Lord Qwerty Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I love 'The Hobbit'. I really, really do. I think it was the first great modern fantasy novel. But his other stuff (Including the Lord of the Rings) bores me to death. His characters are unrealistic and I wish he had a much more personal style when writing, like Zelazny or Martin. And there aren't many twists and none that really make me think. He writes lika historian, not like a... well, a WRITER. I can SEE why most people like him, but still... I feel like the only one who is SIMPLY bored to death. He's very detailed, but it's not the sort of details I enjoy. He never gets me excited. People do things not because they have long-harbored ambitions or any real longings, but because the silly magic ring is telling them. And no, I do NOT think Gandalf is cool. He's a bloody deus ex machina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colder Hands Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I love 'The Hobbit'. I really, really do. I think it was the first great modern fantasy novel. But his other stuff (Including the Lord of the Rings) bores me to death. His characters are unrealistic and I wish he had a much more personal style when writing, like Zelazny or Martin. And there aren't many twists and none that really make me think. He writes lika historian, not like a... well, a WRITER. I can SEE why most people like him, but still... I feel like the only one who is SIMPLY bored to death. He's very detailed, but it's not the sort of details I enjoy. He never gets me excited. People do things not because they have long-harbored ambitions or any real longings, but because the silly magic ring is telling them. And no, I do NOT think Gandalf is cool. He's a bloody deus ex machina. i agree with you 100%, i can see why peeps like it. just not how i roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebenstone Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 See I like him as a writer but dislike him as a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Qwerty Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 See I like him as a writer but dislike him as a person. Apparently Ser, we are destined to meet on the battlefield... Have at you!! :fence: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zahir al Daoud Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 To each their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emberling Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I also feel much like the OP does. LOTR is an enjoyable read for the most part, but no moreso than any other book that fails to suck. The extremely dry writing is counteracted by the extremely rich world, but we've seen so many knockoffs by now that that simply doesn't provide the level of enjoyment that it once might have. They are the most influential books in fantasy and really a must-read, but the actual enjoyment provided by said reading is nothing to write home about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Ay, Tolkien is definately overrated, and it could have done with some good editing. His world isn't even that complex, so I don't know why people say it is but yeah, LoTR to me was a book that was a lot better in retrospect. Not much compares to his prose though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I like his writing, but I strongly disagree with his central theme. The way that the elves, Gandalf and everyone else who is wise considers appropriate involves doing something extremely counterintuitive and then counting on an accident to save your ass (and in the book, the accident happens, of course). Not a good policy to follow in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artanaro Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I can SEE why most people like him, but still... I feel like the only one who is SIMPLY bored to death. He's very detailed, but it's not the sort of details I enjoy. He never gets me excited. People do things not because they have long-harbored ambitions or any real longings, but because the silly magic ring is telling them. HE"S A WITCH!!!!!!!! BURN HIM BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Artanaro P.S. I like Zelazny too for the record, but if anyone says Lord of Light is easier to read than Lord of the Rings, I'm hunting you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merentha Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I am going to disagree with the trend of this thread, and say that I really enjoyed his work. The style of writing, the rich, epic descriptions, and the whole wonder of the world are actually very different from current books, who focus on personal characterization, rather than the broad, 'historical' sense you got from Tolkien. Tomorrow, when I steal my books back from my sister, I shall quote my favorite set of lines in any series, ever. So, no real reason to disagree with you, and not trying to start any argument. Just saying I do like the writing (and frankly, did not like Zelazny's). An interesting dynamic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Easier to read? Probably not. It does not follow chronological order and it took me a while to figure out what's going on. But easier to re-read? Absolutely. Lord of Light is one of the very few books which I can re-read indefinitely. Over and over and over again. I come back to every once in a while. LotR is not quite like that -- I can re-read it, but not for long and not often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurktan Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 His world isn't even that complex, so I don't know why people say it is. If you could, I'd ask you to explain this comment please as in, explain why you think it isn't as complex as some make it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Tolkien is my all-time favourite author, and I personally think The Silmarillion is the best book ever written. I like his writing, but I strongly disagree with his central theme. The way that the elves, Gandalf and everyone else who is wise considers appropriate involves doing something extremely counterintuitive and then counting on an accident to save your ass (and in the book, the accident happens, of course). Not a good policy to follow in the real world. Destroying the Ring is only counterintuitive if you regard rejection of power as counterintuitive. Certainly, from the perception of Sauron or Saruman, attempting to destroy the Ring would make no sense - why destroy the most poweful weapon in Middle-earth? Yet it was precisely this reasoning that enabled Sauron to be defeated - had Sauron even for a moment thought that his enemies would consider destroying the Ring, the Quest would have failed utterly. As for Gollum's fall, it is the outcome of Frodo and Sam showing mercy. Gollum was only there because he had been spared by the hobbits, who spared him not because of ulterior motives, but because showing mercy was the "right thing to do". Indeed the Quest as a whole is based on "doing the right thing"; the good guys know that logically the whole thing has no chance (such a realisation contributed to Denethor's fatal depression), but it was morally better than wielding the Ring and just ending up with another Dark Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multaniette Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Zelazny, Martin and Tolkien are three very different authors and I love all of them. I wonder where that puts me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isis Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I like his writing, but I strongly disagree with his central theme. The way that the elves, Gandalf and everyone else who is wise considers appropriate involves doing something extremely counterintuitive and then counting on an accident to save your ass (and in the book, the accident happens, of course). Not a good policy to follow in the real world. His central theme is what, in your opinion? What is counterintuitive? What accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barry Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Maybe there is a spectrum because I love LOTR and The Hobbit but would attribute your complaints to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales etc... I find them dense and very, very hard to read. I don't honestly give a shit where the elves came from and who Finger son of Fangor son of Frostie the Snowman is but I guess it does add to my enjoyment of LOTR that it is all underpinned by this amazing feat of imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brys Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I agree with the OP - Tolkien's strengths certainly didn't include his actual writing, and most histories I've read are a lot more interesting and better written than the Fellowship of the Ring. I admire Tolkien for the depth of his worldbuilding, but I think he was pretty weak at actually telling a story. Lord of the Rings was a pretty basic story with very little new in it, but it was there to show off the world he's created. That's why I prefer the Silmarillion, because it plays much better on Tolkien's strength. LotR, on the other hand, is filled with deus ex machinas and a pretty boring, unsuspenseful plot. Ok, it's a lot better than those who copied him, but I definitely don't see him as near the top of fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mon43 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I loved LOTR when i was a kid, but find it unreadable now, get 3/4 of the way through Fellowship and lose interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isis Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I think he would have been dismayed to think that anyone would attribute D&D to him. I don't get what is so hard to understand about not using the one Ring? It was made by the second most evil being ever known in the history of Middle-earth, it belonged to Sauron and anybody who sought to use it would only end up serving his purpose in the end. Tolkien was saying something about the use of Power. That much power (the Ring) would be too much for anybody to control, even the strongest or wisest. Even though the Wise could get 'the most use' out of the One, they know they could never use it. Nobody was meant to have that much power in their hands. If anyone has read Morgoth's Ring then they could comment on the 'release of power' at the destruction of the One, whic MM refers to. I've only read the first two HoME books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Clegane Has a Posse Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I wish Tolkien would have given a little more attention to the battle scenes. Example from the Hobbit: Bilbo: Oh, my head... Gandalf: Dude, you totally missed it! Hordes of goblins and Wargs fighting the elves and men! Then the dwarves started kicking ass and right when it seemed all was lost, the eagles came and totally helped save the day! Bilbo: Oh. Cool. Is Thorin all right? Gandalf: Oh, he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.