So I read Fellowship Of The Ring, book one of the trilogy, and I have one word to describe my feelings

[nativesunshine]

Or you could always read some Harry Potter.

 

[Nemesis77]

I read it first when I was 10 years old. And I loved it. Right now I'm reading it for... I dunno, 15th time? And I still love it . But if you are expecting hack & slash-fantasy, go read David Eddings or something instead. Altrough Two towers and Return of the King do have massive battles.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
Took me three tries to watch the whole damn movie without falling asleep. YAWWWWWWN!

I watched TTT twice in the same day

 

[Shalmanese]

If you dont like the style of LOTR, go here for LOTR written in about 1000 different styles.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: Walleye
yes, that's your opinion. now please go shut up. the LOTR 6 book set is one of the best book sets ever written. they arent boring at all, perhaps you should go back to your harry potter books and leave the real books for real men.

real men read 6 set fantasy books? that's news to me.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Toasthead]

I kind of liked the first book.

I guess its all a matter of taste.

--Toast

 

[Whitecloak]

Originally posted by: Shalmanese
If you dont like the style of LOTR, go here for LOTR written in about 1000 different styles.

thats an awesome thread.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
its not a trilogy! :disgust:

Lol!

My wife said the exact same thing.... multiple times.

 

[Parrotheader]

I have to agree. I'm enjoying the movies, but I was about ready to slit my wrists after reading the first book about 10 years ago. I knew what to expect. I knew it was more of a setup piece, but I still found it nauseatingly boring.

While the depth of detail Tolkien provides on all the people and surroundings is impressive I found it to be just far too much to make for enjoyable reading - at least for my tastes. I had to actually keep a crib sheet handy to jot down various names, family names, etc so I could remember who or what in the world they were referring to since there's no real-world points of reference. When I'm reading casually, my mind only caches names/places short-term since they're usually based on reality so I don't have to remember every detail; that doesn't work for a lot of science fiction and fantasy when things are totally diffferent. I majored in history so I love historical detail (even if it?s fiction) but for what I was expecting it read too much like an expository essay on Middle Earth (with lame show tunes ) and not enough like a compelling, narrative story. It was enough to keep me from reading the next two books even though people swore they were better than the first.

 

[Turkey22]

Anyone who cant get through LOTR older than 12 has the iq of a retarded monkey and should not be allowed to walk around without supervision to make sure you dont wet yourself. OMG even my wife got through these books (and loved them) and she usually has the mentality of said 12 year old. Granted I tried reading it for the first time when I was about 10 and I couldnt do it, but I think the sheer volume of people who say that it is boring and they couldnt get through it, speaks very poorly of our community.

 

[Maverick]

if you read good fantasy writers and compare them with Tolkien, you can see that Tolkien definitely bloats his books with a lot of useless information. Thats whats hard to sift through when reading LOTR.

 

[iamwiz82]

i dispise tolkien's style. Everything he wrote is a yawner.

 

[BennyD]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
its not a trilogy! :disgust:

correction, it is now a trilogy as it has been grouped into 3 books.

and yes, i know that there were originally 9 million books and that they were written with tolkiens own stool.

 

[wolf papa]

hmmm, well I've read The Hobbit, FOTR, TTT and ROTK numerous times, and still occasionally read passages from them. I found them all to be interesting, but then I sometimes read just for the pleasure of it (old school, I guess). Yes, the pacing is different as the story develops, and Tolkien provides enough details to really present a complete world where magic is possible, and things we've never seen before somehow appear real and natural.

 

[numark]

Originally posted by: Shiva112
if you read good fantasy writers and compare them with Tolkien, you can see that Tolkien definitely bloats his books with a lot of useless information. Thats whats hard to sift through when reading LOTR.

You've got to remember that the Lord of the Rings was only one small part of Tolkien's vision. It was even written as an afterthought, when his publisher told him that people were asking all the time for a sequel to The Hobbit. He published probably close to 40 or 50 books in his lifetime, and some of the better ones, e.g. The Silmarillion, were published after his death as well.

Tolkien never really wanted to be a fantasy writer, and comparing him to authors in that genre is pointless. Think of it more as a mythology, and you're closer to the intent. He created a unique world that had to stay constant between the 40 books, and therefore he had to go into a lot of detail about certain things. His wordiness may also be attributable to his being an English professor. But, on the whole, you've got to give him credit for his dedication and attention to his art, something that is virtually nonexistant today.

 

[skace]

Just because a book is very popular and considered a great work doesn't mean everyone will like that. I wish people would realize this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
i think you've watched a little too much MTV, your attention span isn't long enough to appreciate them.

So true.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Shiva112
if you read good fantasy writers and compare them with Tolkien, you can see that Tolkien definitely bloats his books with a lot of useless information. Thats whats hard to sift through when reading LOTR.

It was something that I found really bad about the FOTR movie. There was too much information that was given in too long a time. The film could've used all kinds of trims.

 

[eviltoon]

Oh what the h*ll, I might as well reply. The movies are great, they condense the story and make it an action packed thriller. The key is the word "condensed. The books are loaded with detail. You might call it meat and potatoes and everything else that goes into a stew. For those who hate details then keep to the film and read coles notes for any other "classic" you may have to read. I for one love the details. I went to Wales one summer just so I could experience some of that boring atmosphere Tolkien writes about. Fast paced books tend to live fast paced lives. If you think Tolkien is a yawner then pick up Tolstoy's War and Peace, of Hugo's Les Miserables. That will give you an experience of detail. Luckily, for those with short attention spans, you can skip these and just watch the movies. But be careful they are longer than the standard 90-110 minute variety.

 

[exp]

Tolkien never really wanted to be a fantasy writer, and comparing him to authors in that genre is pointless. Think of it more as a mythology

Exactly. LOTR is not fantasy...it is more like a hybrid mythology/historical epic. It has has more in common--both in style and substance--with works like the Odyssey, the Bible, or even Henry IV than with the modern fantasy genre. So readers who enjoy that sort of thing should appreciate the LOTR...those who are accustomed to today's pop-fantasy (*cough*D&D*cough*) may be disappointed.

 

[Sluggo]

Originally posted by: Turkey22
Anyone who cant get through LOTR older than 12 has the iq of a retarded monkey and should not be allowed to walk around without supervision to make sure you dont wet yourself. OMG even my wife got through these books (and loved them) and she usually has the mentality of said 12 year old. Granted I tried reading it for the first time when I was about 10 and I couldnt do it, but I think the sheer volume of people who say that it is boring and they couldnt get through it, speaks very poorly of our community.

Actually I think that insulting my intelligence because I individually like or dislike a particular writer, style of writing or series of books is a bit much.