LOTR (the books, not the movies): a poll

[Death Wizard]

Recently, I have come across several fans of fantasy who aren't the biggest fans of Lord of the Rings. I've found this amazing, but of course to each his or her own. So here's a poll that I hope hasn't been done here a thousand times before.

[newmod]

Hmm, difficult to answer for me. Maybe more like a flawed masterpiece of the genre. Aspects are amazing, other things left me personally a bit cold, for example I found it overly descriptive and the pacing could have been better (I believe Tolkien said something to the same effect himself).

Maybe people prefer other things because they´re a bit more "gung ho" (I´m thinking of my teenage memories of Dragonlance, which I seem to remember as being more dynamic, of course, I can´t always trust my memory).

It´ll be interesting to see what others have to say. I have to say at the moment I can´t think of anything I would say is better, but there are things I find more readable (as in easier to read).

[MattW]

Tastes have evolved since LOTR, but there's no denying the influence it has had on the genre. It certainly stands the test of time, and has set a high water mark for the same subtype of fantasy (never know if it's epic or high).

Personally, I plowed through the books at an early enough age that I didn't find too much to be off. Thinking back now, I easily place it above what else I thought was good at the time (Jordan, Weis & Hickman). As far as ranking today, I'd still recommend to anyone that hasn't yet tried it - it's a great entry into the genre.

I know some people can complain that they don't enjoy elves and magic, and, for the most part, neither do I. Then I come across books like Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - full of faeries and magic, but in a fresh original way. I guess if there's finite time to read in ones life, this would be a series I'd at least try (and skip any chapter with Tom Bombadil).

[scarletpeaches]

Where's the "I'd rather kill myself than fight through another hundred pages of that shit" option?

[rugcat]

Recently, I have come across several fans of fantasy who aren't the biggest fans of Lord of the Rings. I've found this amazing, but of course to each his or her ownThere have been previous threads addressing this. What surprised me is the number of fantasy writers who actively dislike LOTR--and they can become quite passionate about its perceived shortcomings.

Me, I write urban fantasy. I don't much care for high fantasy in general. But I think LOTR is a work of genius, both for its groundbreaking place in literary history and for its story, characters, and prose. Many will disagree.

[Death Wizard]

Scarlet!!! How can you say that? Where's my garlic and silver bullets???

[scarletpeaches]

I'm sorry, but...two weeks to read less than 200 pages. I've had smear tests that were more entertaining.

[newmod]

I'm sorry, but...two weeks to read less than 200 pages.

Christ you were getting through it faster than I was!

[dclary]

How often does this topic come up? Monthly? Sheesh.

Maybe a quick "search" to see if this has ever possibly been discussed in a fantasy writing forum before starting a new thread?

Ok, my bad... It's been a whole two months since the last Tolkien-centric thread that wasn't the announcement of Chris Tolkien's new book.

Sorry.


http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52258&highlight=LOTR

[Death Wizard]

How often does this topic come up? Monthly? Sheesh.

Maybe a quick "search" to see if this has ever possibly been discussed in a fantasy writing forum before starting a new thread?

Ok, my bad... It's been a whole two months since the last Tolkien-centric thread that wasn't the announcement of Chris Tolkien's new book.

Sorry.


http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52258&highlight=LOTR

Should I delete it?

[Oddsocks]

I read almost all of the first one, but I found it pretty hard to get through, and I don't think I'll be continuing with them in the near future. I do feel like they're the 'you have to read them' books of the genre, though. And I really, really respect the worldbuilding in it.

And I loved the Hobbit. Has anyone else found that people who like the hobbit often don't like LOTR, and vice versa?

[Death Wizard]

I'm sorry, but...two weeks to read less than 200 pages. I've had smear tests that were more entertaining.

I could not disagree more, though I first read it before you were born. I wonder if age has anything to do with it. And I don't mean that sarcastically.

[dclary]

Should I delete it?


No, no. It's a fine topic. It's just one that's been gone over before. Forgive me, I'm in a snitty mood ever since I found out Stephen Donaldson started a third Thomas Covenant series without informing me.

:rant:

[Death Wizard]

I love the gradual interview on Donaldson's website. And I rank him No. 2 to Tolkien, and No. 1 in terms of prose.

[dclary]

I read almost all of the first one, but I found it pretty hard to get through, and I don't think I'll be continuing with them in the near future. I do feel like they're the 'you have to read them' books of the genre, though. And I really, really respect the worldbuilding in it.

And I loved the Hobbit. Has anyone else found that people who like the hobbit often don't like LOTR, and vice versa?

This is very common. The problem with LotR's first book OUGHT to be a lesson to ALL fantasy writers. Tolkien drops you into a mildly familiar setting: Hobbiton, gives you a few new characters in the four Hobbit kids, and then immediately smacks everyone in the face with a 100-page data dump in the Council of Elrond. 99% of the people I know who never made it to the second book admitted they dropped the books there.

This is the one thing Peter Jackson vastly improved in his vision of the books: splitting out the Gandalf storyline and running it concurrently so we didn't have to have much of a flashback scene in Rivendell, and placing most of the history of the ring backstory at the opening.

The data dump in Fellowship means about 1000% more to someone who's already read all the books than it does to someone their first time in. That's not a good thing.

[scarletpeaches]

I could not disagree more, though I first read it before you were born. I wonder if age has anything to do with it. And I don't mean that sarcastically.

My aunt is a decade or so older than me and keeps trying to get me into LOTR. She's read it more times than I've drooled over Joaquin Phoenix. And that's a lot!

[dclary]

I was just talking to Juaouqueen today, and he mentioned his love of Theoden, and the dynamic between the Rohirrim and Gondor. He complained about the Pukul men not being in the LotR movie, and his discussion with Pete Jackson about it.

He also asked if he could borrow my towel, so he would wipe off some "Scot-sweat" he called it.

[Death Wizard]

My aunt is a decade or so older than me and keeps trying to get me into LOTR. She's read it more times than I've drooled over Joaquin Phoenix. And that's a lot!

HA!!!

[Saanen]

I read almost all of the first one, but I found it pretty hard to get through, and I don't think I'll be continuing with them in the near future. I do feel like they're the 'you have to read them' books of the genre, though. And I really, really respect the worldbuilding in it.

And I loved the Hobbit. Has anyone else found that people who like the hobbit often don't like LOTR, and vice versa?

I love The Hobbit but barely managed to chew my way through LOTR. I first tried to read it when I was in high school, when I was reading fantasy omnivorously and constantly--you'd think I'd have loved Tolkien. I managed to get to the Ents that first time and then lost interest completely. I finally got through the whole thing right before the movies came out, although getting through the Council of Elrond was hard. I had to skip or skim a lot of it.

I still don't like the Ents. I even skip them on the DVD.

[glutton]

I choose "pretty weak". The pace is just way too slow for my taste. I skimmed most of the way through the books, to be honest.

I think it might have as much to do with style preferences as anything else. I suspect fans of Robert E. Howard's writing, for instance, might be less likely to be big fans of Tolkien's.

And yeah, the Hobbit was better.

[Death Wizard]

I choose "pretty weak". The pace is just way too slow for my taste. I skimmed most of the way through the books, to be honest.

I think it might have as much to do with style preferences as anything else. I suspect fans of Robert E. Howard's writing, for instance, might be less likely to be big fans of Tolkien's.

And yeah, the Hobbit was better.

I love Howard and Tolkien. For different reasons, of course. And the Hobbit is just a silly little kids book compared to LOTR. Come on!

[glutton]

I just require some semblance of a pace as a reader (and writer, too). The Hobbit may be a "silly little kids book", but at least it didn't bog down like it was dipped in molasses!

[Tallymark]

And I loved the Hobbit. Has anyone else found that people who like the hobbit often don't like LOTR, and vice versa?

YES. I adored the Hobbit; I still do. Wonderful book. And I wanted to love LOTR, I really did...but I couldn't get through the first book. I couldn't. There's nothing wrong at all with the story, or the worldbuilding, or the characters; granted I didn't get to see much of them, but I'm sure they're all wonderful. It was the style...I couldn't find the story amidst all the damn words. I got lost in the words. I'd get through a mind-numbingly long description, and realize that I couldn't remember what I'd read for the last 100 pages.

The Hobbit may have been a less grand-scaled story, but the style was more accessible. Though, I had the same problem with Robert Jordan's work as I did LOTR, so it may be that I simply can't handle that style. I do stil think LOTR was brilliant, I just wish it was more readable. ^_^;

[glutton]

It was the style...I couldn't find the story amidst all the damn words. I got lost in the words. I'd get through a mind-numbingly long description, and realize that I couldn't remember what I'd read for the last 100 pages.

The Hobbit may have been a less grand-scaled story, but the style was more accessible. Though, I had the same problem with Robert Jordan's work as I did LOTR, so it may be that I simply can't handle that style.

Exactly, same here; can't tolerate glacial pacing and oceanic description. The story may be good, but if it's that slow, I'd rather read a summary.

[Death Wizard]

You guys are killllllling me! The writing is beautiful, the pacing perfect, the characters as well-rounded as any in modern literature. Don't skim over the words in disgust. Treasure them!

[alaskamatt17]

Well, age can't have everything to do with it. I'm certainly younger than scarletpeaches, and I've read LotR 4 or 5 times. A teacher talked me into reading The Hobbit in 3rd grade, despite my protests that it had a stupid-sounding name, but once I got into it I couldn't stop reading. LotR was the first thing I read that I would consider epic, my first taste of real literary adventure.

The last time I read it, though, I did notice that Fellowship drags a lot right after the Hobbits embark (Bombadil and all that). That's probably what turns most people off.

By the way, if you have trouble getting through LotR, I would recommend steering well clear of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast books--the style is incredibly dense. Not to say bad--he paints a vivid mental picture, albeit with too many brushstrokes.

[scarletpeaches]

...I'm certainly younger than scarletpeaches...

Bastard!

Sorry. Sorry, really.

*sits in the corner, plotting*

:rant:

[Pthom]

It's okay, Peaches. Just about everyone here is younger than I am.


Including you.

[alaskamatt17]

Bastard!
:rant:


BWAHAHA!

That's what you get for insulting LotR.

Actually, I didn't mean to offend. I'm probably younger than most of the AW regulars (although applying the term "regular" to anyone on AW seems a bit contradictory).

[Dawnstorm]

By the way, if you have trouble getting through LotR, I would recommend steering well clear of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast books--the style is incredibly dense. Not to say bad--he paints a vivid mental picture, albeit with too many brushstrokes.

Well, here am I, loving Gormenghast with a passion (Prunesquallor to the rescue!), but I can't seem to get into Lord of the Rings at all. I keep telling myself to get the books every other year or so, but then I make the mistake to actually pick up the book and read before I paid for it. Back to the shelf it goes. I've read slow scenes, I've read action scenes, I've read dialogue, I've read song. No thanks. The only thing I found myself engrossed in was the appendix about the etymology of "Hobbit" (I like linguistics, and Tolkien was a linguist).

I, too, loved Hobbit. It's true, it's just a "silly little kids book", but then there are echoes of that in Lord of the Rings (personified fox PoV somewhere near the beginning; just a line, easy to miss). LotR is uneven, stylistically. I can't decide how to read it. Is it a fairy tale? Is it a novel? Is it an epic? It hovers between these attractors and manages to stay amorphous. For me.

I can appreciate the genius behind it, but enjoy it I can't.

Gormenghast, on the other hand, is sheer surrealist brilliance, down to the last overblown, implausible metaphor. I love it!

[Death Wizard]

I didn't mean to say that The Hobbit was a silly little kids book. I loved The Hobbit. What I meant was that it was a silly little kids book when compared to LOTR. As it was pointed out before, you guys have been over and over this topic many times before I ever made an appearance. But it still amazes me how many fans of fantasy are down on LOTR.

However, the poll is going in its favor pretty strongly.

[tjwriter]

Hmm, difficult to answer for me. Maybe more like a flawed masterpiece of the genre. Aspects are amazing, other things left me personally a bit cold, for example I found it overly descriptive and the pacing could have been better (I believe Tolkien said something to the same effect himself).

I loved the description. It's one of my favorites because it feels like total immersion, and I love that.

Maybe I just have serious "escapist" issues. Who knows?

[newmod]

The reason I don´t like too much description (in any literature) is because I feel it removes me, because I can´t generate an image of my own in my mind, so I feel less involved.

It´s akin to giving me a picture of something and then saying "now, imagine what it/he/she looks like". I want to imagine it, bring my own experience and creativity (if I have any!) to a work. A few details are all I need, I´ll fill in the rest.

But I know people have different opinions about this, my girlfriend loves all the rich descriptions in the classics and so on, it´s one of the reasons I don´t read them. Oh well, you pays your money ...

[glutton]

I don't like extensive description because it gets in the way of stuff happening.

Stuff happening... :Thumbs:

[Death Wizard]

I loved the description. It's one of my favorites because it feels like total immersion, and I love that.

Maybe I just have serious "escapist" issues. Who knows?

I too loved the description. Adored every word of it.

[J. Weiland]

Tolkien invented and set the standard for modern fantasy and should be lauded accordingly.

[ink wench]

Ooh, always a toucy subject. :D I'm refraining from voting because none of the options work for me. I can appreciate its lofty place in the genre, but that's about it. I slogged through it somehow, enjoyed some parts, nearly slept through others. I liked The Hobbit much better.

For me, the problem is that I totally could not get "into" any of the characters. They all came off flat and uninteresting to me. (I know, I know, heretical. Whatever.) The only one I kind of liked was Sam because he was the one who seemed to have a real personality (to me! just my opinion! put down the pitchforks!), but he didn't get much face time.

Maybe it's just not my type of story. :Shrug: My husband dragged me to the movies and I pretty much slept through those bladder-busters too.

[scarletpeaches]

Tolkien invented and set the standard for modern fantasy and should be lauded accordingly.

Oh come now, surely that crown belongs to Christopher Paolini?

[J. Weiland]

edited ...

[AndreaGS]

I loved LOTR. I understand, though, that they may not be to everyone's tastes. They're meant to create a mythology, and I think they succeed brilliantly. They're reminiscent of, in style, old germanic myths and sagas.

I think once you adjust to it, it's a beautiful style of writing. Yes, it's got a lot of lengthy descriptions, grandiose sort of dialogue, and characters burst spontaneously into song. I couldn't get through it as a kid. I think it takes some patience.

But what a great story!

[jodiodi]

I think I must be one of the few who liked LotR much better than Hobbit. I found The Hobbit to be too much like a kid's book. LotR was much darker and I'm a sucker for evil characters.

Then again, I read the Silmarillion (which I can never spell), the HoME, Unfinished Tales, etc.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I liked LOTR a lot, it's not the best book I've ever read but I really enjoyed it and have read it about 30 times or so.

I'm also a huge Howard fan, and of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Mouser books.

[rugcat]

YES. I adored the Hobbit; I still do. Wonderful book. And I wanted to love LOTR, I really did...but I couldn't get through the first book. I couldn't.I think I must be one of the few who liked LotR much better than Hobbit.The Hobbit is a classic of what we now term YA fantasy. I'm not sure that comparisons to LOTR, an adult work, are particularly germane.

[Death Wizard]

I think I must be one of the few who liked LotR much better than Hobbit. I found The Hobbit to be too much like a kid's book. LotR was much darker and I'm a sucker for evil characters.

Then again, I read the Silmarillion (which I can never spell), the HoME, Unfinished Tales, etc.


I agree.

[Death Wizard]

The Hobbit is a classic of what we now term YA fantasy. I'm not sure that comparisons to LOTR, an adult work, are particularly germane.

And I agree again.

[triceretops]

It takes top honors from me. The most memorable series I've ever read in that genre. Well thought-out and executed. Beautiful and daring in its images, tone and atmosphere. Loved it. I think the books have to savored, not read fast in the ordinary expectation of getting through them on a high suspense level. I was attracted to the world-building and cultural tones.

Tri

[abemorgantis]

LOTR is simply the best, head and shoulders above anything else. I did find the Two Towers reaaaaaaaaallllly slow. Took me ages to get through it.

[abemorgantis]

Then again, I read the Silmarillion

Same it here. That was a tough read, multilayered and complex. Worth it though, great book.

[Death Wizard]

It takes top honors from me. The most memorable series I've ever read in that genre. Well thought-out and executed. Beautiful and daring in its images, tone and atmosphere. Loved it. I think the books have to savored, not read fast in the ordinary expectation of getting through them on a high suspense level. I was attracted to the world-building and cultural tones.

Tri

Well put. They are to be savored. And in some ways they become more enjoyable with each successive read. I have read LOTR about 25 times, and each time I read slowly and carefully. About the only thing I don't care for are all the songs, poems, etc. I usually skim those, though I know that some people adore those more than any other part of LOTR.

[Dawnstorm]

I didn't mean to say that The Hobbit was a silly little kids book. I loved The Hobbit. What I meant was that it was a silly little kids book when compared to LOTR.

Sorry for misrepresenting what you said. Wasn't fair. I did get your meaning, but I responded with too much rhetorics.

Remember that I never read LotR (although I've read quite a lot in bookshops). That I read The Hobbit in its entirety is not a matter of length. It's that subject matter and tone mesh. It's a "silly little kids' book", but that's what it's supposed to be. To me, the tone of the LotR-excerpts I read still suggest a "silly little kids' book" (when it doesn't suggest epic poetry). However, it also has a realistic strain (á la Dickens). The mix leaves me confused and outside of the text.

Others don't have that problem, but I do. This is why I disagree with this:

The Hobbit is a classic of what we now term YA fantasy. I'm not sure that comparisons to LOTR, an adult work, are particularly germane.

It's highly relevant to compare the two, because they're related not only via plot, but also via style.

As it was pointed out before, you guys have been over and over this topic many times before I ever made an appearance.

(Points at post-count, whistling innocently)

But it still amazes me how many fans of fantasy are down on LOTR.

Shouldn't be too surprising. There's NO book that's universally liked. It's a matter of taste, and that is that.

[blacbird]

Tolkien invented and set the standard for modern fantasy and should be lauded accordingly.

I accept "set the standard", because his influence on subsequent writers is unquestionable. I disagree with "invented", however, even with the qualifier "modern fantasy" attached. He had plenty of precursors. Dunsany, MacDonald, Morris, Eddison, Hodgson, Stapledon, all British or Irish, contributed to the development of modern fantasy in major ways, and the erudite Tolkien doubtless had read them all.

I am not denigrating Tolkien in any way here. I am, however, somewhat dismayed at how many current or aspiring fantasy writers read no further back in their genre than Tolkien. Any fantasy writer owes him- or herself a look particularly at the first three names on that list I just cited.

caw

[MattW]

I accept "set the standard", because his influence on subsequent writers is unquestionable. I disagree with "invented", however, even with the qualifier "modern fantasy" attached. He had plenty of precursors. Dunsany, MacDonald, Morris, Eddison, Hodgson, Stapledon, all British or Irish, contributed to the development of modern fantasy in major ways, and the erudite Tolkien doubtless had read them all.

I am not denigrating Tolkien in any way here. I am, however, somewhat dismayed at how many current or aspiring fantasy writers read no further back in their genre than Tolkien. Any fantasy writer owes him- or herself a look particularly at the first three names on that list I just cited.

cawAgreed with all of the above.

And as far as going back, why stop with modern fantasy? The roots of story telling among humans began with fantasy. The first story ever told was probably about the oddities we could not explain, the creatures that lurked in the darkness, or how Ogg lived to tell about the mammoth that got away.

Beowulf, Gilgamesh, the Eddas, and probably a ton I can't remember are all the foundations of literature, not just fantasy. Tolkien did not create the genre, but he did something every great storyteller has doen, take what the past gave him, mix it up, and repackage as something that appeals to modern* sensibilities and tastes.




*Closer to 19th century than 20th, but still holds strong.

[rugcat]

Tolkien did not create the genre, but he did something every great storyteller has does, take what the past gave him, mix it up, and repackage as something that appeals to modern* sensibilities and tastes.No, Tolkien did not invent the genre. No one artist ever does, although some are so monumentaly influential that it sometimes seems as if they did. (Picasso, Louis Armstrong)

What Tolkien did, however, was a breakthrough. He took an epic tale and told it, not from the point of view of a larger than life hero, but from the point of view of an everyman. (Or everyhobbit) Much of the book's charm comes not from the epic battle scenes, but from the interactions of very ordinary people faced with extraordinary events--a theme that has proved so compelling that it is now practically a cliche. It is not so much a tale of heroes, as many earlier epics were, as it is a tale of hobbits. Merry and Pippen, for example, could well be your best mates down at the local pub. (Depending of course on what type of clientèle frequents the place.) Hobbits are down to earth characters who provide a comfort level and perspective previously lacking in epic fantasy.

And although popular success is not necessarily the gauge of a great book, there's a reason that millions of people around the world have read his books, whereas Lord Dunsany ((whom I love) is practically unknown to the general populace. Tolkien connected to the average reader in a way no one before him had managed to do.

[Death Wizard]

Sorry for misrepresenting what you said. Wasn't fair. I did get your meaning, but I responded with too much rhetorics.

Remember that I never read LotR (although I've read quite a lot in bookshops). That I read The Hobbit in its entirety is not a matter of length. It's that subject matter and tone mesh. It's a "silly little kids' book", but that's what it's supposed to be. To me, the tone of the LotR-excerpts I read still suggest a "silly little kids' book" (when it doesn't suggest epic poetry). However, it also has a realistic strain (á la Dickens). The mix leaves me confused and outside of the text.

Others don't have that problem, but I do. This is why I disagree with this:



It's highly relevant to compare the two, because they're related not only via plot, but also via style.



(Points at post-count, whistling innocently)



Shouldn't be too surprising. There's NO book that's universally liked. It's a matter of taste, and that is that.

I don't think you misrepresented me. I just wasn't entirely clear. Also, I agree on your last point about no book being universally liked.

[TrickyFiction]

I didn't like LOTR. Couldn't get into it. I got bogged down by all the world-building description. I voted average, though, because I think part of my problem with it is that I just don't care for high fantasy. I feel it's a sub-genre made up of LOTR stock characters.

I also tend to feel emotionally uninvolved when it comes to the BIG story. I ended up skimming over the wars and politics just to see how the hobbit boys were doing. Reading it was like wading through dwarf and elf filled mud that came up to my ears.

PS- There's also this: http://howitshouldhaveended.com/Divx%20links/LOTR.html

[Pthom]

Dawnstorm makes a very good point: "There's NO book that's universally liked. It's a matter of taste..."

I thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit (read it when I was 19 or 20). The Fellowship of the Ring was interesting in that it sort of continued the story line, although I was most disappointed that Bilbo had such an infinitesimal part. When I got to The Two Towers I began to get lost as to why there was all this "stuff" in the way of getting anywhere, and I fell asleep more often than not reading The Return of the King. Why I bothered to finish the trilogy is beyond me. I certainly would not read it again.

As for The Hobbit being a "silly little children's book," I completely disagree. It's small, but it is a wonderful and delightful story, and I have read it more than once.

[Death Wizard]

Dawnstorm makes a very good point: "There's NO book that's universally liked. It's a matter of taste..."

I thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit (read it when I was 19 or 20). The Fellowship of the Ring was interesting in that it sort of continued the story line, although I was most disappointed that Bilbo had such an infinitesimal part. When I got to The Two Towers I began to get lost as to why there was all this "stuff" in the way of getting anywhere, and I fell asleep more often than not reading The Return of the King. Why I bothered to finish the trilogy is beyond me. I certainly would not read it again.

As for The Hobbit being a "silly little children's book," I completely disagree. It's small, but it is a wonderful and delightful story, and I have read it more than once.

Again, I didn't mean to say that The Hobbit is a "silly little children's book." I adored The Hobbit. What I said was that it was a silly little children's book when compared to the "profound sophistication" of LOTR. Only, I left out "profound sophistication" the first time.

[Pthom]

:)
Then we shall continue to disagree. I feel The Hobbit is a major and significant entry in the lexicon of high fantasy. I may also be all wet, since my preferred genre is science fiction. Yet The Hobbit is far from unsophisticated, and to my way of thinking, is exemplary of good story telling.

Again, this is entirely a personal preference, but whereas I realize the importance of the Ring trilogy and its significance to the lexicon, I don't find it more profound than The Hobbit, nor a very enjoyable read. For me, the most important stories in the world are those that are enjoyable and won't let me put them down till they're done with me. LotR doesn't measure up to that criterium.

[Death Wizard]

Sigh. I've trapped myself in a Devil's advocate corner, because I love The Hobbit and everything Tolkien. I just don't love The Hobbit as much as I do LOTR. Enjoying The Hobbit more than LOTR and arguing that The Hobbit is superior to LOTR are two different things. The latter doesn't make any sense to me.

[JBI]

Who cares what he contributed. He is a boring author, and I simply detest reading boring books, that I need to force myself through. Sorry to say this, but trees for me aren't interesting. I don't need to read a 3 page poem about growing things, or read about 200 pages of pure walking. I respect him for "popularizing" the genre, but I like his predecessors' works much better. Especially the great Lewis Carrol and his Literary Nonsense work.

I have no problem with the plot in Tolkien's work, I just find him incredibly dull and boring. And yes, I have read Dunsany, MacDonald, Carrol, et al. Not to mention Beowulf, Homer, Ramayana, Gilgamesh, the Aeneid, Metamorphoses, and a whole slew of other classic works. Just because someone is popular, of influencial doesn't make him a good author (in my opinion, feel free to read his books, I don't really care.)

You don't see every novelist running out to read James Joyce's Ulysses simply because it was probably the most influential novel of the 20th century. Everyone has their tastes, and threads like these are silly.

By the way, for those who love this book, no need to flood the post every other reply, in order to make it seem that more people love this book.

On another note, many people who think this book is so "great" haven't even read it (not saying that is you), but just because people consider it is the magnum opus of fantasy doesn't mean it is.

[scarletpeaches]

Hmm...I can tell you're gonna get jumped on for that, JBI...let's just say there's a touch of Emperor's New Clothes to the whole LOTR phenomenon in my opinion. As if one ought to like it and people are often embarrassed to say they don't.

Unlike thee and me. :D

[Pthom]

Whether a story is enjoyable is a personal preference. To decide whether it is more or less important than another is also--or I would allow that it is at least an opinion.

The criteria with which any story is ranked against another is an opinion that is more or less agreed upon by others. Millions of generations of humanity were brought up just fine without knowledge of any of J. R. R. Tolkien's writings. Or of our opinions whether his or any other author following them is exciting or boring or important.

When stating that a work is important (or not), it is equally important to qualify such statement. My opinion is that The Hobbit is more important to me than is the Ring trilogy. I would guess that most English-speaking people alive midway through the 20th century and their descendents are familiar with the Lord of the Ring phenomenon. No doubt a significant number of non English-speakers are as well. If this forum is any indication, there are, in the group of humans aware of LotR, at least three opinions: "Love it," "Leave it" and "Yeah, so?"

I am content with that. Those of you who love it, gather 'round and pat one another on the back. Those of you who don't love it, read something else. And please, don't expend needless energy trying to make those in the opposite camp agree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that to do so will accomplish nothing other than to arouse ire.

And we don't want that around here, now, do we? :D

[rugcat]

Those of you who love it, gather 'round and pat one another on the back. Those of you who don't love it, read something else. And please, don't expend needless energy trying to make those in the opposite camp agree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that to do so will accomplish nothing other than to arouse ire.This is really the same old argument over whether art is subjective or not.

For those who believe it is not, the implication is clear: that LOTR is a great book, and those who don’t see it that way that are somehow lacking sophistication and/or critical faculty. I can see how this might tend to arouse one’s ire.

However, using phrases like “Those of you who love it, gather 'round and pat one another on the back” implies that those who like the book are snobbish elites. This too will tend to annoy one.

But certainly, discussions like this are ultimately pointless. No one is ever going to say “You know what? You’re right. I thought I hated the book, but now I see that I love it.” Or the reverse, for that matter.

Still, the Tolkien haters remind me of when I hear a great jazz band, and on the way out, overhear a comment like, “I thought it was boring. They’re just playing a bunch of noise. Give me a good rock band any day.” Sure, everyone to their own taste, but I can’t help but think it’s not just taste--they’re missing something.

P.S. I’m a jazz musician currently playing in a rock band, and I love them both.

[scarletpeaches]

See, you destroyed your own argument with that last paragraph. Your post looked as if it was accepting of both sides of the divide and yet ended with the implication if you don't like Tolkien you're missing something. Nice job.

[Death Wizard]

Okay, I give. I'm not here to make enemies. And I certainly agree that taste is personal and subjective and that there is no right and wrong in that regard. As for this being a silly or meaningless thread, it won't be the last time I start something silly and meaningless, that's for sure!

[rugcat]

See, you destroyed your own argument with that last paragraph. Your post looked as if it was accepting of both sides of the divide and yet ended with the implication if you don't like Tolkien you're missing something. Nice job.I made no argument. I was merely making observations.

And yes, leaving Tolkien out of the equation, I don't believe that everything is subjective. To believe that the only thing that matters is whether one likes something or not is a cop out. Why try to grow, why try to improve your art, if there's no such thing as "better" or "worse."

Taste is a separate matter. There are many fine writers and musicians that I personally don't care for--they don't speak to me, for whatever reason. This doesn't mean they're worthless, or that people who do like them are deluded.

But there are also things that just aren't very good. I even like some of them--there's even a term for it--"guilty pleasures." And when peope ask me, "how can you like that crap?" I tell them, I just do. But I don't deny that it's basically crap.

[Chumplet]

Since I was seventeen, I read LOTR about every two years for the next thirty years. Each time, I understood a little more. Each time, I imagined Tolkien's world, and sometimes saw it in my own world, whether while walking through a forest or looking across mountains.

Each time, I see the similar patterns of Norse, Celtic, Greek, or Basque mythology.

I think I have two or three sets of the trilogy hanging around the house, as well as The Hobbit and The Silmarilion. Oh, and a nice map book.

[Pthom]

But certainly, discussions like this are ultimately pointless.


Yep.

[Dawnstorm]

Okay, I give. I'm not here to make enemies.

I don't see you making enemies, here. You're speaking your mind, and you're not disrespectful to other.

But certainly, discussions like this are ultimately pointless. No one is ever going to say “You know what? You’re right. I thought I hated the book, but now I see that I love it.” Or the reverse, for that matter.

They're only pointless if you view them as an exercise in conviction. That's not the point of such threads, is it? I can't seem to get into LotR. Others love the books. I find it immensly interesting why. I assume, people who start such threads are similarly interested in the other perspective.

Taste is taste. But taste doesn't exist in a vaccuum.

Still, the Tolkien haters remind me of when I hear a great jazz band, and on the way out, overhear a comment like, “I thought it was boring. They’re just playing a bunch of noise. Give me a good rock band any day.” Sure, everyone to their own taste, but I can’t help but think it’s not just taste--they’re missing something.

Some things I know about but value differently. A lot of things I miss. I have been able to get more out of books in the past, because I've talked to people who loved that. A new angle to view a book is quite helpful.

Enjoying The Hobbit more than LOTR and arguing that The Hobbit is superior to LOTR are two different things. The latter doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, I enjoy the Harry Potter books more than LotR. I wouldn't say they're better. I would, however, call The Hobbit better (and, by extension, better than the Potter books).

Counting "strengths" and "flaws", is one thing. Evaluating them is another.What is a "strength" and what is a "flaw" is subjective to begin with, but whether a "flaw" bothers you, and whether a "strength" can function as a "redeeming feature", is another.

Take, for example, characters. I found the characters in both Hobbit and what I read of LotR rather flat. This is not a flaw in The Hobbit; characters in fairy tales are supposed to be types over people. However, LotR is more ambitious. Different characterisation standards apply. I'm sure there is more depth to the characters in LotR than there is to those in the Hobbit. But from what I've read, I gather there isn't enough. The depth of characters is more appropriate for the "epic" part (as in epic poetry, such as Spenser's Faerie Queene [Sp?]) than for the "novel" part of LotR. There are plenty of ways to disagree with this. Perhaps I'm wrong about saying that characterisation isn't more sophisticated than in Hobbit? Or maybe people don't expect better characterisation in LotR than in The Hobbit? It's still quite complicated and head-ache inducing. But if you agreed with my assessment (which you probably won't), then you would probably also agree with my assertion that The Hobbit is better in the area of characterisation (because appropriate to the genre).

I can play that game for many aspects: plot, pacing, style, diction... Sometimes The Hobbit will win out, sometimes LotR. If I'm the one doing it, The Hobbit will win out more often. If I played the game, pairing off LotR against Harry Potter, LotR would win out more often (even though I enjoy HP more).

Do you see where I come from? I do think The Hobbit is a better book than the LotR, quite apart from my enjoyment. And while it's not as objective as apples falling to the ground when you drop them, it's also not as subjective as taste.

[glutton]

To me, the only thing LotR has over The Hobbit is the plot (and maybe characterization, if you can stand reading the text enough to dig it out). Yes, LotR may be trying to tell a better story than Hobbit, but as a book, in terms of the way they are written, Hobbit>>>>>LotR.

[Death Wizard]

I don't see you making enemies, here. You're speaking your mind, and you're not disrespectful to other.



They're only pointless if you view them as an exercise in conviction. That's not the point of such threads, is it? I can't seem to get into LotR. Others love the books. I find it immensly interesting why. I assume, people who start such threads are similarly interested in the other perspective.

Taste is taste. But taste doesn't exist in a vaccuum.



Some things I know about but value differently. A lot of things I miss. I have been able to get more out of books in the past, because I've talked to people who loved that. A new angle to view a book is quite helpful.



Well, I enjoy the Harry Potter books more than LotR. I wouldn't say they're better. I would, however, call The Hobbit better (and, by extension, better than the Potter books).

Counting "strengths" and "flaws", is one thing. Evaluating them is another.What is a "strength" and what is a "flaw" is subjective to begin with, but whether a "flaw" bothers you, and whether a "strength" can function as a "redeeming feature", is another.

Take, for example, characters. I found the characters in both Hobbit and what I read of LotR rather flat. This is not a flaw in The Hobbit; characters in fairy tales are supposed to be types over people. However, LotR is more ambitious. Different characterisation standards apply. I'm sure there is more depth to the characters in LotR than there is to those in the Hobbit. But from what I've read, I gather there isn't enough. The depth of characters is more appropriate for the "epic" part (as in epic poetry, such as Spenser's Faerie Queene [Sp?]) than for the "novel" part of LotR. There are plenty of ways to disagree with this. Perhaps I'm wrong about saying that characterisation isn't more sophisticated than in Hobbit? Or maybe people don't expect better characterisation in LotR than in The Hobbit? It's still quite complicated and head-ache inducing. But if you agreed with my assessment (which you probably won't), then you would probably also agree with my assertion that The Hobbit is better in the area of characterisation (because appropriate to the genre).

I can play that game for many aspects: plot, pacing, style, diction... Sometimes The Hobbit will win out, sometimes LotR. If I'm the one doing it, The Hobbit will win out more often. If I played the game, pairing off LotR against Harry Potter, LotR would win out more often (even though I enjoy HP more).

Do you see where I come from? I do think The Hobbit is a better book than the LotR, quite apart from my enjoyment. And while it's not as objective as apples falling to the ground when you drop them, it's also not as subjective as taste.

I do see where you're coming from -- and you make a lot of sense. I guess the difference is, I'm comparing the two more from a context of scope. In my opinion, it's like comparing a turkey sandwich (The Hobbit) to Thanksgiving Dinner (Lord of the Rings.) Sometimes a turkey sandwich tastes damn good, but does it compare to turkey, stuffing, potatoes, green beans, salad, roles, casseroles, desserts, hot coffee, and a nice nap afterward?

[glutton]

Bigger is not always better. Or is the Wheel of Time>LotR?

[Jamesaritchie]

Whether a given reader likes a book is subjective. Whether a book is great literature isn't. LOTR is great literature. It bores some people, thrills others, but this is not the writing, it's simply a taste gene in the reader. One gone astray, I'd say, but still a matter of taste.

But like it or hate it, it startles me when someone says it's boring, or poorly written. It's neither. It's almost frightening when I hear a reader say he hates such description, or finds such writing boring.

[glutton]

"Great literature" :rolleyes:... is often boring. Never put much stock in the term, myself.

And how can it not be subjective? It's people who deem something "great literature" or not, after all.

[JBI]

Bigger is not always better. Or is the Wheel of Time>LotR?
I like Jordan's work more than Tolkien's. Not because of the size, but because his writing has better pacing to it. Though, I would say he turned "Tolkienesque" in the last couple of volumes.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I like Jordan's work more than Tolkien's. Not because of the size, but because his writing has better pacing to it. Though, I would say he turned "Tolkienesque" in the last couple of volumes.

I find this interesting. I don't find WoT to be anywhere near as enjoyable to read as Tolkien. Personally I feel that Jordan lost control of the story several volumes ago and is writing for the sake of writing. Others may disagree. I lost interest when I read one of the books and noticed that a scene felt the same as one a hundred pages earlier. Jordan's prose is competent and he can hang a scene together but he seems to get lost in the series. He's certainly no match for Tolkien when it comes to knowledge and understanding of the English Language.

[glutton]

I couldn't tell, since I have enough trouble staying focus while reading through much of either's work.

[Death Wizard]

I find this interesting. I don't find WoT to be anywhere near as enjoyable to read as Tolkien. Personally I feel that Jordan lost control of the story several volumes ago and is writing for the sake of writing. Others may disagree. I lost interest when I read one of the books and noticed that a scene felt the same as one a hundred pages earlier. Jordan's prose is competent and he can hang a scene together but he seems to get lost in the series. He's certainly no match for Tolkien when it comes to knowledge and understanding of the English Language.

Dave, you're my hero.

[ink wench]

Hmm...I can tell you're gonna get jumped on for that, JBI...let's just say there's a touch of Emperor's New Clothes to the whole LOTR phenomenon in my opinion. As if one ought to like it and people are often embarrassed to say they don't.

Whether a story is enjoyable is a personal preference. To decide whether it is more or less important than another is also--or I would allow that it is at least an opinion.


Totally agree with both of these points. It amazes how vehement fantasy fans and writers are on this topic. I've been told before by fantasy writers (unpubbed, like me) that I can't possibly write fantasy worth reading if I don't like LOTR. :rolleyes: Never mind that the stuff I write is so very different. In fact, I'll be first to admit I might not write anything worth reading, but I doubt that has to do with whether I love or hate a particular trilogy.

[Silverhand]

See, I could totally accept something like, "Obviously it was brilliant. And, even though I know its brilliant...the style/pacing/story/etc were not for me." I would accept this outlook as something that is a fair and realistic, especially considering what these novels mean to our entire genre.

Saying that, I have no idea how any fantasy writer, regardless of which sub-genre you fall into, would not read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Yes, yes, I know you can't stomach it. My reply would be this, how many DNA scientists leave out what is considered data given to them by the forefather of their entire profession? How many baseball players (professional) have not studied the swings / style / pitches / techniques of each great before them? How many lawyers would just discard (because they dont like it) the laws that have come before them?

I say this again, it does not matter if YOU like the books or not. You could inevitably hate the frigging books...and still pull things worth learning out of them. The first, and foremost of these things, is that 70 million people have picked up these books to read. In that sense, you should read his work as a case study about writing demographics and what your consumer wants. I mean isnt a standard business practice in any profession to know thy customer...and if you write fantasy...our customers are like second-cousins to each other.

To end my little rant here, I understand we all have differing opinions....and I accept that. I don't expect another person to like or follow my tastes. In that same vein though, I want a realistic approach taken when talking about Tolkien.

/sigh :)

[JBI]

See, I could totally accept something like, "Obviously it was brilliant. And, even though I know its brilliant...the style/pacing/story/etc were not for me." I would accept this outlook as something that is a fair and realistic, especially considering what these novels mean to our entire genre.

Saying that, I have no idea how any fantasy writer, regardless of which sub-genre you fall into, would not read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Yes, yes, I know you can't stomach it. My reply would be this, how many DNA scientists leave out what is considered data given to them by the forefather of their entire profession? How many baseball players (professional) have not studied the swings / style / pitches / techniques of each great before them? How many lawyers would just discard (because they dont like it) the laws that have come before them?

I say this again, it does not matter if YOU like the books or not. You could inevitably hate the frigging books...and still pull things worth learning out of them. The first, and foremost of these things, is that 70 million people have picked up these books to read. In that sense, you should read his work as a case study about writing demographics and what your consumer wants. I mean isnt a standard business practice in any profession to know thy customer...and if you write fantasy...our customers are like second-cousins to each other.

To end my little rant here, I understand we all have differing opinions....and I accept that. I don't expect another person to like or follow my tastes. In that same vein though, I want a realistic approach taken when talking about Tolkien.

/sigh :)
Flawed argument. Dunsany, MacDonald, Morris, not to mention the hundreds of other fantastical writers before them didn't read the Lord of the Rings, and I'm pretty sure they turned out alright, thank you very much. On the notion of needing to stomach it, if you are trying to copy Tolkien's work, then follow your "idea", if you are trying to do your own work, work on your own "swing", why bother? I understand he is somewhat important to the genre, but who cares? I can write a good book without having to read a bad one.

[Death Wizard]

"I can write a good book without having to read a bad one."

Siiigggghhhh.

[glutton]

Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not Tolkien is "good" or not, I would suggest that one would be better off trying to learn by reading books written in a style similar to what they would like to write, than in a style anathema to their own.

IOW, I, for example, would be better studying the works of writers like Howard and Gemmell, who are masters of my kind of writing. Maybe Tolkien is a master, but if so he is a master of an opposite school of writing than mine. Sort of like trying to learn boxing by watching a sumo champion, that.

[Pthom]

People, people, people.

We have, in these four pages, established one thing in common: We disagree as to the importance of Tolkien's Hobbit and Ring Trilogy. Let's leave it at that. No matter how strong the argument made on one side of this issue, there will always be someone with an opposing view. I have no doubt there are more words written on this topic than we can ever produce here. And there is just as much disagreement.

Fine. There is no reason for any of us to go on the attack just because our opinions don't agree.

Earlier I made an attempt to direct this discussion away from what I believe was headed toward vitriol, by using light-hearted comments and was blamed for being a snobbish elite. I see in this thread, expressions ranging from disgust to exasperation to condescension. These expressions are becoming personal, and kids, that stuff just ain't gonna fly in this forum. Play nice in here or go elsewhere.

As far as the topic of this thread, state your opinion, read what others have to say, then move on.

Thanks. :)

[Silverhand]

/grumbles

I had this well thought out retort to JBI...and the computer didnt accept my "submit reply".

In a nutshell, we can go back as far as you want. Anything written before Tolkien, that was good, was penned without his influence....obviously. But, I don't understand why this matters? First, besides the Bible and Shakespere, none sold nearly as many copies. In fact, other than HP, no modern fantasy has sold as many copies. Secondly, what makes you think that the authors you listed aren't ALSO in my list of people you need to read as a fantasy author?

Also, working on my "swing", is not truly working on my "swing", if I discard my forefathers...simply based around my singular opinion. What it says is, "I think my skill is SO great, that even though "this or that" piece of literature has stood the test of several decades, it is not worth my time to read." That, in effect, you have nothing to learn from ONE of the masters of our trade.

Again, all I am looking for is the people who dislike Tolkien to admit his work was brilliant. And, that even though you dislike his work...you recognize the importance of it. I have no problem that you dislike it...thats simply your opinion...and I wont ostracize you for it. BUT, this outlook of, "he sucks" needs to stop. :)

[scarletpeaches]

I think this attitude of "All hail the Emperor's New Tolkien" is what needs to stop. If you like him, good. If you don't, equally good. There's no law that says you HAVE TO like/acknowledge/bow down to Tolkien.

You want people who actually don't like Tolkien to admit his work was brilliant? Never gonna happen. I'm amazed anyone could think it ever would.

Is he popular? Well, duh. Look at his sales. Look at how many people read him. But so what? I prefer to think for myself. I tried several times to read LOTR, couldn't get through it, prefer to read other things. If people don't like that, tough.

It's equally rude for those who are fans to suggest that people who don't like LOTR have something missing or to say that our judgement is skewed. No it isn't - it's a matter of opinion and as far as I'm aware, you're allowed to not like particular books.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I'm gonna throw two cents in for a moment:

Some people really like LOTR. That's fine.

Some people really can't stand LOTR. That's fine.

Now the genre of Fantasy definitely predates LOTR, people like Dunsany, Morris, Howard, Cabell and many others were writing it long before LOTR was published. What Tolkien was truly instrumental in creating was the marketing category. Fantasy is now a larger genre than SF and that popularity is largely a result of Tolkien and LOTR. Some wrote in homage, some wrote in reaction. Still, it's fairly safe to say that without the sales of LOTR, Fantasy would not have the presence it does in bookstores.

The other point I have to make is that LOTR is a masterful example of world-building. Tolkien was able to create layers of depth that made his world seem almost real. It's worth studying his work just so see how he did it.

It's the most influential single work in the genre.

Any modern Fantasy writer should at least pick it up and take a look at it even if they don't finish it.

[rugcat]

It's equally rude for those who are fans to suggest that people who don't like LOTR have something missing or to say that our judgement is skewed. No it isn't - it's a matter of opinion and as far as I'm aware, you're allowed to not like particular books.SP--

I don't believe anyone ever suggested that you're not allowed to dislike something. I simply stated my belief that whether one likes something or not is not the same as whether the work has value. I think that people who use the standard of personal taste as the sole criteria in judging the value of a particular work are, indeed, missing something.

I'm well aware that many will have the exact opposite opinion. But I don't think that expressing my beliefs is necessarily rude. Otherwise, "I think you're wrong" is by definition rude, and renders any discussion about anything a bit sterile.

This is veering away from Tolkien into something else entirely, so perhaps we should cut this particular discussion short. (Although if you would like to have the last word, feel free.)

[glutton]

Again, all I am looking for is the people who dislike Tolkien to admit his work was brilliant.

No.

Okay, there were some things good about it - like the story, hence why the story made for three great movies. :) I like some of the characters too, like Sam and Eowyn. But there's just so much fluff to dig through to find the good parts!

I can appreciate the extreme amount of time and effort Tolkien spent building his world (especially since I personally can often barely be bothered to put in minimal setting details in my work). But did that much of it need to appear in the actual book?

I think the trilogy would have been better if it had been, say, 50% shorter (rough guess, I haven't read it since high school).

I suspect that if someone wrote a book in Tolkien's style and got it published now, lots of the diehard Tolkien supporters would jump on them for doing the same kind of things he did. Or would you really raise a modern 100-page infodump on a pedestal?

[Dave.C.Robinson]

No.

Okay, there were some things good about it - like the story, hence why the story made for three great movies. :) I like some of the characters too, like Sam and Eowyn. But there's just so much fluff to dig through to find the good parts!

I can appreciate the extreme amount of time and effort Tolkien spent building his world (especially since I personally can often barely be bothered to put in minimal setting details in my work). But did that much of it need to appear in the actual book?

I think the trilogy would have been better if it had been, say, 50% shorter (rough guess, I haven't read it since high school).

I suspect that if someone wrote a book in Tolkien's style and got it published now, lots of the diehard Tolkien supporters would jump on them for doing the same kind of things he did. Or would you really raise a modern 100-page infodump on a pedestal?

I wouldn't put a 100-page infodump on a pedestal, but I also didn't find one in LOTR. I'm also going to say that it would only really be a fair comparison if the writer in question had the same command of the English language as Tolkien. You're welcome to find Tolkien boring, but LOTR is extremely well written. Tolkien had a tremendous command of the language and every word in that book does exactly what he wanted it to.

A modern book written in his style would need to be written by someone with a superlative command of the language who had spent twenty-five years working on the background behind the story, before it could be a fair comparison.

Some of the depth could have been left out and we would have had a similar story, but we wouldn't have the one he wanted to tell. Tolkien was telling a story of the end of an era. Middle-Earth was moving from the Third Age to the Fourth and without showing the depth of the Third, the reader cannot see the importance of the change. It may not resonate with particular readers, but it was there for a reason.

Oh and just to muddy the waters: I'm a huge Robert E. Howard fan.

[glutton]

Oh and just to muddy the waters: I'm a huge Robert E. Howard fan.

Deathwizard said this too. But you don't like them for the same reasons, do you? Out of curiosity, whose style is closer to the one you write in?

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Deathwizard said this too. But you don't like them for the same reasons, do you? Out of curiosity, whose style is closer to the one you write in?

You're right, I don't like them for the same reasons. I like Howard because he's such a good storyteller, Tolkien for his depth, scope and unparalleled command of language. I'm also very fond of Fritz Leiber, and even (now to SF) E.E. "Doc" Smith.

My own works tend more towards Howard than Tolkien. I love pulp fiction and so I go for that feel in my own writing. I'm writing in a different era than they were, so I try to keep my prose relatively spare.

[Death Wizard]

Deathwizard said this too. But you don't like them for the same reasons, do you? Out of curiosity, whose style is closer to the one you write in?

Glutton, that's a good question you asked Dave. I hope you don't mind my responding, as well. I would have to say that I'm much closer to Howard than to Tolkien, especially considering that I am neither a linguist by profession nor an expert in Old English heroic verse. Plus, I adore the way Howard cuts to the chase and employs such a large proportion of action versus setup. Still, if forced to choose between the two authors, I would take Tolkien hands-down, simply because LOTR is a magical, marvelous story (in my opinion) that touched my heart from the beginning.

[glutton]

Still putting the issue of quality aside, let's assume Tolkien is the absolute, greatest master of his style. Even so, if you're not planning to write in anything remotely near his style, what can you learn from him that you can't from a master of your own kind of style (in my case, Howard or Gemmell)?

Worldbuilding? Maybe, but Howard/Gemmell level worldbuilding is more than enough for me, I mostly only include setting details that are vital to the story.

Description? Again, sparse description suits my stuff best, so studying Tolkien's style does not benefit me there.

Characterization? There are plenty of other authors who are good at characterization besides Tolkien, and you don't have shift through as much of the other stuff to get to it.

Pacing? No, he may do a slow pace masterfully well but a slow pace does not suit my stuff...

So why would studying Tolkien be more beneficial to me than studying any good author who writes like I would like to?

Dave, you even said that for a modern writer to write in Tolkien's style, he would have to have a superlative command of the language and spend twenty-five years working on the background behind the story for it to be a fair comparison. So if I am planning to spend two months (or even two years) on each novel I write, and admit that my writing is nothing more than workmanlike, should I really be looking to Tolkien as a model?

[Pthom]

Folks...the foregoing discussion has had its ups and downs, eh? I don't believe I am alone in feeling a bit uncomfortable about portions of it. But perhaps I am alone in percieving those uncomfortable portions as antagonism, condescension, and outright attacks from one faction to the other. Perhaps I am wrong to believe you all incapable of dealing with it.

I closed the door on this thread for various reasons, not the least of which was haste. I could have dealt with my issues with the direction of this thread in other ways. If I've offended anyone, I apologize.

Please, continue discussing the main topic posed in the original post, to which the poll is attached. But come on, folks. Do it nicely, okay?

[Paul J. Andrew]

I personally love LOTR, although I'm not sure the poll is really the right way to judge it. People are going to have different opinions, different reading preferences (even in the fantasy genre). I don't think there is any kind of arguement to be made that Tolkien hasn't been an ENORMOUS influence on the genre, whether you personally believe his work to be the "be all end all" of fantasy or not. I know that my own love of the genre started when I was ten and picked up The Hobbit for the first time, but for someone else Earthsea could be their 'ultimate fantasy' (although I am having difficulty getting through The Farthest Shore at the moment).

BTW, I have to comment on the WOT / LOTR comparison just because I'm a fan of both. To me WOT lost its LOTR likeness after the first half of book one. It starts out similarly, friends escape from home with evil on their tail - but goes in very different directions later. After that I think it really becomes it's own beast. A big, fat, word engorged beast. But that's another thread entirely...

[Silverhand]

Still putting the issue of quality aside, let's assume Tolkien is the absolute, greatest master of his style. Even so, if you're not planning to write in anything remotely near his style, what can you learn from him that you can't from a master of your own kind of style (in my case, Howard or Gemmell)?

Worldbuilding? Maybe, but Howard/Gemmell level worldbuilding is more than enough for me, I mostly only include setting details that are vital to the story.

Description? Again, sparse description suits my stuff best, so studying Tolkien's style does not benefit me there.

Characterization? There are plenty of other authors who are good at characterization besides Tolkien, and you don't have shift through as much of the other stuff to get to it.

Pacing? No, he may do a slow pace masterfully well but a slow pace does not suit my stuff...

So why would studying Tolkien be more beneficial to me than studying any good author who writes like I would like to?

Dave, you even said that for a modern writer to write in Tolkien's style, he would have to have a superlative command of the language and spend twenty-five years working on the background behind the story for it to be a fair comparison. So if I am planning to spend two months (or even two years) on each novel I write, and admit that my writing is nothing more than workmanlike, should I really be looking to Tolkien as a model?

Maybe I am not explaining myself correctly, here.

First, I am not telling or demanding anyone here to "like" the work. I am simply asking for some objectivity. I even said, twice now, I don't expect you to like it...just admit it is what it is...and that is enormously influential. (And brilliant) hehe

As to your question: What can you learn from him, especially if his style isn't yours? Well to start he has connected with the consumer for nigh on 100 years? That in and of itself is a reason to look...because you service the same consumers he does (generally speaking). The second possibility would be: what he does and does not do in his writing. If you think his prose is too long...fair enough...but how would you know without first reading and evaluating the piece as a whole? Obviously, my point here isn't to lecture anyone on what and how to learn. But, I ask why limit yourself? Why NOT look at what those who have been excessively successful are doing? Why NOT give yourself the greatest oppuruntiy to see / learn / grow as a writer?

And, with all that said, I want to proclaim this particular point again. There are no other crafts / professions in the world where we just cast off our forefathers because we don't like their style. Usually, we study...we tweak...we improve...we study some more...we tweak...we innovate...we improve...we study some more. I mean seriously, if I didn't like Szun Tzu...does that mean he wasnt a brilliant military mind...and an outstanding author for those times? Does that mean there is nothing to learn from him? If I hated Shakespere, and found his prose lacking...does that make him or his work any less brilliant? What about Dante's Inferno? I know several people who hate that work...yet at the time..and even now...his work was considered some of the most ground breaking literature during the last, what, 300+ years?

The point is, we all have different preferences...and no one here is saying you 'have' to like Tolkien , Jordan, Paloni, Dante, etc. What I am saying is that even if you don't like them...don't cheapen their talent or achievements. Don't let personal bias for or against, obstruct objectivity when it comes to what they did...and what effect they had. Lastly, learn from them...because even the worst author can / does teach us things.

Does that explain what I have been trying to convey this entire time?

[Writer2011]

I'd rather go to the dentist than read a Lord Of The Rings or LORT (I can't STAND acronyms) or whatever they're called...

Anyways...i've tried reading them--too complicated with all the weird names and such.

[glutton]

Maybe I am not explaining myself correctly, here.

First, I am not telling or demanding anyone here to "like" the work. I am simply asking for some objectivity. I even said, twice now, I don't expect you to like it...just admit it is what it is...and that is enormously influential. (And brilliant) hehe

As to your question: What can you learn from him, especially if his style isn't yours? Well to start he has connected with the consumer for nigh on 100 years? That in and of itself is a reason to look...because you service the same consumers he does (generally speaking). The second possibility would be: what he does and does not do in his writing. If you think his prose is too long...fair enough...but how would you know without first reading and evaluating the piece as a whole? Obviously, my point here isn't to lecture anyone on what and how to learn. But, I ask why limit yourself? Why NOT look at what those who have been excessively successful are doing? Why NOT give yourself the greatest oppuruntiy to see / learn / grow as a writer?

And, with all that said, I want to proclaim this particular point again. There are no other crafts / professions in the world where we just cast off our forefathers because we don't like their style. Usually, we study...we tweak...we improve...we study some more...we tweak...we innovate...we improve...we study some more. I mean seriously, if I didn't like Szun Tzu...does that mean he wasnt a brilliant military mind...and an outstanding author for those times? Does that mean there is nothing to learn from him? If I hated Shakespere, and found his prose lacking...does that make him or his work any less brilliant? What about Dante's Inferno? I know several people who hate that work...yet at the time..and even now...his work was considered some of the most ground breaking literature during the last, what, 300+ years?

The point is, we all have different preferences...and no one here is saying you 'have' to like Tolkien , Jordan, Paloni, Dante, etc. What I am saying is that even if you don't like them...don't cheapen their talent or achievements. Don't let personal bias for or against, obstruct objectivity when it comes to what they did...and what effect they had. Lastly, learn from them...because even the worst author can / does teach us things.

Does that explain what I have been trying to convey this entire time?

I have read it (or at least, read as much as I could stand and skimmed the rest). I couldn't focus enough to really "learn" anything from it (other than "I never want to write like this").

As for Tolkien being one of my "forefathers", just because we both write what is considered part of the "fantasy" genre doesn't make me think he and I are at all akin as writers. Heck, some historical fiction writers (Steven Pressfield, Donna Gillespie) are definitely much more closely related to me than him. Probably many action-adventure/men's adventure/pulp writers as well. Now authors like Howard and Gemmell - those are the ones I count among my forefathers!

[civilian chic]

Maybe I am not explaining myself correctly, here.

First, I am not telling or demanding anyone here to "like" the work. I am simply asking for some objectivity. I even said, twice now, I don't expect you to like it...just admit it is what it is...and that is enormously influential. (And brilliant) hehe


Art in general and books in particular are the most subjective creations in the world. There are a few very basic technical aspects of literature upon which merit can be judged, but even those are tied to culture and therefore subjective.

I don't love Tolkein, but I like him, and yes, he certainly was influential. But everything that has been considered in this discussion is as subjective and open to interpretation as any other literary work.

A lot of folks agree on "good" and "crappy," but ... technical is a batter's swing: angle, velocity, spin of the ball ... those things are not subjective. "Good literature" is totally is.

[Death Wizard]

Well, this thread certainly has created its share of consternation, but I'd like to say one last thing: If you throw out the "average" votes, LOTR wins 42-14, a convincing though not overwhelming victory. If you had told me up front that 56 voters would either love it or hate it, I would have guessed, maybe, 50-6. I know this was all highly unscientific and just for fun, but I still found it interesting -- from the viewpoint of a writer of fantasy.

[scarletpeaches]

How many people who really don't like it would bother to vote though? They might look at the thread title and say, "Lord of the Rings? Meh. I'll go find another thread that interests me."

So I think it's obvious those who like it would be more willing to defend it, but those who don't like it are more likely to go elsewhere and not bother voting over a book they're not into. (I voted, BTW).

[glutton]

You gotta wonder too if some people might feel obliged to like LotR, even if it really wouldn't be their cup of tea without its "literary status". See Silverhand telling people to admit it's brilliant, even if they don't like it. Besides, the poll asks you to rate it, not say if you like it. Someone who votes "great, but there's better" or even "the very best" could very well mean "a great literary achievement, even if not my thing".

[rugcat]

How many people who really don't like it would bother to vote though? They might look at the thread title and say, "Lord of the Rings? Meh. I'll go find another thread that interests me."I didn't vote. I'm in the LOTR is a great book camp.

[ink wench]

How many people who really don't like it would bother to vote though? They might look at the thread title and say, "Lord of the Rings? Meh. I'll go find another thread that interests me."
I didn't vote because I didn't feel there was an option that captured my opinion. If it's solely whether I like it that's in question, put me in the "no" camp.

[Dawnstorm]

Heh, I loved the way the poll was phrased. Shall I do my own? Why not.

1. It's the best there is. And I do mean it. Really!
2. Good, I suppose.
3. Average.
4. Pretty boring. There's worse, though.
5. Lord of the Rings? Leave me alone!

(Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) )

[Death Wizard]

How many people who really don't like it would bother to vote though? They might look at the thread title and say, "Lord of the Rings? Meh. I'll go find another thread that interests me."

So I think it's obvious those who like it would be more willing to defend it, but those who don't like it are more likely to go elsewhere and not bother voting over a book they're not into. (I voted, BTW).

You might well be right. Like I said, it was highly unscientific. I guess the only thing it really proved is that people get riled when they talk about it!

[Death Wizard]

Heh, I loved the way the poll was phrased. Shall I do my own? Why not.

1. It's the best there is. And I do mean it. Really!
2. Good, I suppose.
3. Average.
4. Pretty boring. There's worse, though.
5. Lord of the Rings? Leave me alone!

(Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) )

At the least, I should have made the last option: Not even worth a first read.

[Dawnstorm]

At the least, I should have made the last option: Not even worth a first read.

Your enthusiasm for the book showed through. I like enthusiasm for books. Even for books I don't like myself. :)

[Death Wizard]

Your enthusiasm for the book showed through. I like enthusiasm for books. Even for books I don't like myself. :)

That's nice of you to say!