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

Death Wizard · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

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

rugcat · May 17, 2007

deathwizard said:
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

There 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 · May 17, 2007

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

scarletpeaches · May 17, 2007

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

newmod · May 17, 2007

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

Christ you were getting through it faster than I was!

dclary · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

dclary said:
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 · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
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 · May 17, 2007

deathwizard said:
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 · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

Oddsocks said:
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 · May 17, 2007

deathwizard said:
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 · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
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 · May 17, 2007

Oddsocks said:
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 · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

glutton said:
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 · May 17, 2007

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 · May 17, 2007

Oddsocks said:
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 · May 17, 2007

Tallymark said:
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 · May 17, 2007

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!

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

Rate Lord of the Rings (the books)

The best there is, period.

Way up there, but there's better.

Average.

Kind of weak, to be truthful.

Not even worth a second read.

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Company Man

Lost in the Fog

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Unabashed Mercenary

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Unabashed Mercenary

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Unabashed Mercenary

Unabashed Mercenary

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Tumhe na koci puujetha