Classics: LOTR - JRR Tolkien

[Beck]

Incoming arguments with Bre

Second on the list is the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. For the sake of this I will try giving them a go again but I can't promise I won't skip parts

I found these incredibly hard to read, very long winded and over explained. You know I just don't care about that tree enough to hear about it for a page I did love the stories though so I'll try again.

[Bre]

I'm not going to argue that these are good books. They are my least favorite Tolkien books. I felt he put way too much detail into unnecessary things which is weird because The Hobbit and The Silmarillion weren't like that if I'm remembering right. Of course the story and characters are amazing but I don't think I'd recommend the books.

[Beck]

I remember you arguing that a few years ago! I'll start with Fellowship and see how far I get

[Shaun]

They are still a decent read. The storytelling could be better but the actual story is still there and well worth reading.

[Loz]

I'm sorry but I do not have the patience to read a 12 page description of a stick The story is clearly there yes because I do really like the movies (apart from Frodo related bitching and moaning and whinging etc) but I have tried to read the books twice and given up

[Shaun]

So skip the tedious bits

[Bre]

That's what I do. I think the story and characters alone give the series a place in the classics and without it there wouldn't be a lot of great fantasy stories we have now, including Harry Potter. So I think it's worth reading, but the tediousness of it would be the reason I wouldn't recommend it to someone who wants a fun read.

[Loz]

Alright. I will try. Again. Maybe it will be three times a charm (I highly doubt it though ).

[Boju!]

I have read these LOTR nerd-trash. Half-decent story. Worst writing ever (ok second to bible).
For a vaguely similar universe thats a million times better (story and writing) see wheel of time series by Robert Jordan.

[Forsaken]

Well, I'm not going to read it again but I've read through them twice so I think that should do. I realize that it's the books were addressing but I'm afraid that I can't help somewhat referencing the Peter Jackson movies.

I agree with many that they are too long winded but that was also the time it was written in. You also need to remember that he's a history teacher (or was it english teacher) and that material can be surprisingly dry.

The story was of course fabulous, and you have got to give him kudos for effectively building the fantasy genre from scratch. The amount of time, research and effort that went into these books is clearly significant. He created several languages for the different races for crying out loud.

I always found Frodo to be a little bitch, and boring on top that. Sam and the other hobbits were only slightly better.

Tolkien is not well known for writing women, with good reason. However, this may also be in part because of the time when the books were written. I was happy to see that characters like Arwen, Galadrial and Éowyn were developed at least a little further in the movies. It is interesting to note though that even in the books the only character capable of killing the Wraith king is Éowyn, a women.

Aragorn/Strider was I think perhaps the most interesting character. He's a hero, but in some ways a reluctant one that eventually steps up. He defines man in the series and somewhat exemplifies that which all man would want to be. Boromir was in many ways a dark reflection of Aragorn. I particularly enjoy the tragic nature of his character.

I never really enjoyed Gollum in the books although I do have a friend that always tried to convince me he was the best character. However, I found I gained a new understanding of him in the movies and that makes me appreciate him more over all and really see the depth of the character that Tolkien created in his books.

Legolas (and all the elves to some extent) are too perfect for my taste and that combined with their arrogance always left me feeling a bit put off by them. Oddly, I found myself having a bit more respect for them in the movies as well. Conversely, I've always been found of dwarves (to the point where I have a dwarven army in a table top strategy game and often choose to play dwarves in role playing games). I think in some part that comes from Gimli. It is just too bad that Tolkien treats dwarves somewhat as comedy relief in his books.

Finally, Gandalf as the personification of wisdom is probably many peoples favorite character. He's certainly mine, although I somewhat attribute that to the fact that I first read the books at a very young and susceptible age. Still, in many ways Tolkien stole this arch-type from previous mythology more then any other. His resemblance to Merlin, Odin and even Santa Claus meant that there was much challenge to get readers to like him.

Sauron was more or less perfect as the embodiment of evil. The Nazgul as the embodiment of corrupted souls.

Well that covers characters. I got a little long winded myself perhaps. Maybe it was Tolkien's influence.

[Beck]

No its great, yay for discussion already

Jan 24, 2011 19:19:24 GMT 10 Forsaken said:

Well, I'm not going to read it again but I've read through them twice so I think that should do. I realize that it's the books were addressing but I'm afraid that I can't help somewhat referencing the Peter Jackson movies.

Yeah I think everyone does it even when reading the books now, kind of gives an idea of what to skip and whether it would be really bad to skip a few pages here or there

I agree with many that they are too long winded but that was also the time it was written in. You also need to remember that he's a history teacher (or was it english teacher) and that material can be surprisingly dry.

He wrote it during WWII after writing the much more concise The Hobbit so I don't know about that being the reason. I think he just got carried away with the story, really pictured it in his mind. I just wish he'd kept some of it in his mind - I like to be able to imagine for myself a lot

The story was of course fabulous, and you have got to give him kudos for effectively building the fantasy genre from scratch. The amount of time, research and effort that went into these books is clearly significant. He created several languages for the different races for crying out loud.

The languages are cool, I love that he did that. The songs that pepper the books not so much, he could have left those out

I always found Frodo to be a little bitch, and boring on top that. Sam and the other hobbits were only slightly better.

See Bre - no one but you likes Frodo!! I loved Sam though, he was a great hero and balanced out some of Frodo's whinginess. I spent the entire 3 books and 3 movies wanting someone to knock Frodo into Mount Doom along with the ring

Tolkien is not well known for writing women, with good reason. However, this may also be in part because of the time when the books were written. I was happy to see that characters like Arwen, Galadrial and Éowyn were developed at least a little further in the movies. It is interesting to note though that even in the books the only character capable of killing the Wraith king is Éowyn, a women.

I agree in the books they weren't given anywhere near as much depth as in the movies. That was ok though by me.

Aragorn/Strider was I think perhaps the most interesting character. He's a hero, but in some ways a reluctant one that eventually steps up. He defines man in the series and somewhat exemplifies that which all man would want to be. Boromir was in many ways a dark reflection of Aragorn. I particularly enjoy the tragic nature of his character.

Never really thought of it that way but I see that

Legolas (and all the elves to some extent) are too perfect for my taste and that combined with their arrogance always left me feeling a bit put off by them. Oddly, I found myself having a bit more respect for them in the movies as well. Conversely, I've always been found of dwarves (to the point where I have a dwarven army in a table top strategy game and often choose to play dwarves in role playing games). I think in some part that comes from Gimli. It is just too bad that Tolkien treats dwarves somewhat as comedy relief in his books.

Aww I love Legolas He and Gimli together are fabulous, by far the best relationship in the books (yes even though its a platonic one )

Tolkien created a lot great characters, even the ones in it less he gave a lot of thought to. And I love that the maps are in the books.

[Lizzie]

I have only read the first one, and it was for uni (before I started education). It was alright. I remember skipping the songs, but enjoying the descriptions of the family (not the trees, or the sticks...). I really like the movie though, PJ did a fantastic job of condensing the huge story.