62% Person of lie about having read classic books

[Sansa_Stark]

Is LOTR even worth reading if you have read some modern fantasy? I already know what happens because of the movies and I always thought older stuff was a little outdated.

[LordStoneheart]

Is LOTR even worth reading if you have read some modern fantasy? I already know what happens because of the movies and I always thought older stuff was a little outdated.

I believe that is like asking if watching Star Wars is worth it because we have Eragon. :drunk:

[gordonah]

I’ve read all of them except A Passage to India. To be honest, up to about 10 years ago (in my early thirties), I’d only read Lord of the Rings (possibly my favorite book) and To Kill A Mockingbird, which I was made to read in school, but did enjoy.

I’ve mentioned before that the BBC’s Big Read list prompted me to read a bit more of the classic (books that are old and popular). The only one I didn’t enjoy at all was Catcher in the Rye, it just seemed to be about a privileged teenager whining. I also didn’t engage in the main protagonist in Crime and Punishment.

I enjoyed all the others, but I do think War and Peace is overlong. There are a number of sections where it wanders off on a tangent and talks through his thought on some topic or other, while not actually moving the plot or characters along at all.

[thecryptile]

I'm kind of surprised that not every one on this forum has read the Lord of the Rings...

Me too- and I'm even more surprised that so many think Jackson's movies are a suitable substitute. It's like someone taking "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" as a stand in for a well researched biography such as Miller's "President Lincoln".

Is LOTR even worth reading if you have read some modern fantasy? I already know what happens because of the movies and I always thought older stuff was a little outdated.

You know what happens in Peter Jackson's movies- not what happens in JRR Tolkien's books. There are more differences between Jackson & Tolkien than there are between ASOIAF and GoT.

And how do you know the "older stuff" is "outdated" if you've never read it? Try the vegetables- they're good for you, and you might even like them.

[wolverine]

Is LOTR even worth reading if you have read some modern fantasy? I already know what happens because of the movies and I always thought older stuff was a little outdated.

I am not a big LOTR fan, but I can't believe that was just asked in such a way. Believing old sci-fi/fantasy is outdated and thus not worth reading is a pretty naive opinion that I may have had myself at one point.

[Shryke]

I'd say LOTR is one of the least outdated fantasy books out there. Not because I think it's the best (I'm not really a fan) but because, for all people complain about other fantasy "copying LOTR", none of them really do. I mean, you've got your direct plot ripoffs like Sword of Shannara, but nothing that came after it really wrote in the same way or style imo. It's still fairly unique and at least worth a try. It's not gonna read or feel like a modern fantasy novel though. That's not bad, it's just different. (the bad is the other stuff in there :P)

[maarsen]

So I should go back and read the end? I quit with about 100 pages left.

Yes.

[Alhazred]

Is LOTR even worth reading if you have read some modern fantasy?

I think so.

I already know what happens because of the movies and I always thought older stuff was a little outdated.

The movies were rather poor, IMHO. I don't know what you mean by "outdated".

[Fredward]

^ Best adaptation of a book-to-movie yet if you think rewards mean anything.

Aaand I actually read two of those! Well four, if you count LotR as three different books. I read A Catcher in the Rye because a friend said I reminded him of the protagonist. I didn't see the similarity. :P

[Alhazred]

^ Best adaptation of a book-to-movie yet if you think rewards mean anything.

Um ... maybe "I don't think reward means anything", though I'm unsure because I have no idea what you mean. Profits?

In my view, the Jackson films are a poor adaptation. It's virtues derive from a certain degree of faithfulness to the books. It's flaws derive from alterations made in the process of adaptation. By which I do not mean that adaptor should not adapt. It is merely that, in Jackson's case, all his new ideas are crude and idiotic.

The films are filled with cringe-inducing idiotic moments, which kill suspension of disbelief. One of my favorite horrible moments is a scene where the city of Minas Tirith is under seige. In the film (as in the books) this city has a series of concentric city walls, each of which the invaders must pass through. The seige is not a surprise. It has been expected for some time. In the book, most of the women and children had been evacuated before the seige, and those that remained were working in the hospital ward within the innermost parts of the city. In both book and film, eventually comes a moment when the enemy succeeds in smashing the outermost gate and breaking into the seventh, outermost ring of the city.

In the film, at the gate smashes open, and the enemy start poring in, Gandalf suddenly calls out "evacuate the women and children!" and we see women carrying babies running screaming around in the outermost city ring. And you think "Huh? What? Why did not they think of this, and stroll on upstairs to (at least) the sixth ring, BEFORE the outer gate was smashed? That way, the defenders in the 7th ring could focus on fighting the enemy rather than being baby-sitters and escorts."

The films are full of painful moments like this, and when they occur, it is invariably true that the books were different.

Again, it does not bother me per se that the film is different. It does not bother me that, in the film (unlike the book) they did not have time to evacuate women and children to a place outside the city. But what the hell are they doing in the outermost ring just as orcs and trolls are pouring in?? Did they hope to slow down the enemy by throwing babies at them?

[thecryptile]

Um ... maybe "I don't think reward means anything", though I'm unsure because I have no idea what you mean. Profits?

I think he means "awards" instead of "rewards" and is referring to the Academy Awards etc.

I realize that Tolkien isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, and admit that The Fellowship of the Ring is boring at times... but if you can handle Sansa's chapters in ASOIAF you can handle The Long Expected Party.

[Shryke]

Um ... maybe "I don't think reward means anything", though I'm unsure because I have no idea what you mean. Profits?

In my view, the Jackson films are a poor adaptation. It's virtues derive from a certain degree of faithfulness to the books. It's flaws derive from alterations made in the process of adaptation. By which I do not mean that adaptor should not adapt. It is merely that, in Jackson's case, all his new ideas are crude and idiotic.

Nah, the films have tons of tweaks to the story that make it work on film and improvements that make it flow better. Boromir's character is probably the first one to come to mind.

There's many a thread in Entertainment on the subject if you feel like hashing it out further.

[Persicaria]

1984 by George Orwell No, I took it out of the library once, but never opened the book. I took it out along with a few others because it was a classic. As a teenager in high school I decided I wanted to be well read so every now and then I would take out a classic to read. Unfortunately the classic was usually the last book I would read from the group I had taken out, so unless I had started and felt compelled to continue I often returned them back . Thinking I would try again another day

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy No

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens . No

Catcher in the Rye by J D Salinger Yes, I liked it. The character is a little shit, but he is a believable little shit.

A Passage to India by E M Forster Never even heard of it until this thread.

Lord of the Rings by J R R Tolkein You can hang me for this , but I couldn't get past the first thirty pages. I attempted in in high school and again in college. The language and the pacing didn't capture me right away and I found myself able to put the book down. When I find a good book I am in a zone, I could sit on the couch for hours, forgetting about breakfast, lunch , and dinner. This book didn't take me there.

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee Yes, love this book.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky No

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen No

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë Yes, but I had more sympathy for Bertha than I did for Jane. Wide Sargasso Sea was an interesting reshaping of the character Berth, but even that ultimately fell flat.

[Fredward]

I think he means "awards" instead of "rewards" and is referring to the Academy Awards etc.

Woops, yeah. That's what I get for posting before my morning coffee.