Fantasy Aficionados discussion
This topic is about
The Lord of the Rings
Discussions about books
>
Trouble with Tolkien
S.J. wrote: "Nonsense. It's not dead. It's just pining for the fjords...""Pining for the fjords?! It's a dead parrot!"
David wrote: "I read fiction to escape, not to get "enlightened"."And isn't part of the draw of fantasy in general? To get away and escape from reality for awhile?
David wrote: "Well put! It is the elitist attitude of the "Tolkinites" that turned me off reading his books for years. After I saw the first movie, I went out and bought the book and was very excited to read it. After I read page after page after page of hobbit history, I said enough was enough and quit. I went back a few years later and made it to chapter 7 when Tom Bombadil was introduced. Still couldn't get through it.And it wasn't because I couldn't understand Tolkien's themes, it's because I was bored silly. I know this is a difficult concept for some to comprehend, but that's the way it is.
I read fiction to escape, not to get "enlightened". There are enough non-fiction books out there to help with that. And I certainly don't need to read a book to tell me why I should like Tolkien and explain to me why I'm wrong for not liking him! "
You should never read a book that bores you. There's no point. There's nothing wrong with you for not liking the book. Plus, if you've been force-fed comments like the ones Razmatus has been making, well...let's just say I can understand your dislike. And I like the series.
Have you ever read any David Eddings? He also does a travel/coming of age/magic item to save the world series. It's a little slow as well, but a lot more modern. It's not high fantasy or great literature in the least but it is enjoyable.
Pawn of Prophecy
And as always, I leave with the suggestion to read Andre Norton and Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
I think that there's been some misinterpreting going on here. Razmatus clearly finds Tolkien interesting enough to have gone and read what critics and such have had to say about him and LoTR. I think many of his posts come from his own enthusiasm and interest, not from any elitism or condescension. I certainly don't think he means to pass judgment on anyone in this thread. Consider how clearly any of us could communicate in Slovak, and give Razmatus the benefit of the doubt.
Vivian wrote: "David wrote: "I read fiction to escape, not to get "enlightened"."And isn't part of the draw of fantasy in general? To get away and escape from reality for awhile?"
I think it depends.
In Tolkien's defense of escapism he suggests that there are different types - one which could be equated to pure brain candy and getting away from life, and another which sort of teacher things about our world through a different lens.
On this particular point I agree with him - and I do think that a lot of fantasy, and sci-fi, and other genres, often have analogies to our own world and lives - such as aliens in sci-fi often stand in for marginalized peoples, for instance.
I would, personally, say that the best stories have both - relevance to our real world and lives, but also just kick-ass stories that we can retreat into.
MrsJoseph wrote: "David wrote: "Well put! It is the elitist attitude of the "Tolkinites" that turned me off reading his books for years. After I saw the first movie, I went out and bought the book and was very excit..."I have read David Eddings and I loved his work! His books are light hearted and fun. A lot of people don't like him because they think he's too simple.
I have tried to read Andre Norton, but never got into her. My aunt has and she loved her.
While I love science fiction movies, I've never been a big fan of science fiction books with the exception of Ender's Game.
Replying to SJ~~You would think that would lend itself to a degree of circumspection. And in an effort to make sure communication is as clear as possible, not using abbreviations and modified sentence structure.MrsJ gave several hints at how clarifying communication might further debate. Some remarks come across as strictly inflammatory, which she again attempted to suggest clarifying strategies. I would argue that repeated insistence in an English-speaking forum "to go read the French or Czech versions" does little to further discussion and in fact smacks of condescension.
I kind of think one of David's points got proven by this whole thread, which is Tolkien fans seem unable to defend the "greatness" of the work without resorting to implying, "you don't get it. Go read something less literary and stop criticizing our saint."
Hm. Well, I consider myself a Tolkien fan, felt no need to defend the work at all, certainly not it's 'greatness', and similarly never referred to the man as a saint. I'm afraid that I must have missed something.
I like the concept of fantasy not always being there to be an escape, but rather an alternative of reality, showing us more clearly some aspects we cant see cos of various kinds of shades and covers in this worldI liked Tolkien not only cos of the language that I found intricate and beautiful, but also cos the ideas I found there I found inspiring and enriching to me, and even useful in real
Carol wrote: "Replying to SJ~~You would think that would lend itself to a degree of circumspection. And in an effort to make sure communication is as clear as possible, not using abbreviations and modified sente..."I would appreciate if you didnt put words into my mouth... I didnt TELL anyone or command them to go and read something, I was recommending that IF they know those languages they might want to read the work, because it ISNT available in english, otherwise I would recommend the english version, dont you think?
and pls dont mistake repeating with insistence... I didnt insist on anything, I was trying to clarify what I said upon comments that misinterpreted what I said, which cant completely be avoided, unfortunately
David wrote: "I have read David Eddings and I loved his work! His books are light hearted and fun. A lot of people don't like him because they think he's too simple.I have tried to read Andre Norton, but never got into her. My aunt has and she loved her.
While I love science fiction movies, I've never been a big fan of science fiction books with the exception of Ender's Game. "
Simple works are sometimes the best. KISS works for a reason, lol.
I've read The Belgariad and The Mallorean several times over. Very enjoyable!
A lot of people don't get into Andre Norton. For me, I've loved her from day 1 but I acknowledge that her earlier works are a lot more dated.
Razmatus wrote: "I would appreciate if you didnt put words into my mouth... I didnt TELL anyone or command them to go and read something, I was recommending that IF they know those languages they might want to read the work, because it ISNT available in english""again and again, for those who can read in french, get Ferré's book... it is also available in czech (I have read it in this version)... great book to help you get a better insight on LOTR, better understand the characters, plot, the setting, the symbolism... the most interesting point it states throughout is that the main thing permeating everything in LOTR is "death", how it is expressed/represented, how characters deal with it etc etc etc"
insist
[in-sist] Example Sentences Origin
verb (used without object)
1.
to be emphatic, firm, or resolute on some matter of desire, demand, intention, etc.: He insists on checking every shipment.
2.
to lay emphasis in assertion: to insist on the justice of a claim.
3.
to dwell with earnestness or emphasis (usually followed by on or upon ): to insist on a point in a discussion.
Thus, you commanded and insisted. The correct thing to say at that point is, "I'm sorry, that's not what I meant to say."
Razmatus wrote: "I would appreciate if you didnt put words into my mouth... I didnt TELL anyone or command them to go and read something, I was recommending that IF they know those languages they might want to read the work, because it ISNT available in english, otherwise I would recommend the english version, dont you think?and pls dont mistake repeating with insistence... I didnt insist on anything, I was trying to clarify what I said upon comments that misinterpreted what I said, which cant completely be avoided, unfortunately "
Look, you really haven't been a member of this community long enough to be this condescending.
This is an ENGLISH SPEAKING FORUM. Full stop. So, it is beyond condescending to consistently bring up subject matter in which you have the only access. That is no way to have a discussion...because you can only talk to yourself. You don't want to come across as an ass? Then stop. Pretty simple.
You seem to want to be misunderstood. In fact, you're starting to come across as a troll. In case you don't know...we allow only pet trolls here and we're full already.
And get off of Carol.
Wow. Go to work for a day and the whole place explodes while I'm gone. This certainly is an interesting conversation, although it does sound a bit like, "You have to admit Tolkien is great!"
"No, how could anyone stand Tolkien's overworked writing?!"
"He is great!"
"No, he isn't!"
:)
and on and on...
Michele wrote: "Wow. Go to work for a day and the whole place explodes while I'm gone. This certainly is an interesting conversation, although it does sound a bit like, "You have to admit Tolkien is great!"
"..."
OMG... This thread is Gollum/Smeagol. O_O
Becky wrote: "Michele wrote: "Wow. Go to work for a day and the whole place explodes while I'm gone. This certainly is an interesting conversation, although it does sound a bit like, "You have to admit Tolki..."
Huckleberry!
I haven't read The Hobbit (I'm blushing in shame) but I've read The Lord of the Rings. I liked it a lot but I have to admit the trilogy was one of my first fantasy novels, so I couldn't compare it with many others at the time. Now I can. I think one of the problems some people have with it is when it was written. It was one of the first fantasies of the 20th century, written during WWII. The entire story strikes me as very sad, almost hopeless. Tolkien witnessed the war, the horrors of Nazism, and it all got reflected in his writing. There is no happy end there. The forces of good won, true, but who is happy in the end? Nobody. This feeling of profound sadness, of the lack of happily-ever-after might interfere with out enjoyment of the story today. We're used to a different finale. Lucky us.
I didn't get that impression from the trilogy at all. In fact, at the end I recall the hobbits in the Shire being quite happy and prosperous.
yep, but the elves left, the fellowship left... I think he was pointing at something hinted in the story, that even after war, some things beautiful may never rise again from the ashes, the world will never be the same... so I think it isnt only some degree of sadness, but rather some uncertainty of what is to come now that freedom is won for the race of men to rule themselves, how are they going to handle the responsibility without the help and knowledge and wisdom of the elves?
Beyond doubt, prices were paid for the defeat of Sauron. Frodo's sacrifice was particularly poignant, and of course Middle Earth would be the poorer for the elves leaving. But the ending was not all sadness, which is what Olga's post suggested.
yep, it was also hope that the newfound leadership of men can handle things...btw for me the ring symbolized one's deepest fear, or something that one is very bound to but which is eating them from the inside and killing slowly kinda... and this is the journey everyone has to make, to take their deepest fears to the test, to take them where they started and cast it into the fire... there will be sacrifice and pain, but also relief, even though things and the person both will never be the same
I agree with you both, guys. Yes, the hobbits rejoiced. But the heroes didn't. There is no triumph in the finale, but there is uncertainty. Nobody knew what would happen afterwards. I got the feeling nobody really cared about the heroes anyway. They've played their parts already and had no place in everyday life. Maybe I'm reading too much into the story, transmitting my knowledge of the times to the writer?
thats what gives the book its life - the readers... you made the journey with the chars and got a different experience, thats all... I have read somewhere that Tolkien started writing a "sequel" to LOTR, but stopped it cos the story kept unfolding in similar way to LOTR - ppl forgot the old evils in time and new shadow arose (just as was foretold towards the end of LOTR after Sauron's fall) - like history keeps repeating itself, just in different forms... here I give Tolkien credit - LOTR was sufficient enough in terms of story and ideas and I appreciate he didnt go for just squeezing money off ppl with a sequel
As I see it, since the story began with the hobbits, it had to end with them as well. They were largely ignorant of larger world events when the tale began, and at the end they remained largely incurious about it. We never really get to know what happens to Eowyn, Eomer, or even Aragorn long after the war ends. I assume that Eowyn wed Faramir, but it's never stated, only implied.I'm unaware of any sequel that Tolkien was considering, but I don't think he wrote the Rings trilogy in the hopes of making lots of money. As I understand it, for quite a while sales of the books were fairly modest.
he was working on a sequel but abandoned it cos of the reasons I mentioned, simply no appeal to him if he would just rehash the old concept just with new names...as for other stuff, much of it is explained in the appendices to Return of the King, up to the end of third age, and death of Aragorn at old age... I think up to the point where even Sam, after living a fruitful life, leaves middle-earth for the West
Whether one likes Tolkien stylistically is simply a matter of personal taste. Making it into more than that is nonsense. As for "lush" prose, you can't really beat the Gormenghast books. People who need spare/lean prose and constant action aren't going to enjoy them, but if you like language they're probably the best-written English fantasy novels.
There is plenty of fantasy that runs the gamut from long, flowery sentences and lots of description to very lean, spare sentences where action drives everything. Both types of story can be well done, and if one's only complaint about a book relates to this aspect (whether you find the book too dense or too lean) you're really expressing only a personal opinion and not an objective fault with the book.
R. Scott wrote: "Both types of story can be well done, and if one's only complaint about a book relates to this aspect (whether you find the book too dense or too lean) you're really expressing only a personal opinion and not an objective fault with the book..."Here we go again with the "your opinion is invalid" thing.
I think the whole point of the discussion in the first place was that some have the opinion that Tolkien isn't for them. Which of course led to lots of intellectual analysis of just how wrong that opinion is, followed by those having the opinion being offended that they're being told they're too stupid to get it.
But I could be wrong. After all, that was my opinion of what I've gathered through reading/skimming. And as we've all seen, opinions are only correct if everyone agrees with them.
I agree with you about personal tastes. I tried to read the 'Gormenghast' books and just couldn't get interested. In the case of LoTR, as a teenager I found it slow and almost opaque. Seven years later, I tried 'The Fellowship Of The Ring' again. I was surprised at how much Tolkien's style had improved. Maybe I should have another look at 'Gormenghast'.
message 181:
by
colleen the convivial curmudgeon
(last edited Mar 09, 2012 08:27AM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Chris, I must, respectfully, disagree with your characterization of R. Scott's post. I didn't think he was saying "your opinion is invalid" as much as saying "whether you like it or not is a matter of opinion and not objective fact". Which, personally, elicited a "No shit, Sherlock" thought in my little brain, but, hey, sometimes there's a need to remind people of what ought to be obvious but sometimes gets forgotten in the passion of the moment.
S.J. wrote: "I agree with you about personal tastes. I tried to read the 'Gormenghast' books and just couldn't get interested. "It might be worth a second look. The books are dense, but the writing is brilliant. If that's not your thing, there are so many other good books out there that I don't usually try to force myself through something I don't like. I happen to like wordy books, if they're well done. I'm curious to know what you think if you give it another try - Peake's writing is vastly superior to Tolkien's, in my view.
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "Chris, I must, respectfully, disagree with your opinion on R. Scott's post. I didn't think he was saying "your opinion is invalid" as much as saying "whether you like it or not is a matter of opin..."I'd say your reading is correct :)
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "Chris, I must, respectfully, disagree with your characterization of R. Scott's post. I didn't think he was saying "your opinion is invalid" as much as saying "whether you like it or not is a matte..."Cool. I can go with that, on reading it again. I see that angle now.
I'll leave the rest of that post there as a general thread summary. Heh...
I'd say that there was a lot of miscommunication and misinterpretation in the earlier parts of this thread.
S.J.:The funny thing about any thread like this is people's need for validation, and the need to be objectively right. Some people can't seem to handle it if someone else doesn't like what they like. I don't really understand it - it's a level of insecurity that must be off the charts.
So what if I like Peake and the next guy thinks he sucks, or if I like Warhammer gaming novels and someone else thinks they are lame?
They're fun to discuss, but all the back and forth about whose opinion is better, and people getting offended if they aren't agree with, is just silly.
Or maybe people are just trolling :)
Well, it goes both ways, with some people unable to deal with other people liking what they do not like. I can understand it, but I think it's ultimately unproductive, as one may spend too much time and energy being angry over what are basically trivial matters, and seeing personal slights and affronts where none were intended or exist. I once had to work with someone like that, and it was not a pleasant experience.
I love it, it was my first fantasy, and opened up a whole new world to me.The world-building is stupendous.
I know it wasn't the first or the last, and I don't care.
I read it a couple times, but dont really think I will read it again. That being said, it will always have a place of honor on my shelf...lol.\
But that is me. I recommend it to people, and if they dont like it, I will recommend something different. That's all.
S.J. wrote: "Well, it goes both ways, with some people unable to deal with other people liking what they do not like. I can understand it, but I think it's ultimately unproductive, as one may spend too much tim..."Yes, I can imagine that would become a real irritant in the workplace in short order! Ah well.... /derail :)
Of course, things like 'what are trivial matters' or 'things worth expending energy on' are also matters of opinion. :)(Yes, yes, more statements of the obvious, I know... ) :>
***
As a side note, can a book really be judged objectively?
Ok, well, yes, obviously if it's just atrocious grammar and punctuation then, yes, that's objective criticism.
But, outside of that, pretty much everything would be subjective, no?
btw if one is interested in reading the whole thing, it is probably better to get a one volume edition... tolkien intended to publish it as a single volume tome, but the publisher forced him to divide the thing in three... my recommendation is the 50th anniversary edition :)
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: Ok, well, yes, obviously if it's just atrocious grammar and punctuation then, yes, that's objective criticism.But, outside of that, pretty much everything would be subjective, no?
Yes, I think that is generally true. Books that become multi-million dollar sensations become trendy to bash (e.g. Twilight) so you'll get a lot of criticism from people who just want to be part of the anti-(whatever) crowd.
But as far as legitimate viewpoint on liking or disliking a book, it almost always falls to subjective opinion.
Even things like playing with rules of grammar - so long as the author knows what he is doing, he may violate established 'rules.' Some people might like it, others hate it.
Look at House of Leaves, for example. I like the book. Talk about violating 'rules' of writing, though...this one hits a lot of them. Are people who dislike it for that reason wrong? No. But on the other hand it works for some people (like me).
When you see people trying so hard to convince everyone that their subjective view is right and everyone else's is wrong, it is time to move on to more reasonable minds.
I think it is this one:http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15...
It is B-format but font almost like in A-format, still nicely readable though... the layer of glue in the binding is pretty thick and the paperback binding is nicely durable... besides, the orange colour just rocks and this book will shine in your bookshelf once you finish reading
I always keep my eye on the part in my section at the bookstore (got books in english under my wings) where Tolkien is, making sure this tome is there... not only cos it is cheap 16 € (compared to almost 30-35 € if you got each volume separate), but because this book shines from the distance and draws ppl's attention... so far during my stay at the job around 5-7 copies got sold, which is relatively much for such a big book, every copy that arrives is gone within a couple weeks :P
I write, and there have been times when I've 'violated' some of the rules, simply because by doing so I was better able to get something across to a reader.I've also had a number of my books reviewed, and have noticed that not everybody likes them. If I could write a book that everybody loved, I suppose I could become wealthy, but if that ever happened I'd begin to suspect that I was hallucinating, or had been somehow transported into an alternate universe.
S.J. wrote: I've also had a number of my books reviewed, and have noticed that not everybody likes them. If I could write a book that everybody loved, I suppose I could become wealthy, but if that ever happened I'd begin to suspect that I was hallucinating, or had been somehow transported into an alternate universe. Yeah, probably not possible. Twilight is probably the biggest success story of recent years, and the people who hate it are more vocal than the people who love (oddly). But Meyer is doing very well by it.
I'd love to get a $750,000 advance on a book as an unpublished author. Makes me wonder what editor had the guts to make that call when they signed her.
I violated some rules and word forms and such sometimes to such degree some might label them as grammatical mistakes which they are not though LOL
S.J. wrote: "I'd say that there was a lot of miscommunication and misinterpretation in the earlier parts of this thread."This.
And:
the final paragraph of David's first post that started this thread asked people who hated AND liked the books to express their opinions.
That all varied opinions ARE valid, and their reasons, WAS invited.
If the thread was meant (by David) only to explore one set of opinions, no problem.
But in that case, the original post as written started off a different premise; which perhaps SEEMED misleading since the TITLE of the thread perhaps gave rise to a different snap impression.
Janny: I'm not quite sure what your point is here.
S.J. wrote: "Janny: I'm not quite sure what your point is here."My view on where certain misunderstandings May have heated up; partly based on another's post above that summarized the discussion here based on a read/skim (easily done) without noticing that the opening statement by David invited other views.
You've certainly been a voice of reason, throughout. My second point (separated by and) was not referring to you, but a further effort to bring more understanding and clarity to the table, that all opinions are not only valid, but were invited.
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)
Well put! It is the elitist attitude of the "Tolkinites" that turned me off reading his books for years. After I saw the first movie, I went out and bought the book and was very excited to read it. After I read page after page after page of hobbit history, I said enough was enough and quit. I went back a few years later and made it to chapter 7 when Tom Bombadil was introduced. Still couldn't get through it.
And it wasn't because I couldn't understand Tolkien's themes, it's because I was bored silly. I know this is a difficult concept for some to comprehend, but that's the way it is.
I read fiction to escape, not to get "enlightened". There are enough non-fiction books out there to help with that. And I certainly don't need to read a book to tell me why I should like Tolkien and explain to me why I'm wrong for not liking him!