The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien

[Yasiru]

Elise wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "But Gandalf himself tells Frodo that he cannot take the ring for fear he would use its power to do good and ultimately be turned to evil. Gandalf is a spirit like Sa..."

I see. Wikipedia indicates two more animated adaptations by Rankin/Bass, 'The Hobbit' and 'The Return of the King' respectively, though these don't seem to have quite the recognition.

I liked some of the changes in Peter Jackson films like Arwen's expanded role, but didn't care for others, like the almost unrecognisable Faramir.

[John]

Gargi wrote: "I haven't read The Hobbit. Some people say it's better to read it first, but I feel I might lag behind for this group read.

What should I do?"

I wouldn't even worry about that; the Hobbit is good in itself, but is not necessary at all to the trilogy. I read the Hobbit, but I read it so long ago I am going to reread it sometime later.

[John]

I just reread this book, actually the whole trilogy, about a year and a half ago; after watching the movies. I actually think the movies were great--the best fantasy movie ever, but the books were even better to me. Why? Because I enjoy Tolkien's poetry and songs; and the movie doesn't include much of it.

[Jon]

John, isn't the book always better than the movie?
Perhaps that's a topic worthy of a separate thread. I've only been able to come up with instances where a show is arguably better than the novel it's based on, but I can't think of a movie.

[Jonathan]

I could argue about maybe a handful of book adaptations where the book is worse but on the whole it's better. The Lord of the Rings films are definitely some of the best films in my opinion and decidedly good adaptations but they don't beat the book for me.

[Louise]

Jon wrote: "I've only been able to come up with instances where a show is arguably better than the novel it's based on, but I can't think of a movie."

There's Stardust for one (bring on the angry Gaiman fans!) and How to Train Your Dragon for another. I could probably think of a few more if I sat here long enough, but generally I actually agree - most book to film adaptions aren't as good as the books. And though the LotR films are mostly great, the books are better (ignoring Tom Bombadil).

[Jonathan]

Stardust was a decent novel and I haven't seen the film but I imagine it would be good still. Another I could add would be Jurassic Park which is better in movie form also.

[midnightfaerie]

books are always better. as for gaimen, i love sandman, but have yet to read stardust, altho i do believe it's amoung my collection... actually became a fan of his because tori amos is one of my fav singers and she's one of his best friends...she mentions him in a lot of her songs, and his character delierium (sp?) is based off of her...
on a side note...i'm so not gonna be able to finish this book by the end of july...altho i'm really trying...

[Julia]

Wow, I had a tough time reading the Fellowship! It doesn't seem to be my genre.

[Jonathan]

Julie wrote: "Wow, I had a tough time reading the Fellowship! It doesn't seem to be my genre."

Have you tried other fantasy novels? They're not all quite like Tolkien.

[Julia]

Do you have any reccomendations, Jonathan?

[Yasiru]

I've been reading Michael Moorcock's original Elric series recently, which he meant as an antithesis to Tolkien's brand of fantasy as well as (in the eponymous character) to Howard's Conan. So far my only gripe is that the books are too short.

[Chris]

I have to say I sometimes was bogged down in the detail but I really liked the last chapter. That alone makes me want to read the rest of the series! I felt many of the characters were somewhat flat but the last chapter brought a lot of depth to several of the characters...

I did not like the Fellowship of the Rings movie (although I wanted to like it) but now that I have read the book I have put it in my Netflix queue for another viewing... hoping to like it more!

[Karel]

I´m so sorry, but I have to come here to complaint that 'The Hobbit' will be split into three films (the final one will be released in summer 2014)
What the hell??? Is the shortest book of the series, Did Peter Jackson lost the hability to edit??? O.o
(sorry, just venting)

[Louise]

Karel wrote: "I´m so sorry, but I have to come here to complaint that 'The Hobbit' will be split into three films (the final one will be released in summer 2014) "

Wow. Didn't want to believe that but just found a link. Enthusiasm to see the film in December massively waning, not sure I'll bother. I was actually kinda hoping the film might finally make me like the book a bit more too.

[Jonathan]

About the hobbit being three films I'm kind of disappointed and now I'm wondering how they're going to do it. The Hobbit as a movie has been a childhood dream now I'm desperately hoping that greed/ambition has not overcome sensibility and that they don't absolutely stuff up The Hobbit.

Julie I'd try some of the shorter sharper and more fluid fantasy authors. If you didn't like Tolkien I'd avoid anything like The Wheel of Time, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell or A Song of Fire and Ice. I'd recommend trying something like Mistborn: The Final Empire or perhaps Warbreaker which stand more on their own and are more readable. Or you could try a more fairytale style of fantasy in Daughter of Smoke and Bone or Stardust.

[Julia]

Jonathan wrote: "About the hobbit being three films I'm kind of disappointed and now I'm wondering how they're going to do it. The Hobbit as a movie has been a childhood dream now I'm desperately hoping that greed/..."

Thanks, Jonathan. I've seen the movie Stardust, and liked it, so I'll try to read the book as well. I'll look up the other books as well:)

[Jonathan]

No problem. I always like helping people find a good book to read - well hopefully they're good.

[Elise]

For anyone interested in Warbreaker, I recently discovered that it can be downloaded in ebook form free from the author's website - it's a good way to try Brandon Sanderson's stuff without having to pay out for a book or wait for it to come in to the library, if you aren't sure you'd like it (I haven't read it yet, but I do like what I have read of his).

Needs a copy of Calibre to convert it from pdf to mobi, for kindle, (or to epub for anything else), but that's no great hardship - takes about 10 seconds to convert. Calibre's here: http://calibre-ebook.com/ if anyone wants it - free and not a big download - it worked a treat for me when I switched from Sony eReader to Kindle - my 200-odd books converted in less than 20 minutes.

[Jonathan]

Warbreaker is one of his best books too I think. I liked Elantris but it had more flaws than his more recent books.

[Yasiru]

Shame about the Hobbit. I was hoping they'd move on to other, more mature works in Tolkien's legendarium, but Hollywood has too much money and too little vision as ever.

On other fantasy, Sanderson's writing is pretty 'tame'; it has mass appeal because of the simple narrative structure and excellent pacing (The Way of Kings was better than any of the Mistborn books, but it kicks off a Tolkien-esque series; admittedly I haven't read Warbreaker yet), but if you want more originality I again suggest Moorcock's Elric saga. Based on The Sandman and American Gods, I'd also happily back anything by Neil Gaiman.

[Louise]

Or there's China Miéville, only read one of his books so far but really enjoyed it - not at all Tolkien. Neil Gaiman I guess I have to second because everyone loves him but I've yet to read anything of his that I din't think 'really neat idea killed by dull execution and flat characterisation' - apart from Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch, which was co-written with an author I love, oh and Marvel 1602 but that's not really what you're after, I imagine.

[Yasiru]

I've been arguing that Lord of the Rings has a kind of duplicity or twofold nature, on the one hand a remarkable myth-making endeavour and on the other a passable adventure epic, so let me also suggest Lord Dunsany's short collections, The Gods of Pegana and Time and the Gods in the former vein.
You can find them here-
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Fantasy...

The form might seem a bit strange at first, but they're worth a look being so short and broken into 'tales'. These in turn are very often structure more than narrative, a kind of 'concentrate' of ideas in the way of the most poignant 'natural myths' (better known ones with similarity being the biblical Book of Genesis and the Enuma Elish). Apart from the histories intertwined with the epic story of the narrative in LotR, I think Dunsany is better on this myth construction front than Tolkien.

@Louise- Which of Gaiman's work did you read?

[Louise]

SO far Stardust (ok, nowhere near as good as the film, some neat ideas but the actual writing was tedious), Good Omens (enjoyed a lot, but how much of that was Gaiman and how much Pratchett I have no idea), American Gods (so so so boring, and I love mythology, the concept was right up my alley but it was just horribly executed), Anansi Boys (a lot better than American Gods but still wouldn't rate it higher than 3 stars), A not too good superhero comic, Marvel 1602 and the first volume of Sandman (no intention to pick up the rest).

I still plan to give The Graveyard Book and Neverwhere a go because damn, I love his ideas and lots of people I now think he's great, but I just can't get on with his writing. It's all 'look how clever I am' and very little heart or characterisation.

[Yasiru]

Louise wrote: "SO far Stardust (ok, nowhere near as good as the film, some neat ideas but the actual writing was tedious), Good Omens (enjoyed a lot, but how much of that was Gaiman and how much Pratchett I have ..."

Interesting. I disagree with regards to The Sandman (the best series in the format since V for Vendetta) and American Gods (engaging enough that I finished it in record time), and I never noticed any sort of flaunting, just more mature influences than is usually the case (his characterisations can be a bit stark, but I consider this a virtue given the propensity in fantasy nowadays to deaden every mystery about a character- Morpheus for instance, would never have worked with cloying sympathy at every turn).

I hear there's an anniversary edition of American Gods (not the one I read I think), so I might reread it before I get to Anansi Boys (whenever that may be).

I liked the Neverwhere television series, though it's not quite so deep as American Gods. But maybe the novel is better still.

[Louise]

Maybe Sandman does get better, but the first one did so little for me I can't really be bothered to continue just in case. And I had the second volume sitting right beside me at the time too.

And I agree, I don't want cloying sympathy but I don't get any sense of mystery at all from his characters either. If they seemed remotely real beyond their designated role for the plot it would be helpful (Anansi Boys was the best at this, American Gods and Stardust the worst). I only managed to finish American Gods by taking it to an event where I had to queue for several hours - two years running because after getting halfway through the first year as soon as I had my other books available I picked them up instead rather than continue.

But everyone praises him so much and the ideas behind his stories are so interesting that I continue reading his books because I really really want to like them. Just...no luck so far.

[Yasiru]

Louise wrote: "Maybe Sandman does get better, but the first one did so little for me I can't really be bothered to continue just in case. And I had the second volume sitting right beside me at the time too.

And ..."

It wasn't an issue for me as I said, so perhaps I may be wrong in this, but it might be that this shortcoming you perceive is the result of the author being influenced primarily by myth, where characters (or heroes, rather) are very often archetypal and defined there on by function (their most personal motivations seem destiny).

Of course, we can't force ourselves to like a work because others have great regard for its author. I think that undermines the process of criticism. That said, we can still close in on what is appealing or not given some set of expectations (standing in for a prospective reader who embodies them), as I think this discussion has tried (and to some extent succeeded) to do for Tolkien's LotR.

I recall coming to Austen's Pride and Prejudice myself (either aptly or ironically as you like it) with no small amount of prejudice; the opposite of your case with Gaiman. Partly this was because I was suspicious about how wide the appeal of it was- as a matter of likelihoods, usually it will only be something so tame as to engage no one on anything particularly worthwhile that is accepted (and in fact lauded) so. Neither did I hear anything in the reviews I came across that suggested otherwise; in fact, most of the reasons why the novel was said to be worthwhile seemed flimsy. For all that, when I got to it I did enjoy it, if for reasons other than and sometimes antithetical to some of the most commonly offered.

[Louise]

Yasiru wrote: "it might be that this shortcoming you perceive is the result of the author being influenced primarily by myth, where characters (or heroes, rather) are very often archetypal and defined there on by function (their most personal motivations seem destiny)."

It might be, but I don't quite buy that as the reason I don't like him. I've read and enjoyed a lot of mythology, epic poetry, folklore and fairytales both in translations and retelling, for fun, and for my studies. It's been a huge passion of mine since I was about 3 and the main reason that I keep thinking I should give Gaiman another go, because his ideas really do appeal. His writing just hasn't yet worked for me in the same way. Most other writers I would totally have given up on after this many dud books (and I don't feel at all bad for thinking several other authors a lot of my friends or critics adore are utter rubbish) but Gaiman always has this spark of potential that has me going 'pick it up, this could be really good'.



But back to LotR! Very glad I didn't reread it this time. As well as not having the time I think it'd be one of the books that isn't nearly so awesome for me the second time round. Absolutely 5 star adored it but even without rereading I can pick up on all sorts of things I was too entranced to spend much time thinking about then but would really hamper my enjoyment if I picked it up again.

[Yasiru]

Louise wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "it might be that this shortcoming you perceive is the result of the author being influenced primarily by myth, where characters (or heroes, rather) are very often archetypal and defi..."

It might be that in a novel-length work what I mentioned is a sustained feature (without the flourishes offered by longer epics too, while myths and fairy tales are shorter and more various for different paths of origin), but oh well, to each their own.

On LotR (with apologies for my part in the excursion on the thread), this was the first time I reread it (I'm still on it actually, due to begin book four when I get time) and it's not the lukewarm trudge I thought it might be. Usually works with pronounced action or chains of epiphany I find are best for rereads, but I liked the adventure tale well enough.

[Jonathan]

The Graveyard Book was very good and as to Sanderson yes his writing is simple in Mistborn but his ideas are very intriguing I personally find. Warbreaker was much better written also than Mistborn. His later works are probably some of the best fantasy I've read currently (I'm not a huge fan of the dark gritty fantasies around) apart from the epic scope of The Wheel of Time.

Speaking on re-reading The Lord of the Rings it's one of those books I can read again and again. I must do it this year when I can. Speaking of books I believe we have another childhood favourite of mine to read this month.

[Catherine]

Hi all! Just wrote a blog about Tolkien and his books. http://catherinebennett.org/?p=244

[Catherine]

Karel wrote: "I´m so sorry, but I have to come here to complaint that 'The Hobbit' will be split into three films (the final one will be released in summer 2014)
What the hell??? Is the shortest book of the s..."
I didn't realize that. Thought for certain it would only be two films and also am not liking that it will be drug out for an extra year.

[Maggie the Muskoka Library Mouse]

I need to read this one again. The first time, I couldn't appreciate Tolkien's writing, and thought it a little dry. Now that I'm older, perhaps I will like it better. :)