Trying to read the Lord of the Ring books and I have to say...

I didn't really have a problem with the descriptions, I thought they helped paint the picture very nicely. 
 
Couldn't stand them in the books that weren't part of the main storyline like the Simarillion and the "Tales from Middle Earth"(? Not sure on the English title) where I thought he went abroad to the point where it just became boring, but that was probably because there was no real focus in these books so not a lot of things happen.

You guys don't have much love for classic literature do you?

You've just pinned down the reason why I never finished Two Towers.

@EvilTwin: Agreed.

Also, OP if you don't like The Lord of the Rings, don't ever read The Silmarillion. I, personally, really love the series, but even I have limits.

The Silmarillion is that limit.

Yo, books are long. Don't bother with that shit, just watch the movies.

@Kaineda77 said:

I remember the beginning being pretty nerdy, with all of the hobbit descriptions, but apart from that, I liked it all. It makes it feel like a very rich world.

And please - the movies are competent, but with all the stuff they had to leave out and all the strange decisions they made in changing the story they don't come close to the books.

Yeah man like Tom Bombadil who.....oh wait he was completely useless in the book and wasn't missed at all from the movie's storyline.

@Meowshi said:

I made it halfway through The Two Towers before I gave it up. I just couldn't take it anymore. He spends so much time describing nature and these fictional cultures, but the plot never fucking advances. The characters never talk. There's no inner conflict. It's just 40 fucking pages describing the etching on a Hobbit's door. I don't care! I don't care, damnit! Once I realized that the two Hobbits were going to be talking to the trees for another chapter, I closed the book and never opened it again.

I liked the Hobbit, and love the movies, but these books just aren't for me.

Ho-frakkin-hum I'm with you that's when I stopped as well

I don't think most of you checked the name of the OP before responding, and I'll just leave it at that.

I read them when I was nine, I had no complaints. I keep meaning to go back and read them again but still haven't found the time. That universe was captivating as a child and I still have a strong fondness for LOTT.

The books were written in the 1950's. Attention spans and tastes were different back then. Today's books that are successful (for younger people at least) are written to be like movies or video games: Quick and visceral. I loved the books to death, but as time passes they be approached more and more like Shakespeare; no longer in with the style of the times, but culturally significant nonetheless.

I can understand Jay's whining for once. There is a lot of minutia about Middle-Earth's history and going off into a song and whatnot in the books that can be both dry and tiresome. When the movies first came out and friends of mine were picking up the books and bitching about this I'd usually advice them to give the Belgariad a read instead if they still had a fantasy itch to try out. It's a great world and story as well, but immensely more gratifying of a read at an earlier pace than LOTR ever was in my opinion.

Although I only read pretty much nonfiction, Tolkien's books are the only fantasy books (although RR Martin is okay) that really captured my imagination. Mind you this was several decades ago.

Tried a couple other authors, if you want shallow uninspired tripe it's a dime a dozen. Some people love that stuff though, more power to them.

I read them in high school... I remember liking them, but really can't remember much about them... Hmm.

I would humbly speculate that despite the fact that Tolkien's books were essential for the inception of the fantasy genre, he was not at all going for the same appeal that other fantasy writers attempt to create.

I speak as someone who has read the LOTR trilogy but admittedly never had any interest in any other work within the fantasy genre. Nevertheless, as I understand it most fantasy places emphasis on reader immersion and what is sometimes clumsily called escapism, allowing the reader to abandon the very framework of his reality for an alternate one, thus stimulating him by simultaneously permitting him to think in new patterns and to forget about his real life situation for a while. That's not at all what I feel like Tolkien was trying to do.

There are two main attitudes that seem to have motivated him: First, the way he uses allegory betrays his political values but let's not get deeper into that. More interestingly for this discussion, his style and pacing betrays he was a kind of literary reactionary; he wants to evoke the feelings one gets from reading the Iliad and the Odyssey (consider that Tolkien originally divided LOTR in two volumes), or the Song of Roland or Beowulf. He tried to write an epic.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the fact that one likes fantasy is no guarantee - and perhaps not even an indication - that one will enjoy Tolkien, because what he wrote really isn't fantasy. The movies are fairly traditional fantasy, however, so if you saw them first you're liable to go in with the wrong expectations.

I'm not saying he is a great author (I thought some passages were really poorly written), just that the perceived dreariness of his books is not due to a failure on his part.

In Return of the King there's a solid chapter spent learning the family history of a character that you never see again.

I read them once a year.

Just put them down, they are long-winded as fuck. I bought the box set after fellowship came out. All three books are exactly as you described. Maybe people in the 60s had more patience as there wasn't (that much) tv, video games, ipods, internet, cell phones, or the culture of instant gratification but these books are coma-inducing in their boringness. I don't want to read every single character bursting out in song every twenty pages!

Tolkien was a world builder first and story teller second.

I read the first book, and a little more than half of the second one maybe...11 years ago?

Jay just wants books with single clause sentences the whole way though. "This is Jay. He likes eggs. He once went to a shop. He bought eggs."

Also you saying someone needs an editor? You can't write for shit.

I read the books once. Never wanted to read them ever again. I instead decided to read the Malazan Book of the Fallen because it was better but even that jumped off. That's when I knew that I hated fantasy because fantasy is dumb.

@AlexW00d said:

Jay just wants books with single clause sentences the whole way though. "This is Jay. He likes eggs. He once went to a shop. He bought eggs."

Also you saying someone needs an editor? You can't write for shit.

Coming from my fanclub of haters, I will take that as a grain of salt from my hate group who knows nothing about me.

@kaedeno said:

If you think LotR is bad, try The Silmarillion. That shit will sunder your soul.

Haha yah I never could finish that book.

but, but, but I need to hear more songs as they prepare for their 3rd brunch!

LOTR, at least the books, are all about tone and setting. If the prospect of a two page description of a summer day in the Shire doesn't sound appealing, LOTR isn't for you. If you just want epic battles and orcs being slayed, the work of R.A. Salvatore might be more for you. Assuming you're looking for fantasy.

@Pinworm45: You should see German, we got commas for days... half a page, one sentence.

He was a very inefficient writer. I've never been able to make it deep into fellowship, but I know some people love it

Yeah I really can't stand Tokien as a writer. He crafted a cool world but holy fuck... I'd rather watch paint dry then read his prose.

@AlexW00d said:

Jay just wants books with single clause sentences the whole way though. "This is Jay. He likes eggs. He once went to a shop. He bought eggs."

Also you saying someone needs an editor? You can't write for shit.

Coming from my fanclub of haters, I will take that as a grain of salt from my hate group who knows nothing about me.

I can shave down your post to a sentence: J.R.R Tolkien is so overly descriptive that I cannot enjoy the book

I read them when I was about 13, and I remember Fellowship being really slow to get going. I seem to remember that the pace picked up, but it might just have been me getting used to it.

I can't remember if I posted in this thread already. I liked The Hobbit and the other Lord of the Rings books that I read, made it up to halfway through Return of the King and then I went to watch the movie :P

I don't think his writing is bad at all. It's just that I was like...14ish so I was a jerk and didn't feel like reading the book anymore now that there was a movie on it lol.

I respect everything Tolkien did for the genre...but yeah, I read the trilogy once and I'm not planning on doing it again.

@wafflez said:

He was a very inefficient writer. I've never been able to make it deep into fellowship, but I know some people love it

To be fair, I don't think the foremost goal of a writer is usually efficiency :/

Tolkien is really, really good if you have the patience to really take it all in and think about the themes and let the world soak in. IMO, it has the most intellectual merit of the whole genre and that's why it holds up as classic literature. If you want to fly through it and do a surface level reading of it, I could see how many of the newer stories could seem better. They read smoother and dangle a carrot often to keep you reading (can be more entertaining). Also, I don't think Tolkien is very inefficient at all. Take the Silmarillon, it's like 400 some pages and is very dense with actual story. In fact they took one chapter and expanded it into a 320-page retelling (Children of Hurin). the whole Lord of the rings Trilogy is ~1100 pages. A lot of stuff happens. Many of the newer books in the genre like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time, Name of the Wind are around 800-1000 pages for each book in the series and you're lucky to have major plot points advance.

The Hobbit was pretty enjoyable. But you're totally right. And I don't get the argument that his obsessive descriptiveness made the books any better. You can say a lot with a few perfectly chosen words. Tolkien preferred to say a lot about everything, and what he produced was essentially a literal description of a painting. It's too bad, because what he was describing was wonderfully imaginative, he just didn't think his audience was it seems.

@mazik765 said:

@wafflez said:

He was a very inefficient writer. I've never been able to make it deep into fellowship, but I know some people love it

To be fair, I don't think the foremost goal of a writer is usually efficiency :/

That's true. But being efficient forces you to get at the heart of the matter. A good, succinct description let's the reader imagine the entirety of the thing described, literally and figuratively. Long-windedness just makes readers get lost and usually just reveals the parts of the picture you described.

@kaedeno said:

If you think LotR is bad, try The Silmarillion. That shit will sunder your soul.

Yeah, that book single handedly made me never read another book ever again. That's not true, but it was seriously the most tedious thing I ever attempted to read ever. And I fucking LOOOVE all the backstory to Middle-Earth. I just think I prefer it summarised in a couple of paragraphs than some Old Testament-esque list of Flurin begat Murin begat Zapurin began Jodhovin, and then Jodhovin rode king of horses Calebroth to the city of Sepus-Whateverthefuckith.

Love the story, hate the writing.

@kaedeno said:

If you think LotR is bad, try The Silmarillion. That shit will sunder your soul.

Yep, I bought that book 6 years ago and I only read the first chapter. Loved LOTR and the Hobbit, but man, Silmarillion is damn near impossible to get into.

@EvilTwin: Agreed.

Also, OP if you don't like The Lord of the Rings, don't ever read The Silmarillion. I, personally, really love the series, but even I have limits.

The Silmarillion is that limit.

Remember, it was those books that set the formula for a huge number of modern fantasy universes. What nowadays seems commonplace, unremarkable, and extraneous when described to the lengths Tolkien goes to, is, in my mind at least, the thing that gives The Lord of the Rings such an enduring influence on the fantasy genre.

Tolkien wasn't really a writer he was a linguist. He created an entire languages and their written forms. I honestly love his books they might not be for everyone, but you can't say they aren't good. His books aren't about fighting and battles and legolas taking down an oliphant, those are just events that happen around the actual story.

@kaedeno said:

If you think LotR is bad, try The Silmarillion. That shit will sunder your soul.

I've read the trilogy and hobbit two or three time each. The Silmarillion broke me and I couldn't finish it.

lord of the rings is a travel manual with an epic fantasy inside it

@bearshamanbro said:

Tolkien is really, really good if you have the patience to really take it all in and think about the themes and let the world soak in. IMO, it has the most intellectual merit of the whole genre and that's why it holds up as classic literature. If you want to fly through it and do a surface level reading of it, I could see how many of the newer stories could seem better. They read smoother and dangle a carrot often to keep you reading (can be more entertaining). Also, I don't think Tolkien is very inefficient at all. Take the Silmarillon, it's like 400 some pages and is very dense with actual story. In fact they took one chapter and expanded it into a 320-page retelling (Children of Hurin). the whole Lord of the rings Trilogy is ~1100 pages. A lot of stuff happens. Many of the newer books in the genre like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time, Name of the Wind are around 800-1000 pages for each book in the series and you're lucky to have major plot points advance.

Stuff does not happen, what does happen is a world building. Tolkein was more interested in creating a world with elves, hobits and ents then he was with actually doing anything. The thing is he has a habit of taking too long with the world building and going too quickly through the epic fantasy, its not particularly readable and I dont think Tolkien cared if it was, he just wanted his world on paper

Tolkien managed in ~1000 pages what George R. R. Martin hasn't in 5. For that alone I respect him.

I liked The Hobbit, but I thought the others were dreadfully boring. Even compared to the works of Herman Melville and that crazy Kate Chopin. And Mary Shelley (actually, I loved Frankenstein). And Ray Bradbury. And Edgar Allan Poe. And Nathaniel Hawthorne. And Arthur Miller (the only guy to ever put long descriptions smack dab in the middle of plays (that I know of)). Basically, Tolkien was just another overrated author who had the potential to be great but failed. Fortunately, his potential translated well to the big screen :D

I read the Lord of the Rings when I was 12 and loved all three. The Fellowship of the Ring goes to great lengths to describe everything within the world and I believe that it is brilliant, however, I could certainly see how that could feel a little excessive for some. I do think that The Two Towers and Return of the King have a lot more plot progression and they move more quickly so I would say that Fellowship could be seen as overly descriptive, but I think that the other two describe the world just enough while painting one of the greatest fantasy stories of all time. George R.R. Martin's books are fantastic, but I would say that they are far more tedious to read if you are simply trying to trudge through the story. There are very few stories that have created worlds so believable and Tolkien's writing and very long descriptions are a lot of what allowed that world to be fully realized.

I think this is a rare case in which the movie is better than the book.

A lot is owed to Tolkien, and many of the issues people have with his writing style is a combination of the times when he wrote (expectations in regards to narrative have changed significantly over the last hundred year), as well as the fact that a great deal of early fantasy was written in exacting detail as people (the authors included) were establishing how alternate worlds actually worked.

Modern fantasy authors can rely on a lot of assumed knowledge with their works, as audiences are now so familiar with the tropes of the fantasy genre.

In saying all that, however...Tolkien was not a fantastic storyteller, and was rapidly surpassed by many other authors who built off his ideas.

So yeah, he is owed a lot and was an amazing world builder, and deserves respect for that, but the Lord of the Rings wouldn't even make my Top 20 when it came to fantasy novels.

Fellowship is really guilty of the overdescription stuff. The other two are far better.

@Still_I_Cry said:

@BionicRadd said:

This thread sounds like me when I tell people why I hate Nathaniel Hawthorne.

How dare you D:

hahaha. Sorry, man. I read Scarlet Letter for AP English in High School and about half a chapter of Seven Gables and I just hate the way we writes. Even in High School, I thought that guys was pretentious as hell.

I. Will. Hurt. You.