Okay, I thought there might be a specific section for the polls that are posted here. If there is, I'm sorry.

BUT... has anyone else but me noticed that the writing in LOTR really...

sucked? I'm convinced the only reason it is so friggin popular now is because OF course the movies, and also, the media hype it all got. When in reality, the movies tend to drone on as much as the novels, if you think about it. Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, I just tend to prefer the charming short fairy-tale feeling that Legend and the Neverending Story had.

Doesn't anyone remember Legend OR The Neverending Story? I mean, Christ, I feel old now, and I'm only 19.

Sorry, just talking. Don't mind me. I don't even really know what I am trying to say. Just... bored. -_-

OR it could have been done just for fun <_<

TheRucoon
Okay, I thought there might be a specific section for the polls that are posted here. If there is, I'm sorry.

BUT... has anyone else but me noticed that the writing in LOTR really...

sucked? I'm convinced the only reason it is so friggin popular now is because OF course the movies, and also, the media hype it all got. When in reality, the movies tend to drone on as much as the novels, if you think about it. Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, I just tend to prefer the charming short fairy-tale feeling that Legend and the Neverending Story had.

Doesn't anyone remember Legend OR The Neverending Story? I mean, Christ, I feel old now, and I'm only 19.

Sorry, just talking. Don't mind me. I don't even really know what I am trying to say. Just... bored. -_-

It does drag, the movies do drag, but all epics do. Canto de Mio Cid drags incredibly, but the writing is good enough to keep some people reading despite the drag. Iliad, Odyssey, Gilgamesh, Paradisio, Beowulf, it all drags. They're classic because of their epic scope. I personally didn't care for the films because that scope is hard to translate into a movie. Neverending Sotry, Legend, Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, etc. should all be judged seperately, not as lit.

Also, this should probably go in Media Discussion, no?

LOTR has many facets in the book. There are passages that truly just drone on in descriptions, but that would very well appeal to a specific kind of audience. Every author must be considered along with the time/era and peer group he/she was part of when writing his/her work. At around WWII or slightly earlier, perhaps people would appreciate descriptions more than action up to a level.

Then, there are the really intense scenes, especially in chapters like Mount Doom or The Choices of Master Samwise. There is no droning there and the writing drives straight to your mind and heart. At least in my opinion.

An epic is an epic because it is made to appeal to mady audiences plus it has many layers and meaning to be discovered at different times. LOTR does that. The movies... *sighs* in my opinion, they could have been made in a much better way. I think they kind of twisted characters out of their true nature as they had been presented in the books. Especially Arwen and Frodo. But that is also the fate of epics turned into movies. So many things are warped or simple cut and thrown away, that the end product becomes a very lukewarm, whitewashed version of the real thing.

Oh, and I speak as a LOTR fan that has been so way before the movies- I read the Fellowship at 13, which is... well before 2000, anyway ;)

this says it all..especially that long look on the movie, i remember turning to my cousin and told him "that was gay"
but then SW trilogy wasn't that good either....she died of a broken heart?
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/ewr5Ady6Wow

No way do the books owe any bulk of popularity to the films. They were HUGELY popular decades before them and have always remained so. Probably because when they came out fantasy writing as a defined, marketed genre didn't exist. There were fantasy novels (there always have been), but Lord Of The Rings basically created the entire fantasy industry that exists today.
World of Warcraft wouldn't exist if not for Lord of the Rings, nor would Harry Potter... etc, etc. A third of all video games... A good proportion of all movies, anything RPG at all. That's how important the books were.

Not to mention fantasy art in general and the influence on music as well. So many bands got their creative drive kick-started by Tolkien's books. And those bands influenced others and so on... Led Zeppelin alone has had a massive influence rock bands in the 20th and 21st centuries and they cite Tolkien. Indeed many influential musicians like Marc Bolan of T-Rex, David Bowie, Cat Stevens etc who inspired many more... The genres of Heavy Metal and all it's sub genres owe a direct debt to Tolkien, as does some of the folk revival as well. And of course general pop that followed in the steps of those artists previously mentioned.

The movies are nothing but a pale epilogue to the phenomenon.

If the writing in the novels doesn't appeal to you personally, that doesn't mean much. I didn't think the writing was that great in Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hundred Years Of Solitude, but he still won a Nobel prize for it. The Bible is honestly pretty crappy too, but...

Anyway, isn't this an art and literature topic?
I think it's ok for this to hang around here for a while, but it should be moved there when it starts to taper off.

Finally someone else agrees with me, the LOTR books weren't too hot!

Chronicles of Narnia > LOTR

ozoneocean
No way do the books owe any bulk of popularity to the films. They were HUGELY popular decades before them and have always remained so. Probably because when they came out fantasy writing as a defined, marketed genre didn't exist.

(...more cool stuff...)

There were fantasy novels (there always have been), but Lord Of The Rings basically created the entire fantasy industry that exists today.

Go Ozoneocean! I couldn't agree more. Elves and Dragons and everything in the fantasy domain basically were defined as what they are by Tolkien- whether it was a good definition or not aside. This alone denotes the magnitude and depth of Tolkien's work, who, by the way, gathered up a lot of lore in the celtic and german and other north european cultures and cooked up what is LOTR as we know it. Which will cause many people that have these stereotypes breached rebel. Heh... which is exactly why I am doing this in my books. So chaps like Rich can eat their hearts out in dissing and flaming for the next decade ;)

LOTR movies are something that will blow over and be forgotten quite soon- especially because they were made in the most commercialised and rather innocuous way one could take with these three books. There had been so many other aspects to explore. But no- there was merchandising to be considered and political correctness. Ah well.

Tantz Aerine
Heh... which is exactly why I am doing this in my books. So chaps like Rich can eat their hearts out in dissing and flaming for the next decade ;)

As long as you don't have rabid fangirls forcing the shit down my throat (long story), I doubt I'll mind your stuff.

Rich
As long as you don't have rabid fangirls forcing the shit down my throat (long story), I doubt I'll mind your stuff.

...rabid fangirls? Oooh, now you have to elaborate. You made me curious. In what way, have fangirls force um, stuff down your throat?? :)

I had a buddy a few years ago. She was about as obsessed over LOTR as you could possibly imagine. She was really nice, but would follow me around and NEVER shut up and NEVER quit talking about LOTR. She was one of those people that even went as far as to learn elvish. Needless to say, she drove me half nuts with this bullshit. I was still nice as could be to her, but she really got on my nerves.

*gags* argh. I feel for you there. That's not very tolerable even if the 'fan' is obsessed with the best possible work. I had a friend who was obsessed in this way with Orlando Bloom.

...who of course is not a work of fiction, but well... you get the picture. We went to see a movie together (Pirates of the Caribbean) and I walked out of it with my arm bruised from her squeezing every time Bloom was in the shot.

So yeah. I can't agree more about it.

subcultured
this says it all..especially that long look on the movie, i remember turning to my cousin and told him "that was gay"
but then SW trilogy wasn't that good either....she died of a broken heart?

...We're really talking about the books Sub. BTW, what's that vid from? That was fantastic! :)

ozoneocean

subcultured
this says it all..especially that long look on the movie, i remember turning to my cousin and told him "that was gay"
but then SW trilogy wasn't that good either....she died of a broken heart?

...We're really talking about the books Sub. BTW, what's that vid from? That was fantastic! :)

Clerks II! "They're not gay, they're hobbits."

I have not read a less entertaining fantasy book than The two towers.

No other book have I read that is just 3 characters running or walking through various places with nothing of any significance happening. There are 3 important events padded with chapter upon chapter of walking.

The fellowship and return of the king are better though. But I'm generally not big on fantasy, far too often do fantast writiers use magic, or mysticism as a deus ex machina to solve problems.

That's why when I read fantasy I read discworld, it's funny, well written, extremely well thought out with consistant characters, that and the universe behaves according to it's own set of rules, plus it dosen't take itself seriously. Serious fantasy gets upsets me.

Fan-people can ruin anything good as an expernice for other people...

espeically if they take thier obbession too far.

LOTR is excellent as an series snice it's very great. I've learned Elvish, snice I'm a fan of Elves in gerenal, save for the cheesy christmas elves. But.... I know better than to talk about elves and stuff like that nonstop.

I mean, it's good to be an fantasy fan and stuff.. but don't let it be YOUR whole life. the same could be said for anything else, whenever it be comics, scifi stuff like star wars... etc.

that's all there is to it.

Mimarin
But I'm generally not big on fantasy, far too often do fantast writiers use magic, or mysticism as a deus ex machina to solve problems.

Actually some fantasy stuff follows set rules. And not to mention that very few genres mix as well as sci-fi and fantasy.

This is about the book not the movie. So I'm moving it to the proper section :P

Rich
Actually some fantasy stuff follows set rules. And not to mention that very few genres mix as well as sci-fi and fantasy.

Agreed on that one, too. Any serious fantasy will never ever resort to 'deus ex machina'. There will be strict, harsh rules nobody would ever be able to breach. And it would basically have the feel of realistic life. After all, whatever we may find flamboyant may be round-of-the-mill in another universe, with other issues or ideas being the extraordinary elements people pay attention to.

In short: if it feels realistic enough to imagine (or see even!) everyday life unfold normally, then it's good fantasy. After that, comes the actual plot and whether that is at all good. But usually, if the world is well built, so is the plot.

The true depth in LOTR is not the writing but the world he has created. Look past the writing. How much detail has he gone into? Not all that much? But then there are the appendices, the entire invented language. It's rare that any reader would actually pay attention. Have you read The Silmarillion? The sidestories? Go out and buy the Tolkien Illustrated Encyclopedia... fantastic!

I'm no hardcore fan but I did enjoy the books. They did drone on in places but then I'd leave them for awhile and go back to them.

It's funny that people should harp on the walking aspect of the novels, or the length... I remember reading the autobiographical account of an English officer and the forced march he and his men suffered through the jungles of Japanese occupied Singapore during WW2. That was ALL walking, with the occasional stop to kill a pack donkey or boil and eat shoe leather, almost no fighting, not much action. That took me forever to get through and it was only 150 or so pages...
Whereas Tolkien's magical story just flew by for me. I loved the fact that they walked almost everywhere, it felt a lot more real than novels with a modern setting where people fly everywhere in jets and drive from here to there in cars... There's never any connection to the space they travel though to get somewhere. I think that's the biggest strength of LOTR, the intimate connection to the earth, the environment and everything around the characters.
These aren't some zombified commuters sleepwalking through the day, isolated from the world, accompanied by their own private sound track- provided by the ubiquitous ipod!

And "deus ex machina"? Seriously, what are you talking about? Crap books will always use that to further the plot. Magic doesn't have that function unless it's a crap book. Just like all those popular crime novels that just happen to have evidence turn up here and there conveniently and everyone secretly knowing everyone else (very common in all crappier popular fiction), not to mention "magical" DNA evidence, HAW HAW HAW!
Forensic labs in crime fiction (in TV and the movies too), are the biggest abuse of deus ex machina I can think of right now... Apart from nano-machines in SciFi novels. ;)

For me what appeals in LOTR isn't the fact that Tolkien created such a detailed world with a huge backstory; that's meaningless on it's own. What appeals is that he knows the place intimately enough to have his characters react with it and live through it like a well-worn garment... It's a place you could live in.
Contrast that with the most famous worlds created by other famous fantasy authors: Michael Morcock's Elric in the land of Melnibone! It's so plastic, so insubstantial... It reflects the fact that the stories were originally conceived in a couple of weeks when he was a youth, as his own attempt at the "Conan" genre. Ursula LeGuin with her Earthsea novels: they're great stories, but the landscape never seems all that defined... Her characters flit from place to place and you never really understand their world or their connection to it.

Ah... that's just my rant. I always did enjoy good fantasy. Not so much these days though...

I don't know what "Legend" is...
LOTR is excellent. I don't know, I tend to prefer denser prose, and find it quite easy to get sucked into (for example) Walter Scott's style of writing a lot more easily than terser, more frenetic styles like Hemingway. So I found the length, detail, and exacting description in LOTR to be refreshing. It's well-written. YES it has a good storyline, but the main thing is the style. And I loved the poems. Tolkien had a good ear for rhythm and meter.
I loved Narnia too, as a kid, especially "The Horse and His Boy" (the 3rd one) but didn't vote for it because looking back at it now, through the lens of years and years of life experience, it's kind of evil and racist. Think of Tash, and the Calormenes. It's all... anti-arab. And the only black people that show up are evil. -_-' come on, CS Lewis. what would jesus do.


(for a klondike bar?)

Kristen Gudsnuk
what would jesus do.
(for a klondike bar?)

He'd mash up a snowball and it'd turn into one.

As for why I don't like LOTR, it all has to do with a particularly whiny LOTR fangirl I hung out with. I've already explained that, so I'll go into other problems I've got with it.

1. It is your generic 'good vs evil' story. I find it kind of shallow that we never get even a small glimpse of the orcs and sauron in any way other than pure evil (Grima was an exception, as was Gollum). Even in the Silmarillion (AWEFUL BOOK! Was probably just an outline for future stories that got published as a book), Sauron was portrayed in a manner where you could sympathize with him.

2. The good guys were TOO good. At no point do any of the good guys ever do virtually anything even remotely morally questionable. Apart from Frodo's actions at MT Doom, the good guys were practically saints. Also their personalities came across as very shallow.

I will admit though, The Hobbit IS a very good book. Much more lighthearted and entertaining.

I'll address the points...

1. LOTR movies suck.

No they don't. You can't compare these movies to the books. The books are 30 gazillion pages long - it's unfair to compare any movie to any book in that fashion. LOTR movies are a modern classic. If you don't think so, you're just an anti-fanboi. And anyone who thinks only B&W films or artsy foreign films deserve to be called classics, are also anti-fanbois.

I cried 3 times during Fellowship, and I think I was tearing up nonstop thru out the entire Two Towers movie. What great films to make ppl go out and enlist, heh.

I think Jackson did a fantastic job evoking the feeling of Middle Earth as a place in his movies. And of course, God blessed him with a place like New Zealand. That country can't be for real, yo.

Oh, and if Jackson didn't "twist the characters out of their true nature," the movies would SUCK. See #2 for why.

2. LOTR books suck.

No they don't. They were written back when your grandpa was learning to read, so it's a completely different writing style. You don't struggle thru Chaucer and proclaim it a piece of shite because middle English was so hard to understand.

I would even describe the writing style as homely. I mean, reread the section on Weathertop. WTF. Tolkien managed to make Aragorn fighting off RINGWRAITHS sound boring. It read like Aragorn was shooing off a couple of scrawny robbers. And the battle at Helm's Deep. Someone clarified that it lasted all of... 3 pages?

HOWEVER, why do I come away feeling all awash with epicness in my memories, years after I've read LOTR and forgotten most of it except the epicness of it all? Because the books go beyond the prose style.

As for the characters being 2D... that's the nature of epics and legends, which was what Tolkien was aiming for. A grand epic like the War of the Ring isn't a place for Catcher in the Rye. Did you read the Norse legends and come away saying it sucked because the characters were 2D?

And the evil guys aren't supposed to be empathized with.

3. Legend.

He's referring to a forgettable fantasy movie starring young Tom Cruise. The best 2 things out of that movie is The Darkness (I want his action figure...!) and the imagery of fluffy pollen floating all over the place. There are so few ppl around because anyone with the slightest allergy trait died long ago.

I don't really like the LOTR books much (never got through the last one) but I don't much like fantasy. The closest thing to fantasy I read is the Diskworld Series, which parodies fantasy and has stories that are much less fantasy than they are something else. The first book of Diskworld wasn't so great because it was too cliche even in parodying the fantasy genre.

I was a fan of the LOTR novels long before the films even began production (I first read them when I was 13), and I have to agree with earlier comments that the slow pacing is simply a reflection of the times. Today, surrounded by TV, internet etc. we expect every good thing to come quickly and we've forgotten how to just relax and enjoy the ride. LOTR is best thought of as a journey, where you travel with the characters and experience this remarkable world alongside them. It's a fantasy road-trip!

The films have triggered a minor resurgence in interest in the books, but most people I know who read the books *after* seeing the films didn't like them purely for pacing reasons. On the other hand, a lot of people (such as myself) who knew the books back-to-front before seeing the movies were disappointed by the *brevity* of the films, and feel that there should have been more than just three.

theleast
On the other hand, a lot of people (such as myself) who knew the books back-to-front before seeing the movies were disappointed by the *brevity* of the films, and feel that there should have been more than just three.

Darn right! They should never have dared to eliminate the Scouring of the Shire! It was dynamite! I would have preferred to watch that than Aragorn humming.

I'm very glad Tom Bombadil was eliminated.
Doubly glad Scouring was eliminated. Even when I was reading it I was thinking "this is stupid."
IMO, everybody remaining largely ignorant of the 4 dudes' heroic deeds abroad was a perfect ending which speaks volumes about current events. I loved that scene when they were just sitting in the bar in silence.

mlai
Doubly glad Scouring was eliminated. Even when I was reading it I was thinking "this is stupid."
IMO, everybody remaining largely ignorant of the 4 dudes' heroic deeds abroad was a perfect ending which speaks volumes about current events. I loved that scene when they were just sitting in the bar in silence.

I prefer the Scouring ending, where the hobbits return to find that the home they were fighting to protect has been transformed in their absence and is no longer what they remember it to be. I think that's the experience of a lot of people who go away from home for an extended time, particularly those who have gone to war.

I agree. The very nature of it as such a small scale community event was a perfect coda to the larger happenings elsewhere. These little tiny people, in their little tiny villages who're blind and deaf to the rest of the world have their very own mirror version of the terrible happenings in the wider world. The adventurers weren't heroes to them for what they did in the war, but they were for what they did in the Shire! How realistic is that? Very.
It took all that huge, fantasic, massiveness, and put it in a smaller, more ordinary scale.

But that kind of thing just doesn't fit into the moronic Hollywood formula. The rules say you can't have a second climax like that or it trivialises the big one, which will confuse the stupid people in the audience. Hollywood films are are always more concerned with those stupid people. ;)