vc wrote: "Dalia if you love it and know your name in Elvish good for you. It's all to easy to criticise and destroy and not so easy to create and love. I also love LOTR and was ecstatic when the films came o..."My dad read The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Rings, and The Two Towers to my brother and I when we were younger, and then I read The Return of the King by myself. I remember my older cousins watching the movies when they came out on VHS, but I didn't watch them myself until I was 14. They are definitely the best book-to-movie adaption I've ever seen. My brother and I spent the entire summer of 2009 watching at least two of the movies each week. We knew whole scenes by heart. I recently re-read the trilogy for an English Lit ISU (my topic was Gollum as a Shapeshifter archetype). I also have the score from the movies downloaded on my iPod and have been listening to it on repeat since around April. My mom gave me a piano book for all three movies and I've been teaching myself the songs.
Dalia wrote: "...my topic was Gollum as a Shapeshifter archetype..."In what way is he a shapeshifter? He degenerates form a hobbit like being to Gollum, but I don't remember any shapeshifting in the books...in the The Silmarillion?
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Dalia wrote: "...my topic was Gollum as a Shapeshifter archetype..."In what way is he a shapeshifter? He degenerates form a hobbit like being to Gollum, but I don't remember any shapeshifting i..."
A shapeshifter archetype is defined by a character who often changes personality. The reader and/or the hero is never sure of their intentions, they are constantly changing sides, and they often have a secret motive unknown or unrecognized by the hero. They can also be called shadow archetypes, which means they represent a warning of what the hero could become if he/she does not complete their task. In my essay I called Gollum a shapeshifter-shadow.
OK, different ref points for me. Shapeshifter more related shamanic/faerie lore of actual shifting shape, taking on the form of an animal etc, rather than a fluid personality or set of goals. Would that not be more of the trickster than a shapeshifter?What are your refs for this definition? Not trying to be awkward, just interested in the subject.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "OK, different ref points for me. Shapeshifter more related shamanic/faerie lore of actual shifting shape, taking on the form of an animal etc, rather than a fluid personality or set of goals. Would..."This link seems to belong to a gaming company, but the descriptions are nice and clear cut (everything else I found was rather muddled and most seem to copy from this text anyway):
http://www.svsoft.com/Archetypes,%20M...
Gerd wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "OK, different ref points for me. Shapeshifter more related shamanic/faerie lore of actual shifting shape, taking on the form of an animal etc, rather than a fluid personality..."Thanks.
Joseph feckin' Campbell again...he gets everywhere doesn't he?
So he thinks Through the Looking Glass is the best story ever?
Simon wrote: Actually now that I think about it I think what he was talking about was works of fantasy in particular. Either yo..."
Tolkien is definitely king of the High Fantasy genre but what makes his so auspicious is his ability to craft a wonderful story Mr. Carroll cannot boast such a thing.
Simon wrote: "A friend of mine, who is one of those apparently rare few who has never read and will never read LOTR (because he has absolutely no interest in the genre whatsoever), claims that there are two type..."I love them both. :) but I read Alice for fun, LOTR for a totally different level of entertainment. I love well written fantasy in general. If it can pull you into the world the writers have created than I count it a sucess. I hate flaws in storylines most of all.
HelloI think who rated 1, did not read the book properly.
I read it the first time when I was 16 years old, and I just loved it! I think that is an amazing age to read those kind of books, because you still have the “fantasy” under your skin and are old enough to understand the minds of each character.
I read it again when I was 30 something, in English (first time was in Portuguese), and I love it again.
It is a hard book to read but when we get ourselves inside the story it is not possible not to love.
Atalanta wrote: "...but when we get ourselves inside the story it is not possible not to love..."And yet it bored me to tears.
It's all opinions...all subjective. We can't all agree all the time.
As to the initial "inattentive" comments earlier in the thread, I think that's too simplistic a reason to assume folk don't like the book. I'm not particularly inattentive, I finished it in about a month but I've read longer tales that I've enjoyed more.
If I don't like a book, I don't review it. Simple as that. Just because I don't like a book doesn't mean it's a bad book, it's just not my kind of book. I can't imagine wasting time of reviewing (or even reading completely) something I don't actually like. That seems a little weird. I think I read LOTR in about 3 days on a long weekend when I was 16. I didn't sleep much, lol, and it was a comfortable read. The style suits me and I tend to write slower pace as well. We have plenty of action packed things these days and so I quite enjoy a relaxed read. I have read the book a few times since. And yes, I give it 5 stars. I don't actually review anything if I can't give it 4 stars. Well, I probably wouldn't finish it anyway.
And, equally so, just because you like a book doesn't mean it's a good book, it's just your kind of book.Since joining goodreads I have started reviewing everything I read. I do this partially for myself - so I can go back and look at it on some future date and be reminded about what I did or didn't like about a book - but also for my friends, particularly those who have similar tastes to mine, so that they can perhaps avoid a book they probably won't like.
And, in some ways, it even works for those friends whose tastes are different from mine, because since my reviews say what I liked or didn't like, they can then gauge it based on their own tastes.
I have actually decided to pick up books based on negative reviews, particularly when those reviews say things like "I didn't like it because it was too dark" or "there was too much cursing". I don't mind cursing, and can enjoy a good, dark book, so I go "Hey, maybe I'll like that even though they didn't."
Similarly, if in my review for LotR I say I did't like it because the plot was plodding and the world-building took forever, someone else could go "Well, I like really detailed world-building, and I don't mind a plodding plot, so maybe I'll like it."
The fact that I've had to explain why negative reviews can be useful, not just here but in multiple places, baffles me, to be honest. All opinions can be helpful for a myriad of reasons, as long as people explain why they have those opinions and don't just write reviews that say "I loved it" or "it sucked".
I suppose my point is that my time is very limited, so there is no way I have the time or interest to read something I don't like. And if I don't read it, I don't review it. I also only read indie stuff these days and avoid the more commercial. I admire those who have the ability to be so constructive. I was actually talking more about reviews that just say "this was crap". lol.
Well, it's not like people pick up a book thinking "Oh, I think I'm gonna hate this book, I should read it!" ;)
ebooks are cool. I love sampling. lol. Gives me a chance to know if I hate it early on :)
Yes, I have started reading more samples, and that does help.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
The Brothel in Rosenstrasse: An Extravagant Tale (other topics)
War and Peace (other topics)
More...
Jane Austen (other topics)
James Joyce (other topics)
George Orwell (other topics)
Anthony Burgess (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Silmarillion (other topics)Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (other topics)
The Count of Monte Cristo (other topics)
The Brothel in Rosenstrasse: An Extravagant Tale (other topics)
War and Peace (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jim Thompson (other topics)Jane Austen (other topics)
James Joyce (other topics)
George Orwell (other topics)
Anthony Burgess (other topics)
Yet I think people who give this book a review and rated 1, must be the kind of people who can never stay untill the class finish in thier perspective education class or highschool.
This book could never be rated 1.
It was only from people who want the rating to go down due to their lack of intelligent to understand and patients to finish the book.
Yes I skipped poems and songs in this book but I still appreciate all the rest.
The worst this could be rated is maybe a 3 and a half, somehow it is too popular for it's own good and jealousy must rage in people who rated 1, just becasue they fail to understand the stories interweaving through middle earth and mostly never finishing due to lack of interest for this book is written with less action like today books.