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

I tried to get through those books. But somewhere during Two Towers I got exhausted and said "Fuck it. I'll just watch the Extended Edition films". Those are pretty damn good.

I could not agree more, 60% of the books is just dudes walking places and describing what's there. It has its moments, but theres just too much damn monotony, the movies didn't help that feeling.

His writing is pretty awful in LOTR. He's way better on The Hobbit, and way worse on The Silmarillion. Thing is, the things that happen in the book expand on so much of what makes Lord of the Rings as a franchise good so that the movies can really be great, but it's pretty poorly written. Hell, a high school creative writing assignment we had was to write an excerpt of the Balin's Tomb scene better than Tolkein. Most of us did so adequately. Some exceeded expectations.

If you like the action of the LOTR or the simple plot beats, you may just wanna skip Two Towers (especially if you don't like Frodo/Sam.) The action will disappoint all the way through, though it gets better by ROTK.

I was only able to finish The Hobbit. I find it to be easily the best book set in the universe.

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

Lord of the Rings is amazing because of its richness and depth, part of that is all of those descriptions. If you weren't lazy and allowed yourself to be immersed into the world, you might start to see it. There's never been a greater work when it comes to world building.

Do you ever create a thread that doesn't just involve you complaining about shit?

He basicaly just ripped off already existing mythologies/folklore. Trolls, Orgres, Dawrves, & Elves all existed before his writing. Also Lovecraft has a better world :P

@Hellstrom said:

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

Lord of the Rings is amazing because of its richness and depth, part of that is all of those descriptions. If you weren't lazy and allowed yourself to be immersed into the world, you might start to see it. There's never been a greater work when it comes to world building.

Do you ever create a thread that doesn't just involve you complaining about shit?

He basicaly just ripped off already existing mythologies/folklore. Trolls, Orgres, Dawrves, & Elves all existed before his writing. Also Lovecraft has a better world :P

"Ripped off" is not the right phrase. "Inspired by" would be better. Have you read The Silmarillion? There are thousands of years of detailed history within Tokien's world. He created multiple working languages. There is poetry and song unique in style to different cultures. It is fucking insane.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Hellstrom said:

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

Lord of the Rings is amazing because of its richness and depth, part of that is all of those descriptions. If you weren't lazy and allowed yourself to be immersed into the world, you might start to see it. There's never been a greater work when it comes to world building.

Do you ever create a thread that doesn't just involve you complaining about shit?

He basicaly just ripped off already existing mythologies/folklore. Trolls, Orgres, Dawrves, & Elves all existed before his writing. Also Lovecraft has a better world :P

He really didn't rip off anything. As an Etymologist and History Professor of Linguistics he researched lots of different European legends and used what he thought was the most logically referential in his shaping of the prehistory of the Arthurian Legend. Lovecraft never shaped a world at all. He vaguely referred to the time of the ancients from which Cthulu sprang but Cthulu and almost all of HP's characters existed in our reality. Have you actually properly read Tolkien or Lovecraft at all?

Half of his lore is directly from Finnish, Scandinavian, & Anglo Saxon mythology. Without them his entire fictional world not exist. Even Middle Earth is basicaly Midgard.

@McGhee_the_Insomniac:

True, inspired is the better term. I agree.

You have no class, sir. The detailed descriptions are what make The Lord of the Rings books as good as they are.

@kaedeno said:

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

Absolutely, this. Only for ardent fans.

I have only read the LoTR series once, although I didn't read the last couple dozen pages of RoTK, so maybe not. When they started going off about the Shire again I sorta shrugged and put it down and never picked up back up.

I dunno. I really appreciate the books, and when they're on, they're really fucking on. But for me those parts were few and far between.

Gotta love those movies, though.

@EvilTwin said:

Try The Hobbit if you haven't. It's much more readable.

Agreed. Which is wierd because he wrote that first. You'd think he would stick with the same style of writing that made The Hobbit so successful. I still love reading Lord of The Rings however, but I see where people are coming from saying it's overly descriptive. It works most of the time for me though, because I always felt the best part about the world Tolkien created was in the detail and atmosphere, which really comes out in his long descriptions imo.

@TeamJersey said:

@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.

What exactly was wrong with The Silmarillion? I read it and I loved it. It has been a couple of years though since I read it .

There's an unsettling irony about this thread. Can't quite put my finger on it though.

Just listen to the audio drama version on CD. it has everything from the books, is decently enough acted, and it will give you whatever you feel you are missing from the books.

Also, try reading The Silmarillion. That'll really make you want to stop. I don't know if any one truly "likes" that book. haha maybe it's just me

Yup. Its hard for people to read books when they're accustomed to New Moon

Yeah you are certainly not alone in thinking that. Tolkien really was a pretty poor writer, but a very good historian and linguist. If he had someone else write the dam things they could have been some of the best books ever.

While the movies are competent, they are to the literature what Playdough is to Manet.

I completely understand how some people can find the books painful; my own experiences with The Silmarillion are equally painful. But an appreciation for Tolkien, Chesterton, Lewis, MacDonald, Dickens, and the likes is nearly critical to fully enjoy what literature has become within the last century. As others have suggested, try The Hobbit or Roverandom. And any chance I get to promote G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday is more than welcome.

I love love love The Hobbit, its one of my favorite books. I've never been able to get through an LOTR book proper, though. I could only force myself to read up to Rivendell in the first book and the back half of The Two Towers proved intolerable only a few chapters in.

I don't understand why people seem to accept for granted that Tolkien was a poor writer. Even people who defend him often will admit that point but then say "but he built such a great world" and what not. Maybe this doesn't work for people who saw the movies, but The Lord of the Rings is MASTERFULLY plotted. I can think of no better example of concurrent narratives being weaved together. When Aragorn and the riders head to confront Sauruman, only to find Merry and Pippin just hanging out and smoking pipes is great! On the other hand, when the Mouth of Sauron presents Frodo's Mithril coat and it really appears that all hope is lost.

Or look at The Council of Elrond. I love the heck out of that chapter. Tolkien takes what could be just an info dump and makes it interesting. All the different speakers, including those who speak within the accounts of those present, all have a different voice. They have unique patterns of speech, the dwarves being stern, the minions of Sauron cunning but deceptively peaceful. The contrast between the two men present, Aragorn and Boromir foreshadow the clash of cultures that will be so important as the story continues. Tolkien had an ear for dialogue that few even come close too. It was his job to think about words after all.

Tolkien will never be mistaken for the bestselling writers of today, but that is a good thing. It's a slow burn to be sure, but try to have some damn patience and learn to appreciate the writing. It's almost a shame that so many people know the plot of The Lord of The Rings from the movies, because the plot really is an incredible one. Peter Jackson and company had to simplify it for the big screen, which isn't bad, but takes away quite a bit from what made the books so special. (And he also had Aragorn fall off of a cliff and float down a river for some reason during The Two Towers. Never quite understood why that was necessary.)

Also, not that it REALLY matters, but Tolkien did not consider himself an Entomologist but a Philologist. It's a slight difference.

I don't understand why people seem to accept for granted that Tolkien was a poor writer. Even people who defend him often will admit that point but then say "but he built such a great world" and what not. Maybe this doesn't work for people who saw the movies, but The Lord of the Rings is MASTERFULLY plotted. I can think of no better example of concurrent narratives being weaved together. When Aragorn and the riders head to confront Sauruman, only to find Merry and Pippin just hanging out and smoking pipes is great! On the other hand, when the Mouth of Sauron presents Frodo's Mithril coat and it really appears that all hope is lost.

Or look at The Council of Elrond. I love the heck out of that chapter. Tolkien takes what could be just an info dump and makes it interesting. All the different speakers, including those who speak within the accounts of those present, all have a different voice. They have unique patterns of speech, the dwarves being stern, the minions of Sauron cunning but deceptively peaceful. The contrast between the two men present, Aragorn and Boromir foreshadow the clash of cultures that will be so important as the story continues. Tolkien had an ear for dialogue that few even come close too. It was his job to think about words after all.

Tolkien will never be mistaken for the bestselling writers of today, but that is a good thing. It's a slow burn to be sure, but try to have some damn patience and learn to appreciate the writing. It's almost a shame that so many people know the plot of The Lord of The Rings from the movies, because the plot really is an incredible one. Peter Jackson and company had to simplify it for the big screen, which isn't bad, but takes away quite a bit from what made the books so special. (And he also had Aragorn fall off of a cliff and float down a river for some reason during The Two Towers. Never quite understood why that was necessary.)

Also, not that it REALLY matters, but Tolkien did not consider himself an Entomologist but a Philologist. It's a slight difference.

I love the world, sort of can't stand the books.

For anyone who couldn't manage reading The Silmarillion, try Children of Hurin. It has most of the same stories, as far as I can remember, but it reads more like a novel and less like a history lesson. Much recommended.

Although I am have the opinion that "The Hobbit" is superior to the Rings in every way, I don't believe you are of the ability to criticize anything.

Also, it's a Fantasy Epic, that's how they're written, the more description the better.

@BionicRadd said:

@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.

Well, if you're ever willing to give him another chance I found Young Goodman Brown, The Birthmark and Rappaccini's Daughter pretty fun to read.

They were his short stories so maybe they're not as pretentious :P

I never got past the first 200 or so pages of the first book because of this. Granted I was a kid when I was reading them, but still, I prefer books where things actually happen

i understand how you feel. i had the same issues while trying to read his stories. i couldn't will myself to finish the first LOTR book.

I like the LOTR books and how Tolking makes it all seem so real. But even though I'm a fan, I must say that the books are quite heavy to read. Took me years to get through them, the first was best and did not take so long to get through, the second and third took much more time to get through. But I did enjoy them all.

Just like other people already suggested, try The Hobbit!!!

I've read it three times, maybe I should read it again, before the movie comes out. The book is fantastic and I know that the movie will be too!