Fantasy Aficionados discussion
This topic is about
The Lord of the Rings
Discussions about books
>
Trouble with Tolkien
I'm not a huge fan and I understand how you feel. My feelings are more of appreciation than liking or loving. I consider it the history or bible of the fantasy we read today. Yes, I know Tolkien didn't invent the genre but he did revolutionize it for the modern era. My favorite thing about these books is the sense of history. Tolkien was really good at fleshing out his world that it seems like a real place. Not that he's the only one.
You are not alone. While I did get through the entire LotR, I found them rather sloggy. (I enjoyed Hobbit more. I feel he stuck more with the story in the Hobbit and got less sidetracked by descriptions of trees and made up languages.) I mean, I give props to the man for the depth and breadth of his creation, and I enjoy the overall story, but I think, as far as the writing goes, he could've used some editing. ;)
I also sympathize with this a lot:
"But please do so without being derogatory or snide about it, because I hate it when Tolkien fans compare every single piece of fantasy fiction to his writings. "
I can really only speak for myself and say what made me love the books. I, too, was impatient with the start of the Hobbit, but it truly grabbed me as I read on. I'm not, in general, huge on reading YA or kid's stuff - it worked for me when very young, but less so now. It was the 'children's' theme that put me off at first - but I had friends at the time who would not let me quit. So I finished and began Lord of the Rings.I found that book slow to start - until Strider and the Prancing Pony - at that stage, I recall identifying with the characters, hooked for real, truly.
It never let up from that point onward. Part of the fascination was the IDEA that a fantasy story could occur in a made up world - which had not been really DONE, then. Everything was either fairy tales or myth. Not a story in a place that Might Have Been.
What I loved about these stories: the archtype characters alongside the TRULY original creations, like Ents. Each was treated as 'brand new' and seamlessly woven.
The idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The concept that ethics matter EVEN in times where the ethical choice may not reward. The idea that the simple things in life ARE most powerful, that love matters, even when one is surrounded by despair - and that the Hobbits, while small, WERE NOT CHILDREN. Or teens with grandiose powers - that life close to the land had a value that transcended many 'greater' concepts.
I have a few theories, too - that today's more 'urban' oriented culture may get impatient with Tolkein's love of the land and his closeness to nature.
Also - that with SO MANY imitations out - readers tend to 'fall in love' with the first such tale they encounter - whichever 'epic' fantasy wicket gate you encounter FIRST is the one that is fresh, and perhaps, the innocence is never recaptured the same way.
I still feel Tolkein did the epitome of 'classic' fantasy - where clearcut good stands against clearcut evil - it is not a book about gray morality. And in today's information age, it is much clearer that there are cultural differences and that 'moral good' has many definitions, depending on background and belief.
There seems also a trend toward extolling the cynical - and Tolkein's works are filled with hope, even in the darkest moments, the characters still strive for what they believe in, and they never lose trust that such things matter, even though they die in the attempt. The natural world is part of what they are fighting to save.
I am not derogatory of people who feel this work is not their cup of tea. I don't feel that their opinions matter less or that this is the 'only definitive' work of fantasy, or that every other work must be compared or shadowed by it. The fact it was a monumental work of its time is enough - time will place it, in the end - just as the popularity of Harry Potter will either survive or age with its era - that is for posterity to determine.
If you don't like Tolkein it is not a deficiency, to me - but it may indicate that your values and beliefs and what you care to focus on is not in the same arena where Tolkein places his emphasis. If your interests and loves are different, then it becomes very hard to connect.
I happen to love trees - so those passages didn't drag for me. Society evolves different focuses - and for some readers now, this work just may not fit.
I'm in the same boat as you -- I finally made it through The Hobbit a few years ago and rather enjoyed it, but whenever I start The Fellowship of the Ring, I put it down and eventually forget about it. I do aim to change that someday!
I do like it. I just wouldn't name it in my top ten. My favorite thing about the story is that you can be a hero and not be heroic. Not that Frodo isn't heroic. I'm saying this badly. But that you can be ordinary, you can be small, you can be frightened but still do the right thing and can make a difference.
Yeah, the way he wrote books is sort of in an old english style. I know it was hard for people to get through, not everybody's taste.
Janny wrote: "I can really only speak for myself and say what made me love the books. I, too, was impatient with the start of the Hobbit, but it truly grabbed me as I read on. I'm not, in general, huge on readin..."Thank you, Janny. That was a well thought out and well written response.
I know the story of LOTR and have seen the movies many, many times. It's what I love about the fantasy genre.
As far as values go, I do have the same values as Tolkien. Good versus evil is the primary theme of the Dragonlance Chronicles as well as The Wheel of Time series and the main reason I love both series. It's just that I found Tolkien's writing style to be boring. The last time I tried to read The Fellowship of the Ring I made it to the part where the hobbits met Tom Bombadil. I had to give up on it because I was bored out of my mind.
David wrote: "Janny wrote: "I can really only speak for myself and say what made me love the books. I, too, was impatient with the start of the Hobbit, but it truly grabbed me as I read on. I'm not, in general, ..."David, you definitely have to push past the Tom Bombadil section. For many readers, the book takes off beyond that point.
Janny, I will give it another try sometime and make it a point to get through that part of the book.
I loved the series the first few times I read it...but now I do have a bit of a problem getting through them. But that maybe because I've read it so many times, lol.
It's hard for me to say why I loved the series so much...but I also grew up on stories my mom told me of reading the series herself. She got to be one of the first people she knew to ever read the series in the US because her English cousins brought over copies before the US debut. She was so entranced that I think it rubbed of on me.
I have a podcast that I plan to listen to on iTunes U (haven't read it yet) called The Tolkien Professor: http://technology.gather.com/viewArti...
How to Read Tolkien and Why: http://tolkienprofessor.com/wp/
One thing that might not work with some readers is all the poetry and songs. That's one thing I can't get into with them. I just don't have the mindset to understand or enjoy poetry. Brain isn't wired that way I guess.Another thing is the innocence. The goodness. Modern writers tend to give us stories with flawed heroes and anti heroes. Maybe we've become a little jaded.
And also most of us know the story even if we haven't read them or seen the movies. Too many copies can make the original seem trite.
Many of us like action in our fantasy and there's very little of it in LotR.
Anyway. I understand completely why it's not for everyone. I also understand why it's so loved. But I do think everyone should at least try to get through it once. I said "try". If it's not for you, it's not for you. There's no reason to torture yourself with it. =)
The Hobbit was my first experience reading Tolkien, and I agree with what Traci said about the poetry and songs being hard to get into. I'm not big on epic poetry, and I prefer prose to poems hands down (although I do love some of the classic stuff like Poe, Frost, Dickinson). After I got used to the songs and poems, I fell into the story and I loved it. I haven't attempted the LOTRs books yet. I will though. I am more of a CS Lewis fan than Tolkien, but through my readings about their friendship and the Inklings, I have found him to be an admirable person, and I do agree with his feelings about nature and his disgust for war and injustice. I think he did a good job of infusing some of that sentiment into The Hobbit without being preachy. Having said that, I think it's perfectly possible to love fantasy and even epic fantasy without being a Tolkien fan. Everyone has different tastes. And that makes the world a more interesting place.
I first tried reading The Lord Of The Rings as a senior in high school, and couldn't get into it. Years later, I tried again and found that it had improved greatly with time. As for 'The Hobbit', one Summer I read it to my three young sons as a way to get them to go to bed on time, and they loved it. The youngest kept falling asleep before the chapter was over, and he asked his brothers what he'd missed the next day. They always told him the wildest tales, making them up on the spot.Tolkien's writing is more evocative of Melville than Hemingway, and doesn't have as much gee-whiz-bang as many later fantasy writers, so he might not be everybody's cup of Earl Grey. I like him, myself. I even read the Silmarillion and liked it.
I loved LotR at the time but not sure I'd be able to read it now. I will say I totally skipped the poetry part, not even skimmed, just moved right past it. That and the Hobbit were my first fantasy books and I loved the world that Tolkien created. Plus, you gotta give props to a guy who invents a language for his made up place. I'm sure a lot of the love is nostalgia on my part, but these books opened my eyes to a whole new genre of books, so it holds that special place as my first.
Vivian wrote: "Plus, you gotta give props to a guy who invents a language for his made up place."How about a guy who creates a made up place for his invented language? ;)
OK, so I went home last night and dug out my copy of LotR. I opened it to a random chapter, making sure it was after the hobbits meet Tom Bombadil, and started reading. Again, I was bored with the way Tolkien wrote. So I skipped ahead to a chapter from The Return of the King. I was still bored. The dialogue was so stilted that it really turned me off. Gimli sounded like he was from London's high society rather than the underground lands of the dwarves.So again I have to ask the question, why are these books considered so great? I get the themes that he is trying to convey, I really do. But these are not new. Many of his themes can be found in Greek and midieval literature. And Tolkien himself said he was influenced by the works of George MacDonald.
I also understand that Tolkien was one of the first to create a world apart from our own and then populate it with his characters and situations. For that I will give him credit. But just because someone did it first does not mean they did it best.
But are his books classics because people really like them, or because others say they are? It begs the question of what makes a classic "classic". Sometimes I feel that people are afraid to say how they really feel about a piece of "classic" literature, such as Tolkien, for fear of what people will think about them. "Oh, you don't like Tolkien? Well, you're not a true fantasy fan!" See the reviews for Dennis McKiernan's Iron Tower trilogy and Terry Brooks's Shannara series for examples.
I guess what I'm getting at is that we sometimes like a thing because we're expected to like it and not because we really do. So what if someone picked up one of Tolkien's books without any preconceived notions or outside influences, what would they think about it?
I still plan on giving these books another try, but it won't be anytime soon. There are too many books I know I will enjoy that I want to read first.
If an author could somehow find a way to write a book that everybody liked his/her fortune would be assured. Not everybody likes Tolkien. I understand that. Yet quite a few people DO like him, and I'm one of them. On the other hand, many people like Hemingway, and I'm not one of them. I don't wonder why some people consider Hemingway's works to be classics, or what qualifies a book foe 'classic' status, or whether or not people are saying that they like something because they feel that they should, even if they don't. You don't like Tolkien. We get it.
David, sometimes people are just wired differently. I love some books and authors that others find plebeian and poorly written. We all have different tastes. We have a group where we discuss classics on Goodreads, and it's interesting to see what every one's differing views on what constitutes a classic are. I'm very anti-literary snobbery, to be honest. I read what I like and I have no shame as to whether others feel it is suitable reading. There are some books that everyone else loves and I don't think are worth my time. I think we all have the right not to like a book. It's great we can discuss what we like and dislike and still respect each others' rights to see differently from each other. I'd say at this point, you are just not a fan of Tolkien, and that's a-okay with me.
David, people are just different. There's no easy answer. But I have to say that people saying you can't be a fan of fantasy and hate LotR is the same thing as someone who hates it assuming everyone who loves it just loves it because they are told to. Both are wrong.Maybe you've ran into rudeness elsewhere but everyone here has been polite.
Janny wrote: "IIf you don't like Tolkein it is not a deficiency, to me - but it may indicate that your values and beliefs and what you care to focus on is not in the same arena where Tolkein places his emphasis. If your interests and loves are different, then it becomes very hard to connect.I happen to love trees - so those passages didn't drag for me. Society evolves different focuses - and for some readers now, this work just may not fit. "
Well put, thanks Janny.
I tend to agree, just because it's not your taste doesn't mean you can't be a fan of fantasy. I love the books, but I don't think everyone needs to love them too.
For me, it feels a little bit like never having read Dune or anything by the masters of science fiction like Isaac Asimov or Philip K Dick. Do I enjoy sci fi less because I haven't read them? No. Might I miss some reference or theme in a new book because I haven't read them? Possibly.
David wrote: "OK, so I went home last night and dug out my copy of LotR. I opened it to a random chapter, making sure it was after the hobbits meet Tom Bombadil, and started reading. Again, I was bored with th..."Ah - if it is Tolkein's STYLE you disliked, that is unlikely to change. He was an English Professor who was a linguist, writing what is demonstrably HIGH FANTASY. He used a very formal, larger than life style - not slang or racy or modern or street talk.
If the way the words are laid down rubs you backwards, I can respect that - how can you sympathize or relate to the characters if you cannot relate well to the symbols (words) that represent them?
I don't consider works done in a formal style to be snobbish - just another flavor of prose. Most everyone loves chocolate, but not all; and a lot of people hate licorice.
If a reader is asked how they FEEL about something, often one encounters their values and beliefs...so somehow the way that Tolkein chose his words shoves you out of the story - there will be a feeling involved and that is honest. Your dislike will have a reason and a valid one, for you.
At the time I read Tolkein, it was not the massive sensation it has become; in fact, the WAY that it crossed over into the mainstream is not how people presume - it happened due to a major scandal that made national news...THIS is what kicked the numbers and crossed it over from niche/cult fantasy to mainstream awareness (I heard this from Betty Ballantine, one of the people actually involved, and it is quite an interesting bit of real history).
I fell in love with the characters and the formal style didn't affect me.
I've read many other books with modern styles - some that I felt suited the story well, and made me closer to it, and some, where I felt the TV style dialogue and repartee made the action feel unnecessarily shallow - this is about me, in all cases, not about the story or the author, but about what I brought to the table in reaction.
If formal styles are not your cuppa tea, if I'd realized that was your major sticking point, looking forward into where the action begins to pick up and converge won't help. There are plenty of other fantasies to choose from and a whole long list of dated 'classics' (pre-Tolkein era) I'd definitely tell you to steer clear of, with respect to your preferences.
Personally, I've NEVER liked a book because I was told it was good or because the mass numbers who loved it did; quite the opposite, I am a maverick thinker who does not read reviews, but reads based on MY preferences, by browsing. The list of books 'everyone else loves' that I detested is pretty impressive, and I have a good reason for my dislike with every single one of them. I don't comment on those books (or review or rate anything I did not LOVE) simply to allow others to decide for themselves.
I respect your opinion, and theirs, that much.
I loved Tolkein enough that I read NIGHT LONG, under my bedcovers, with a flashlight, and risked catching hell from my parents if I'd been caught. I could not put the books down! They scared me, thrilled me, blew me away - and I was all of about 14 years old. That may have had something to do with it. Maybe not.
I am an extremely visual person (artist by profession) and the pictures his words painted excited my imagination. The sheer poignant beauty of the elves - still takes me to another realm. What Traci said about Frodo - bang on. It sang to me.
Unlike many of the 'imitations' done since - style or not - the Hobbits were not "orphan teen wonders with major undiscovered powers who have to save the world' but ordinary fellows, small, with small dreams and humble wants, caught in the teeth of major events. And it was the fact they did not lose sight of their humble happiness that made them stand tall. Not size, not talent, not grandiose beauty or wit.
They were ordinary, and they rose above most obstacles, and being ordinary, at the end, even Frodo failed to be 'special' - his triumph was not pat, or self made, even.
The book is written as EPIC, which means larger than life. It is not meant to be 'realistic.' But Mythic.
If you aren't warm to myths, that is OK, but it doesn't mean everyone who loves this story is deluded. It means they resonated with the mythscape of beliefs and values, and it means they were not stressed or bothered by the style.
Nothing more.
I like Tolkien. However, I wish he had written more (any!) female characters. I personally have always felt a bit alienated from his world because of this.
I have to agree with you there, Sheila, but in the movies Eowyn gets a bit more play than she did in the book. Miranda Otto was exceptionally good in that role.
David wrote: "But are his books classics because people really like them, or because others say they are? It begs the question of what makes a classic "classic". Sometimes I feel that people are afraid to say how they really feel about a piece of "classic" literature, such as Tolkien, for fear of what people will think about them. "Oh, you don't like Tolkien? Well, you're not a true fantasy fan!" See the reviews for Dennis McKiernan's Iron Tower trilogy and Terry Brooks's Shannara series for examples.I guess what I'm getting at is that we sometimes like a thing because we're expected to like it and not because we really do."
You don't have to like Tolkien...that's a personal preference. But I - and a lot of other people who do love Tolkien - are not deluded because we like it.
I abhor GRRM's work. Abhor. I literally cannot force myself to read an entire book by him. Does this mean I have the right to call those readers who do like his work deluded? No. It's personal preference.
I think it's rather dismissive - and slightly insulting - to call into question the work's designation as a fantasy classic and to "remind us" that he pulled from other sources because you are personally not able to enjoy them.
I have not been able to enjoy The Wheel of Time series. Should I now call into question your ability to judge what works for you?
Discussing what works for you - or not - is perfectly acceptable. Dismissing other people's opinions after asking for those same opinions is not cool.
message 26:
by
colleen the convivial curmudgeon
(last edited Mar 06, 2012 01:31PM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Side-stepping a bit...I agree with Traci in that there are no easy answers, and that goes for the notion of what is considered a classic and why classics are considered classic.
I like this article which posits that there are two types of classics: those books you know you "should" read but never have, and those books which we love and are, thus, our personal classics.
I think for some people Tolkien is, genuinely, the latter kind of classic but for some others it's the former kind - and it's that former kind to which the question remains open: What makes a classic a classic?
I was googling for some thoughts and quotes about classics (and came across Twain's gem "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read") - but also came across this article, via Wiki, from a school teacher, who pondered this very issue and stated:
“...teachers of English have been so long trained in the ‘classics’ that these ‘classics’ have become to them very much like the Bible, for the safety of which the rise of modern science causes such unnecessary fears.”
(Something echoed in Traci's comments, though I read Traci's comment favorable in this regard whereas Clark's doesn't appear to be.)
From Wiki:
'She goes on to say that among the sources she consulted was a group of eighth-graders when she asked them the question: “What do you understand by the classics in literature?” Two of the answers Clark received were “Classics are books your fathers give you and you keep them to give to your children” and “Classics are those great pieces of literature considered worthy to be studied in English classes of high school or college”.'
And so it becomes sort of circular. Everyone knows what the classics are because we're told they're the classics, but how/why did they become the classics in the first place?
It's a sort of chicken/egg scenario and I don't think there's any solid answer for it, nor will there ever be.
I do, personally, think that some of the credit that Tolkien gets is because he is often considered the father of modern fantasy. (I say this because even people who don't particularly like the book are often quick to give him credit for its creation regardless, myself notwithstanding.)
And, I do also think that there are people who may be hesitant to admit they don't like Tolkien, because he is often held up as the epitome of all things fantasy and dislike of his work is often met with credulity if not outright disdain. Or, conversely, people might just feel stupid or uneducated if they admit to not liking a classic. "It's a classic," they might think, "so there must be something to it that I'm missing."
Which isn't to say that think people don't genuinely like, or even love, his works. Just like I'm sure there are people who legitimately love Moby Dick - and more power to them, 'cause lord knows I can't even bring myself to try to read that book, though I do often feel like I ought to. ;)
I will agree with one thing. Well more than one actually but...I do think there are better fantasy authors and books out today that will never leave Tolkien's shadow. Even Martin, who is nothing like him, is called the new, or the American, Tolkien. Would i like LotR if I read it today without any knowledge of its history. Maybe. Maybe not. Do I think it would sell today? No I don't think it would.
Traci wrote: "I will agree with one thing. Well more than one actually but...I do think there are better fantasy authors and books out today that will never leave Tolkien's shadow. Even Martin, who is nothing li..."You raise a very interesting point, Traci - but one of the more interesting arguments I've overheard at gatherings of people in the field over the years - (editors, writers, readers, reviewers, and commentators, all observing from informed viewpoints) without Tolkien's readership and wave of popularity, we'd HAVE NO ADULT FANTASY GENRE per se; the success of this one series in effect paved the way for the movement that consolidated the readership to support the creation of the broad based variety of authors we enjoy now.
It does make an interesting thought: could we have had Martin, etc. without Tolkien's shadow?
Janny wrote: "It does make an interesting thought: could we have had Martin, etc. without Tolkien's shadow? "That's an interesting point...my gut says "no," but what does my gut know?lol!
According to my mom - who has always been a voracious reader - there really wasn't any fantasy kicking around (at least in the US) when LotR debuted. I haven't had a chance to study the fantasy landscape during the 1930s but it does look like Tolkien was one of the only options outside of myths and epic poetry.
I haven't read LotR for a long time, so I may be confusing reality with hazy, nectar-coated memory.That said, here's why I think Tolkien at his best is classic fantasy:
1. The prose. Oh dear lord the prose. *swoons*. It's great to read somebody who isn't always terrified of sounding silly, who'se willing to make his words poetic. "To hope's end I rode, and to heart's breaking: now for wrath, now for ruin, and a red nightfall!"
2. Psychological acuity. I know Tolkien doesn't write 'real people', in the sense of people who mumble and keep silent and talk about the weather. But he does write about people at the extremes of the human heart: people who are deeply conflicted, people who have despaired, people who are determined on a course despite all its costs. I think he great tragic characters (Denethor, for instance, or Feanor and his sons, or Turin) are reminiscent of the great Greek tragedies. Oedipus may not speak with the voice of the street, but Oedipus is immortal nonetheless.
3. The commitment to every character. Sure, it's good vs evil - but everyone short of Sauron (and even Sauron, if you read more) is a sympathetic character to some extent. And the sympathetic characters are all flawed. Everybody is in their own way a tragic hero.
4. The thematic nuance. Tolkien talks about good and evil, but he doesn't suggest that these are easy concepts. In particular, he emphatically denies that good is painless. In every conflict, the good guys lose. They may also win, but they always lose - because having conflict at all is a defeat for good. At the same time, many losses are simultaneously victories. This fills the books with an agonising poignancy, equal parts intolerable tragedy and incomprehensible hope. "For if joyful is the fountain that rises in the sun, its springs are in the wells of sorrow unfathomed at the foundations of the earth." Similarly, his stories are generally stories not about conquest but about sacrifice.
5. The challenging courage of its convictions. Tolkien isn't writing this to make money; he's writing what he believes, and he isn't afraid to make his books be about life, and death, and the nature of the universe. When he talks about good and evil, it's because he wants to say something about the nature of good and evil - they're not the interchangeable chessboard sides that lesser fantasy authors make them. Good in Tolkien doesn't take on evil because evil is evil - good does what it has to because it cannot do otherwise. We are challenged to put ourselves in the positions of the characters and deal with their problems for ourselves - to confront the nature of right and wrong, and of existence. Tolkien's ideas may not be ones everyone agrees with, but it's powerful and refreshing to read a fantasy author who actually cares about what he's writing, and challenges the reader to care too. It's wrong to read Tolkien as a material allegory, about fascism or industrialism or any particular evil of the real world - but it's right to read him as being about the world as a whole. It's about how to do the right thing - whatever that might be in any particular real-world situation.
[I also feel, even as a non-believer, that it's powerful to encounter fictional work so clearly and passionately driven by religious feeling.]
I think we would have fantasy. Maybe it would look a little different. But there are plenty of pulp era fantasy and science fiction unrelated to Tolkien's work.
Wastrel wrote: "I haven't read LotR for a long time, so I may be confusing reality with hazy, nectar-coated memory.That said, here's why I think Tolkien at his best is classic fantasy:
1. The prose. Oh dear lor..."
Awesome post!
I like the LOTR books, but, I cheated. I saw the films first and I loved, loved, loved them. I promptly read the books, and enjoyed them, but not as much as the films. I also thought that the beginning of first book has the hobbits wallowing around in the woods for way too long. I could not connect with the Aragorn of the books. I found Tolkien's disregard for women to be blatantly sexist. After I finished the books, I read a Tolkien biography and came to the conclusion that Tolkien's problem was the lack of an editor, since he apparently refused to use one, at least consistently. I would still say that I like the books however. I find the overall story to be profoundly moving, pining us down to the basics of life--what do we stand for? I generally joke that Tolkien is a "little wordy" but I didn't mind reading it, perhaps because I was an English major, and have read and enjoyed quite a few "classics." As for why LOTR is considered "important" and a "classic," I think a few people already noted that Tolkien is considered "the father" of the adult fantasy novel. I would agree. Books are considered classics often because they are groundbreaking in some way. Today there are zillions of romantic comedies, but when Jane Austen wrote her Shakespearean love and manners comedies in some of the earliest "novels for women," she was changing the way books were written.
Something about LOTR changed the way the English-speaking world viewed fantasy as a genre. Yes, fantasy existed before that, but LOTR in particular exploded the field like never before. It made people notice and recognize fantasy, even if it did take awhile.
As an afterthought, I would note that I think Tolkien has set the general parameters by which fantasy is often compared. I think LOTR reinforces the general conservativism of "high fantasy"--the importance of tradition, royalty, religion in the form of prophecy, and a distinct division between right & wrong. I am happy that there is a pleathora of fantasy that extends beyond these boundaries into grey areas unknown, but I think there is still a big brick of Tolkien somewhere at the bottom of most fantasy. I agree that sometimes fantasy is building on different myths altogether, but the fact that a fantasy novel has a different building block does often seem to need to be noted--we have given different labels to different kinds of fantasy in response: urban fantasy, paranormal, etc.
I first fell in love with his works when I saw the movie, and after seeing the first movie I went to the bookstore the next day and got Two towers in slovak... later I read Return of the king, Hobbit and Silmarillion... Silmarillion is the only book I think that I read twiceI can say that Tolkien's style and ideas arent easy to digest - I found that out myself when I bought the one volume edition of LOTR in english... many things I understood from there I wouldnt understand 10 yrs ago by any chance... especially Fellowship of the ring with its slow pace and being crammed with ideas is hard to read...
I understand the thing that Tolkien is not everybody's thing, but I would never go as far as to label it boring... it is hard to digest and requires an attentive reader eager to discover new ideas between the lines... if you are looking for tons of blood or action every single page, turn somewhere else
but for me it is more than anything a JOURNEY of one's soul to heal itself from greatest burdens/hurts, challenged by the mightiest enemy of all - your own self, the old self, that you have to destroy where it began to be able to live a normal life
the journey of the Fellowship is a cleansing one, provided you are a patient 10th companion :)
I have to agree with you Janny, i also stayed up late long into the night as a kid hoping my parents would not catch me up so late. Tolkien is the one author that has made me love reading not only fantasy but all books. I would not be buying GRRM's or any other authors books if it were not for Tolkien, he's books were the ones that made me fall in love with reading itself. The story, the characters even the prose everything in the world he created is wonderful. I was so lost in his world i even daydreamed about it while sitting in school waiting to get home so i could get back to Middle-earth. This conversation is making me want to pick up the Hobbit and start rereading again, lol.
two articles I wrote about LOTR, contemplating some ideas:http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note...
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note...
hope you like those :)
Everyone has posted some really great responses. And one thing I have found out is that those who like the books are very passionate about them. That can be seen to some of the responses to the 1-, 2- and 3-star reviews of The Fellowship of the Ring here on Goodreads. But I would still like to hear from those that didn't like the books and know your reasons why.Like I said before, I will try to read them again someday, just not anytime soon.
as i probably mentioned in one of those articles, those who like Tolkien can find tons of reasons why and often support them with arguments, whereas those who dont like his works say very little outside "it is boring etc"... so I wonder if someone who doesnt like him would take their time and read the whole thing and then supply reasons why it isnt goodmany just stopped somewhere in the first book putting "boring/slow" label on it and then just quitting... and I got it from experience that those who dont like tolkien often revert to short answers and sullen looks, as if having to explain their opinion was just another way to force them to like it
just thinking... i just sometimes find it funny when ppl who read either tolkien's clones, pulp sword-and-sorcery fantasy or such rant about tolkien's works being a piece of piece :D
I strongly prefer The Hobbit and am lukewarm about the LotR. I don't remember much about the LotR, having read it when I was in my early 20s, but I think there was a lot of description that I didn't enjoy, with lots of focus on battle movements. But that's a dim memory.
David wrote: "Everyone has posted some really great responses. And one thing I have found out is that those who like the books are very passionate about them. That can be seen to some of the responses to the 1..."There's no need to force yourself through a series of books that you don't enjoy. There are too many good books out there.
Outside of class, there are a slew of Classics that I haven't enjoyed and have not forced myself to read. Just because it's a classic doesn't mean that you'll enjoy it.
A lot of people don't enjoy or even know of Andre Norton or that Heinlein's Starship Troopers. To each his own. Plus, you might not have any interest in High Fantasy.
Tolkien's trilogy does indeed move slowly, compared to the quicker pace of some modern fantasy where the hero must be sent on his/her quest to save the princess/kingdom/world as soon as possible, but much of the tale is told from the point of view of the hobbits, who are not familiar with the world outside of the Shire. Both they and the reader must be introduced to new lands, new characters and new dangers as they travel along, and I think that Tolkien does an excellent job of not just imagining Middle Earth but in describing it as the story progresses. We come to know both the world and the people in it on a much deeper level because the story progresses slowly enough for us to do so. It's not for everybody, I freely admit. But I like it.
great post... the thing about battle movements is a bit out of place though... first book has barely any battle segments except a couple evil confrontations... two towers has the massive battle for the helm's deep and such, but otherwise not much of that sort, and third of course has more of it... i mean, FotR is just the shadow looming, danger ahead, foreshadowing... TT has first enemy movements... and RotK is the enemy engaging in war in full... but there is so much more than just the battle, it isnt just armies colliding, those battles mean something when they appear, not just to heap some corpses for the sake of action
I like LotR but I'm going to try to answer one reason I think some readers can't connect with them. It can be a dry book. The problem with some classics is that the characterization is different than us modern readers are used to. Clinical. Like a history book. So and so did x so that o would happen. I happen to love most classics I read. Read Frankenstein for the first time a month ago and loved it. I'm also a Shakespeare freak. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't notice a difference between Frankenstein and just about any Stephen King novel. Before anyone freaks I'm not saying that King is a better writer than Shelley, also not saying he isn't, but he does do a better job at characterization. There's a connection to characters that happens when we read a favorite book. It can't be faked. It can't be forced. Although for the record I love most LotR characters. :)
Wastrel wrote: "I haven't read LotR for a long time, so I may be confusing reality with hazy, nectar-coated memory.That said, here's why I think Tolkien at his best is classic fantasy:
1. The prose. Oh dear lor..."
I swooned reading this post. Well done!
All this talk about Tolkien made me decide to start the Tolkien Professor series early.I'm only about 2 lectures in but it's really interesting! One of the things the lecturer is pretty adamant about is that The Hobbit is for children. He feels that the movie studios are making a pretty big mistake (and setting themselves and The Hobbit up for failure) by making this book into a movie.
The reason he gives is that LotR is a very...large and dark series that was intended for older people. He also says that Peter Jackson did a lot of work to make the one ring into a character in itself.... So how can a children's film measure up?
The two failures he sees happening is:
1. PJ will try to make The Hobbit into something more like LotR...and it will fail because that story isn't there. The one ring in The Hobbit is not as powerful as it is in LotR - it's just Bilbo's invisibility ring. How will it work with all the heavy breathing, weirdness and emphasis that PJ has when a person wears the one ring?
2. PJ will try his best to keep The Hobbit in the tone and style in which it was written - meaning that audiences who come to see based on their love of the LotR series will be disappointed. Instead of getting a sweeping epic...they'll get a silly children's tale.
This is so interesting to me! :-)
Michele wrote: "I like the LOTR books, but, I cheated. I saw the films first and I loved, loved, loved them. I promptly read the books, and enjoyed them, but not as much as the films. I also thought that the be..."wordy lol, he knew exactly well what he thought was good to leave there IMO... not a word wasted... complaining about it being too long or eloquent in language is an argument a little funny when you put it next to some modern epic fantasy sagas that often need 5 or more books to get themselves finished where Tolkien made do with 3 books that barely went over 350 pages each :)
Razmatus wrote: "wordy lol, he knew exactly well what he thought was good to leave there IMO... not a word wasted... complaining about it being too long or eloquent in language is an argument a little funny when you put it next to some modern epic fantasy sagas that often need 5 or more books to get themselves finished where Tolkien made do with 3 books that barely went over 350 pages each :)"I agree. I mean...how many books does WoT have? Jeeze!
MrsJoseph wrote: "All this talk about Tolkien made me decide to start the Tolkien Professor series early.I'm only about 2 lectures in but it's really interesting! One of the things the lecturer is pretty adamant ..."
I have to disagree... the fact that there is to be 2 movies instead of one and the fact that it might be closer to the movie style of LOTR isnt a mistake really... there are going to be 2 movies largely cos those movies wont cover just the Bilbo's story itself, not just the scope that is in Hobbit itself... they will probably include history that was happening parallelly to or before Bilbo's journey, like return of the Dark Lord to Dol Guldur, cleansing of Dol Guldur by Gandalf and many things that are adult
yea Hobbit was more simple, suitable even for children, but I disagree that it is only for children :)
once again, here are links to my articles, I wonder what you think about things I put into those :)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note...
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note...
Razmatus wrote: "wordy lol, he knew exactly well what he thought was good to leave there IMO... not a word wasted... complaining about it being too long or eloquent in language is an argument a little funny when you put it next to some modern epic fantasy sagas that often need 5 or more books to get themselves finished where Tolkien made do with 3 books that barely went over 350 pages each :) "But I find those epics equally laborious and blame Tolkien for the need they seem to feel to over-describe everything.
Razmatus wrote: "I have to disagree... the fact that there is to be 2 movies instead of one and the fact that it might be closer to the movie style of LOTR isnt a mistake really... there are going to be 2 movies largely cos those movies wont cover just the Bilbo's story itself, not just the scope that is in Hobbit itself... they will probably include history that was happening parallelly to or before Bilbo's journey, like return of the Dark Lord to Dol Guldur, cleansing of Dol Guldur by Gandalf and many things that are adult "I haven't read the rest of the Middle Earth history - so I'm assuming that this is where they are getting this extra info. If not. It's a gigantic FAIL to me. The book has this information, period. I hate it when directors take it upon themselves to adapt books and change them into something they are not. Trying to make a buck. *shudder*
If they were so interested in The Hobbit...then he should have done the Hobbit first. In the spirit of whimsey that The Hobbit was written in. *sigh* Thank you, PJ, for saving my money for me.
And the casting. Ugh.
You might be interested in the Lecture series I'm listening to now. It's rather detailed and extremely informative without being boring. It's obvious that a close reading of Tolkien's works were done by someone with a great enthusiasm.
On of the things discussed is Tolkein's dislike of allegories. He did not write the series to mean anything in specific. He wrote the series so that each reader got what they put into. He had an extreme dislike of most aspects of lit crit because he felt they take away from the work(s).
Re: your articles. I want to give them a bit more time since they are so long.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (other topics)
The Father Christmas Letters (other topics)
The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All (other topics)
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Andre Norton (other topics)Andre Norton (other topics)
As someone who enjoys epic/heroic fantasy, I really wanted to like these books. I'm a huge fan of the Dragonlance Chronicles and The Wheel of Time series, so I figured I should enjoy Tolkien as well. I just couldn't seem to muddle through it!
Am I the only one out there who had trouble with trying to read Tolkien? I would love to hear from others who have struggled as well.
I would also like to hear from those who enjoyed the books and can explain to me what was so great about them. I truly would like to know. But please do so without being derogatory or snide about it, because I hate it when Tolkien fans compare every single piece of fantasy fiction to his writings. Remember that Tolkien did not "invent" the fantasy genre and was in fact heavily influenced by the writings of George MacDonald.