You know, I really want to read Lord of the Rings. I feel like I should, and I've heard that it's an amazing story and that it's a literary masterpiece.
But whenever I try to read it- I just... can't. I think it might be information overload or something I don't know. I tend to get lost in all the details, and it's such a slow read for me due to the style of it.
Is there anything I can get through to my brain or something that can help me read this?
[ May 12, 2007, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Shawshank ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Skip to halfway through Two Towers.
The first time I read Fellowship and the first half of TT, it felt like a long slog through a muddy field. But the fun stuff for me started in Book Four (if you look at them as six books).
Only after a couple years when I went back to reread Fellowship did I develop a solid appreciation for it, and now I can't imagine skipping it.
Have you read "The Hobbit?" It's an "easier" read if you want something to ease you into it. Also keep in mind that Tolkien's style isn't for everyone.
Posted by Snowman (Member # 10426) on :
Space it out over a two year period. That is what I did when I read it as a 14 year old. I'd probably force myself through the boring parts if I were to read it for the first time at this age though. Especially now that I know that the overall book is worth the read. I'd probably finish it in about one month. Just tell your brain that the overall experience will counter the slow parts, which pan out the later you get into the book.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
1) Whenever Tolkien starts talking about food, skip to the next paragraph.
2) Whenever anyone bursts into song, skip to the next page.
3) If you find yourself reading a chapter about this fella named Tom, skip to the next chapter.
4) Basically, any time you are bored, just start skimming. No one is going to give you a test. You get the basic gist of it.
It took me a few tries, because I hate the man's literary style. I do love the story, but not the writing.
Niki (my girlfriend, if you didn't know) also suggests that if you get to where the fellowship breaks, feel free to skip back in forth between the two stories (like the movie did). She says it worked well for her.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
The unabridged audio version read by Rob Inglis is great; I appreciate Tolkien's style much better for hearing a good storyteller go at it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The first time I read Fellowship and the first half of TT, it felt like a long slog through a muddy field. But the fun stuff for me started in Book Four (if you look at them as six books).
I'm beginning to think I'm the only person on Earth that found Fellowship to be the most interesting. It was actually about half way through Two Towers that I started to get frequently bored.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fellowship was my least favorite of the movies, because it just feels like it isn't really going anywhere and there's a lot of drag, and the first read through, that felt the same way too. But subsequent reads have really improved my opinion of Fellowship, it's my second favorite I think now, after Return of the King.
Though I like the Silmarillion better than Two Towers, and probably Fellowship too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid: The unabridged audio version read by Rob Inglis is great; I appreciate Tolkien's style much better for hearing a good storyteller go at it.
I've been meaning to listen to that for a while now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wish, oh how I WISH I there was an audio version of LOTR and The Hobbit by John Huston. I'd never stop listening to it.
I'll never tire of extolling my love for that man's portrayal of Gandalf in the cartoons. Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
My plug goes to the BBC radio adaptation.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I second the BBC version. I listened to it on a long road trip to Vegas. When I got back, the books were so much easier, I think largely because I realized the really boring stuff all leads up to and explains the cool stuff. (Except for Tom, I'm afraid I just don't "get" Tom the way my friends do, I usually skip over it.)
Plus Ian Holm does a magnificent job as Frodo IMO.
quote:I'm beginning to think I'm the only person on Earth that found Fellowship to be the most interesting.
Don't say that, Fellowship is my favorite next to the Silmarillion. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
What I want more than anything is to see The Hobbit at least go into production this decade. Honestly folks, McKellen isn't getting any younger.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well good. That makes two of us at least.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Huzzah!
Sorry but I don't get the opportunity to use that Graemlin very often.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
The Rob Inglis audio version IS good, my son who had just turned six at the time listened to the whole thing. It seems like a good way to go. Much of the slower stuff is more interesting and faster that way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Hobbit WILL go into production before the end of the decade, maybe even by the end of 2007, though that's being extremely optimistic. It's virtually guaranteed. Either New Line will make a crappy version of it, or they will default their rights back to Saul Zaentz who will cajole Peter Jackson into doing it, while offering him a virtually limitless budget. Either way it's going to be made, it just remains to be seen who will make it.
Epictetus - You like the Silmarillion the most?! I officially declare us best LOTR friends! Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I read the books while I was bedridden with a cold. Otherwise I might have been tempted to skip the tedious parts or more likely, spread the chapters out over a few weeks.
I was actually a rather dedicated reader; I soaked in every word in the appendices too. I don't remember too much, but hey.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
My husband liked the Tom part, but I think that was only *because* we were listening to the Inglis reading.
I like Fellowship now--all of it--but the first half can really be a drag. When my students (7th graders) want to read it, I suggest they read the first chapter, then skip or skim to the end of "The Council of Elrond." OR I suggest that they try the Prydain Chronicles instead.
I read the first 2 as a kid (summer after 6th grade, I think), but never could get into RotK. I finally re-read the first two and read RotK during the aftermath of a blizzard a few years ago, when I was in my late 20s and school was cancelled for a week. The uninterrupted time to read was exactly what I needed, and I loved all three of them.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Great timing, Shawshank - I'm actually in the middle of Two Towers right now, trying to make myself like Tolkien.
I read The Hobbit in high school, and I loved the story but hated the writing style, so I didn't bother with the rest of the series at the time. Then after I'd seen all the Jackson movies, I decided to give Tolkien another shot and read LOTR. The style didn't bother me as much as it did with The Hobbit, but I still didn't really enjoy it.
I think that may have been because I still had so much of the film imagery in my head, though. I haven't seen any of the movies in several months, so I haven't been distracted by it while reading LOTR this second time, and I've been enjoying it a lot more. (And I usually skip the songs.)
I've not yet been able to get through Silmarillion, though. Someday, I hope.
Posted by Uindy (Member # 9743) on :
I thought that I was the only person who had problems with Tolkin's writing style. The only book I've been able to get through is the Hobbit. I started LOTR but I just can't get in it. I'll take the sugestions about reading the books into consideration.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't blame people for not liking the Silmarillion. There's almost no dialogue at all, it's just storytelling. It's like reading Middle Earth history book, which is perfect for me, but I'd imagine the average reader would feel it's dry and dragging.
And don't skip the songs! Those are the best part!
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
One thing I've always thought: If you don't like something, don't feel obligated to like it because it's a "classic". This is how I've felt about a great deal of the literature I've been forced to read in school--I've learned from it, but I don't like having to take lots of unnecessary steps to enjoy a story (getting through the language, etc.). There are some things (20th century music, Shakespeare) that I've taken a lot of time and effort and study to get to the point where I can really enjoy them--this extra work makes the payoff better, I think.
But in the case of leisure reading, I like sticking with my simple sci-fi and fantasy shtick. As for LotR, I'm very much in the camp of skipping chapters. My first time through I read every word, but every read since then (I think I've only read it 4 times now), I've skipped chapters that bored me. The Council of Elrond sticks out as a "skip to the end" chapter--60 freaking pages of *yaawwwwn*.
What really helped me get into the Hobbit was the illustrated comic-book version by David Wenzel. I read that as a 10 year old and have been a fantasy nerd since. I'd love to see the whole series done by him.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:I'm beginning to think I'm the only person on Earth that found Fellowship to be the most interesting. It was actually about half way through Two Towers that I started to get frequently bored.
It was the same for me. I loved Fellowship of the Ring but I thought it started going downwards from the Two Towers onwards. (The ending of Return of the King, however, was good again.) Silmarillion was good, but the Unfinished Tales was not, and anything that comes after that I've not read.
What is wrong with his writing style? Maybe it got lost in translation, as I read these in Finnish, but I never noticed anything...
Anyway, I have to say that despite his best effort I'm not sure if Tolkien is a match for real myths and folk tales... there's just a special texture that comes with stories that are formed by multiple people in the course of hundreds of years which the work of one man, however talented, cannot match.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uindy: I thought that I was the only person who had problems with Tolkin's writing style. The only book I've been able to get through is the Hobbit. I started LOTR but I just can't get in it. I'll take the sugestions about reading the books into consideration.
I was the same when I first read them. Loved the Hobbit, but couldn't get past halfway through Fellowship. That was in early high school, I think.
I'd always intended to read them, though - "someday". When the movies were being made I decided I'd better hurry up and read them before the movies came out. I think having a goal and a deadline helped. And I found that once I got past the Council of Elrond, the action picked up and I really enjoyed the rest of them.
My problems with his writing style are just that I loved his story, but I didn't necessarily love his storytelling. Too much back-history, too much description, too much poetry/song (for heaven's sake, some of it was pages long and not even in a human language!). Of course, when I was a teenager I had a much harder time appreciating all those things than I do now - now I see them as an amazing creation of a whole world, with its layers of civilizations and cultures and histories.
So ... as some others seem to have had the same experience ... it seems age and experience may help!
Posted by pastallpatience (Member # 10432) on :
I kind of see reading LOTR as bragging rights for readers. If you can read it, understand it to a fairly well and somewhat enjoy it, more power to you. I personally didn't skip any of it. I'm a dork, I want the bragging rights. =) Death to Achilles, pap
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember any of the songs being that long. Hell, the Sorting Hat sang a longer song in Harry Potter than any of the songs in LOTR that I remember. And the majority of the songs were in English.
The only song in Sindarin that I remember was the one Aragorn sang at the end of the book (which is one of my favorites). I'll admit that I find Tom Bombadil a combination of annoying and whimsically enjoyable.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Mr. Washburn, the school librarian, recommended them to me when I had read everything else remotely interesting in the library in I believe 4th grade. I fell right into them and didn't come up for air until I was finished. I don't remember finding them remotely boring or skipping anything. I've read them every 3 - 5 years since, and I don't remember ever feeling the need to skip or skim anything, although it's been awhile since the last time I read them.
But I know exactly what y'all are talking about, because it's the way I feel about reading Victor Hugo. The first time I read Les Misérables, I read every word. I have no idea why. Now when I read it I have a set of guidelines similar to X's above, such as "when you find yourself reading a description of the Battle of Waterloo, skip to the next chapter." Same with Hunchback. Great stories. Some great storytelling. But there's a lot of political commentary that was relevant to the people of his day that means very little now.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: Epictetus - You like the Silmarillion the most?! I officially declare us best LOTR friends! [Smile]
Sweet! Part of the reason I don't give my personal e-mail out to too many people is because it's a Silmarillion reference and it exposes just how big of a nerd I really am. It is a tough read though, I don't blame people for not liking it either.
One of the other things I should recommend is The Atlas of Middle-Earth by Karen Wynn Fonstad. It's pretty useful because she takes a bunch of descriptions from all the books (Silmarillion included) and put together a bunch of scale maps of where everything is. The Atlas even has a few rough maps of Valinor in it and paraphrases the history of Middle-Earth, which I think might be very useful to a first time reader.
Anyway, trying to figure out where things were taking place was one of the biggest obstacles I had when I first read LOTR, especially since I have the pocket-book versions with really, really tiny maps in the front.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And don't skip the songs! Those are the best part!
Seconded.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Well - I don't really skip the songs altogether. I skim them enough to get the gist, but I don't pay as close attention to them as I do the rest of it. I like reading quickly, and I can't do that while reading poetry. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It took me a LONG time to figure out where everything was. I didn't realize that all of the First Age takes place in an area to the WEST of Mithlond and the Grey Havens, but that it was all sunk into the sea, and none of that exists anymore. I also didn't realize at first that Middle Earth was moved away from an initially very close Valinor.
After they got into the Second age it was easy to figure out where everything is, because I'm more familiar with an atlas of Middle Earth, though most of it takes place north of Rohan and west of the Misty Mountains, so it's not hard when all you have to pay attention to is Eregion, Arnor, Lindon and Gondor.
To this day I have to look at Tolkien's hand drawn maps of the First Age Middle Earth, I have no idea where any of the Elven strongholds are and I've read it a dozen or more times. I know Ossiriand is where the Green Elves are, to the southeast, but a lot of the other names run together, especially the names of the rulers.
I got Finrod, Finarfin, Finwe, etc. all mixed up for a long time. I had to read it probably three or four times before I got them all straight. And I swear, for as depressed as any of you got when (is a spoiler warning necessary? well here's one anyway) Gandalf dies, it was nothing for me compared to the deaths that take place in the Silmarillion. I was absolutely crushed by some of them.
If all of you never even touch the Silmarillion, at least read The Children of Hurin when it comes out later this month. It's the very best the Sil has to offer.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'd be interested in a novelization of the movies. Get someone who can actually write, you know?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it'd be terribly bland.
Further, I think it would read like bad fan fiction.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I read LoTR for the first time the summer I got married, and was absolutely blown away. I read it every summer for the next 5 years (I was in school, so summer was recreational reading time). Since then I've read it probably 12 or 14 times in total. I just finished Fellowship tonight, the first time I've read it since I first heard the movies were being made (so about 8 years?). Thoroughly enjoyed it. All the things people have said they found a problem are the things that I loved. The back story? Wow, how TANTALISING was that? (This was 3 years before The Silmarillion came out, so LOTR was all there was.) It gave such a fully-fleshed out feeling to the story, like there was a real history behind the story contained in LOTR. I loved the appendices, more tantalisation, which I guess will never be fulfilled now, unfortunately. I loved Tolkien's writing style, the familiar, humorous and conversational narrator tone that he takes in The Hobbit, and all the voices in LoTR. So what if he gets a little 'grand' at times, the story deserves it, he's taking a higher tone that you get when you read traditional tellings of European legends like King Arthur, and Roland, even the Iliad. I can understand that might cause some problems for some modern (and younger) readers, but hey, broaden yourselves a little. (Some spoilers here, maybe.)
I found his telling exciting, at times intensely powerful (for example, Frodo at the ford against the Black Riders; Frodo again at the Cracks of Doom - SO superior to what they did with that in the movie), and very moving - the account of Frodo's voyage to Valinor always touches me, along with Sam's final scene. The movies rarely reach that level. Also, I love his descriptive passages. The descriptive detail he uses is so enriching to the story I find myself looking out for them just to savour his language. Every time I read the book I look forward to Tolkien's description of the desolation lying before Mordor, including his description of Frodo and Sam as "little squeaking ghosts that wandered among the ash heaps of the Dark Lord." I just find that whole episode enriched so much by his descriptive skill. The whole story of Frodo's journey through Mordor is extremely powerful, harrowingly so at times. It's easy to see the horrific experiences Tolkien had in WW1 reflected in his description of Frodo's growing misery and possible destruction. When Tolkien changes to a 'high' tone, like in his recounting the events on the Field of Cormallen, the reading is a little more demanding, but you have to remember his awareness of, and sensitivity to, language and realise that he was deliberately aiming for a higher tone than the conventions of standard modern English would allow. He knows how to use language, how to write a beautiful sentence, how to build poetic rhythms into his prose in ways that add fluidity and grace to his telling. The bottom line for me is this: as much as I enjoy his use of language, the back story, etc, the STORY is so rich, so powerful (I keep using that word) both in LoTR and The Silmarillion, that it overrides any other consideration. I am in awe of the world he created and the incredible depth of imagination that enabled him to imagine such a thing. I look forward to entering that world many more times. And I savour every word.
(edited to expand some thoughts...)
[ April 15, 2007, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by happysmiley (Member # 9703) on :
I agree with you, Shawshank, it can get boring. It takes alot of willpower to get through, for certain people (including my self at this point, but not before). I've tried to go back and reread LotR now as a 13 year old but i just can't make my way past the first couple of chapters. I found I could only read difficult or boring books as an 8-10 year old, don't ask me why, I don't understand myself. (LotR, WatershipDown, Illiad, Odyssey for example). Now, I don't even bother. Sometime, you will be capable of reading it, right now it probably just doesn't fit in with you right now. just come back to every couple of months or so and you will finish it. Good luck, i hope you can read it soon, it is a very intriguing story.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I bought the Ted Nasmith illustrated Silmarillion. Beautiful renderings of key moments in Middle-Earth history!
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I was told to read The Hobbit before Lord of the Rings when I was in jr high. So, I read Hobbit and hated it. I refused to read anymore of the series until I got married and my husband kept pressuring me. I loved them. I actually really liked even the Fellowship. I still don't like the hobbit, but will often reread LOTR.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I was told to read The Hobbit before Lord of the Rings when I was in jr high. So, I read Hobbit and hated it. I refused to read anymore of the series until I got married and my husband kept pressuring me. I loved them. I actually really liked even the Fellowship. I still don't like the hobbit, but will often reread LOTR.
Yeah, I read the Hobbit after reading the whole series and to this day I don't find it appealing.
Silmarillion and Lost Tales...rock onnn...
Has anybody seen that full color painted map of the entirety of Arda? Makes you appreciate the enormity of middle-earth.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'd be interested in a novelization of the movies. Get someone who can actually write, you know?
Tolkien can definitely write; he just wrote in a style that is decidedly old-fashioned. I appreciated The Lord of the Rings a lot more after taking a literature class focusing on Tolkien. We read a lot of the literature that inspired him and that he wrote or translated, including Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He may not be the most entertaining, engaging writer by today's standards, but he is certainly not a bad writer.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:1) Whenever Tolkien starts talking about food, skip to the next paragraph.
2) Whenever anyone bursts into song, skip to the next page.
3) If you find yourself reading a chapter about this fella named Tom, skip to the next chapter.
4) Basically, any time you are bored, just start skimming. No one is going to give you a test. You get the basic gist of it.
Um... you know what? Just don't read the books. Just don't. Leave them on the shelf. Turn around and walk away.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I read LotR over a single weekend when I was in 7th grade. I've never found it difficult, although the first time through I wanted so badly to know what happened that I did start skimming the songs.
The complaints about the writing style are as foreign to me as people not liking chocolate. Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:1) Whenever Tolkien starts talking about food, skip to the next paragraph.
2) Whenever anyone bursts into song, skip to the next page.
3) If you find yourself reading a chapter about this fella named Tom, skip to the next chapter.
4) Basically, any time you are bored, just start skimming. No one is going to give you a test. You get the basic gist of it.
Um... you know what? Just don't read the books. Just don't. Leave them on the shelf. Turn around and walk away.
I'll second that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you find yourself reading a chapter about this fella named Tom, skip to the next chapter.
I thought the Tom Bombadil bits of Fellowship were the best. Sure, they didn't add to the story, but at least they were comprehensible.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
"The complaints about the writing style are as foreign to me as people not liking chocolate."
"Um... you know what? Just don't read the books. Just don't. Leave them on the shelf. Turn around and walk away."
Second both those comments. Go read Robert Jordan or Terry Goodkind...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What Cashew said in his/her first post.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: I thought the Tom Bombadil bits of Fellowship were the best. Sure, they didn't add to the story, but at least they were comprehensible.
I thought so too!
In fact, when the first movie came out and my little brother saw that he wanted to read the books next and asked me what was different in the books compared to the movies. I said there's this real cool guy whom they cut completely from the movies. A few weeks later he comes to me and says that he'd love to be reading faster as he's anxious to find out what the cool guy's like, but he's completely stuck in his reading seeing there's this silly person around just prancing around singing songs and absolutely nothing's happening.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I said there's this real cool guy whom they cut completely from the movies.
Imrahil?
Elrohir?
Elladan?
Glorfindel?
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
I can't remember for sure but I don't think Imrahil was in the first book. And elves are not cool.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh, good point, Imrahil was strictly a Return of the King character, and I think Elrohir and Elladan only made a guest appearance in the first book until coming back in the third.
Imrahil was still a really cool guy who was cut out of the movies. My favorite character after Eomer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I read LotR over a single weekend when I was in 7th grade. I've never found it difficult, although the first time through I wanted so badly to know what happened that I did start skimming the songs.
The complaints about the writing style are as foreign to me as people not liking chocolate.
I'll second that, although I'm pretty sure it took me a couple weeks to finish it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I read LotR over a single weekend when I was in 7th grade. I've never found it difficult, although the first time through I wanted so badly to know what happened that I did start skimming the songs.
The complaints about the writing style are as foreign to me as people not liking chocolate.
My experience is pretty much the same. I read the book during the summer break after 7th grade. I'm pretty sure it took me more than a weekend since I was checking the books out of the local library one at a time. I do remember laying on the floor of my bedroom in the middle of a gorgeous summer day total entranced by the Ents. I've never understood how people could find it boring or complain about the writing style.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Most definitely The Silmarillion. I read that in seventh grade and seeing Lord of the Rings was all the rage I was THE authority on all that mattered. No one else even tried to read it...
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
My older sister was a big fan of LotR when we were kids, and I tried and tried to read Fellowship, but Tom Bombadil got me every time (damn him!). Eventually I saw the film of the first book, then read the second and third in a matter of days and went back and read Fellowship later (and liked it a lot better).
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I enjoyed them...but they are of course not written in the same way that a lot of modern fantasy is written. It is written in an older style.
I think that is why many people don't like "classics." They simply don't feel the same as modern books. Personally, I enjoy the style...it might take more concentration to get through them...but that is part of the fun.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
One thing to keep in mind for readers new to Tolkien is this: The Hobbit was written for children (specifically, ENGLISH children) of the 1930s, a whole different animal to modern youth; The Lord of the Rings is not a children's book, but again was written for a much different audience from today's, a more literate audience. Also, when LoTR was published there was no such thing as a Fantasy section in the bookstore, the genre didn't exist, so readers had no other writers to dilute the standard Tolkien set. (The second fantasy book I read was Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara, which just made me mad because it was such a total ripoff of Lord of the Rings with none of the depth of invention.) Nowadays a lot of readers will come to Tolkien after reading any number of other fantasy writers, writing in a 'modern' style. The man was a genius, he wrote beautifully, movingly, humourously, powerfully, and there are few others who can approach him.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Agreed. Plus Tolkien is downright light reading compared to the original myths he drew inspiration from.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snail: Agreed. Plus Tolkien is downright light reading compared to the original myths he drew inspiration from.
Agreed.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
When I was about nine years old my mother read The Hobbit aloud to me as a bed time story. I loved it so much. At the end of the book it mentioned the Lord of the Rings, if you "wanted to learn more about Hobbits." Well I did. My totally amazing mother read the entire LoTR trilogy ALOUD to me over the course of the next few months.
The next year I read them for myself, and have been reading them once a year, in the fall, every year since then. As I got older I added The Silmarillion into my rereading. I love those books so much. As I mature, the books mature with me. I am always gleaning something different from them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. Luet and I got into Tolkien exactly the same way, give or take a year and the choice of parent. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
To those dog-piling me:
There are two options when reading a post like the first one on this thread.
1) Display your epeen geek cred and mock those who had (or are having) a hard time enjoying Tolkien.
2) Actually give tips to help the person enjoy the story, which they will likely give up otherwise.
I chose number 2, full well knowing I would be attacked by those choosing to do number 1.
[ April 18, 2007, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
3) Wonder why anyone is reading a book that he doesn't have to read and isn't enjoying? Proust, for example, is important but when I had read enough to know that it wasn't for me, I stopped.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
4) Simply share what it is one liked about the books, in case others can use that information to decide if the book is "worth" reading to them, or simply in case others are interested.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:3) Wonder why anyone is reading a book that he doesn't have to read and isn't enjoying? Proust, for example, is important but when I had read enough to know that it wasn't for me, I stopped.
So if you don't enjoy every little detail, you shouldn't bother? You aren't "good enough" to enjoy the whole thing, so you shouldn't be able to enjoy any of it?
I myself am one who had a hard time enjoying it. I started skimming the parts which were not entertaining to me, and ended up having a highly enjoyable experience on the whole, and am glad I read it.
Here someone posts that they are having trouble, in exactly the same way I was, and they are literally asking for tips on how to enjoy the books.
I put forth some tips which I think may be helpful, and get mocked by several posters .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You aren't "good enough" to enjoy the whole thing, so you shouldn't be able to enjoy any of it?
Why did you add the "good enough," especially in quotes?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Why did you add the "good enough," especially in quotes?
Meh, that comment wasn't really meant for Kate.
There are at least a few posts (look for any which quote my first post for examples) where there is a clear negative value judgment made against those who did not enjoy Tolkien's writing.
Kate's post, coming so close after mind, appeared to me (and my temporarily defensive mind) to be her throwing her hat in with them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think you may be reading criticism that isn't there. At least I didn't intend any. People have different tastes.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
QUOTE- "There are at least a few posts (look for any which quote my first post for examples) where there is a clear negative value judgment made against those who did not enjoy Tolkien's writing."
My "negative post" was more in response to pathetically flippant comments like "find somebody who could actually write" to do a novelisation of the movies.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. Luet and I got into Tolkien exactly the same way, give or take a year and the choice of parent.
My mother read it to my brother and me when I was three and he was six. Actually, she had just intended to read it to him, and was surprised when I listened to it in rapt attention. LotR was a huge part of the mythic landscape of my childhood.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My 3 and 6 year-old nephews listened attentively to me read the first chapter of "The Hobbit" the last time I babysat. I was surprised that the language didn't bother them a bit. I would have continued, but my voice was giving out and, although they were struggling to keep awake. It was long past their bedtime. They wanted more.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I agree with Xavier. There are different ways to enjoy books. I never advocate slogging through things that you're not enjoying (case in point for me: the first Robert Jordan book). But selective skimming and skipping can help you to enjoy a book you might not otherwise have liked. (Just like having a difficult book read aloud can help someone enjoy something he or she might not be ready to read independently.) I thought those tips were great. That's right! Great!
I love Dickens BECAUSE I skim the parts that I find boring. I worry that thinking they have to read every single word of something in order to "really read it" means that people miss out on stories that they'd otherwise love.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
I also agree that it's quite okay to skip the dull parts. I never found any part that dull with the Lord of the Rings, but I agree wholeheartedly about whoever said that Paris of Notre-Dame and Les Misérables are better if you skip certain parts. (Also, the one and only time I read the Bible I tended to skip the parts about who fathered whom. Does that make me a heathen?)
Anyway, I got introduced to Lord of the Rings from this Finnish TV-show about Lord of the Rings that was shown when I was around seven years old. (That has to be the least well known LotR adaptation worldwide...) The TV-show was very cheesy according to those who saw it as adults, but it did garner my interests in the books, even if it was a few years before I read them. (The show was based on this six hour play that was produced at this 17th century castle in Helsinki, and the play and the show had largely the same cast. Unlike the show, the play is supposed to have been amazing... and sadly the show is likely to never come on DVD as whoever owned the rights to the LotR franchise in the early 90's gave permission to only two television showings of the series but nothing more, and it is not even fully known who owns the rights to the show these days.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It can't be that hard to find. I would imagine Saul Zaentz would be a good place to start. He has owned the worldwide rights to the LOTR and The Hobbit since the late 70's or mid 80's I believe.
Les Miserables I found incredibly difficult to make it through. The first few times I tried I couldn't even get past the scenes with the Bishop to where Jean Valjean actually makes it to the village. I was trying to reread it the other day and having the same problem, though it was easier the second time. But I just ordered the Children of Hurin today, so I'm going back to rereading the LOTR for the first time in 2007.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I just don't like the idea of skimming a book. if I get to the point where I start doing that it's because I've already lost interest and have gotten annoyed with the book. If I do skim and find it gets interesting I go back to where I was and persevere til I hit the interesting part "legitimately". But generally, if I have to skim I usually end up giving up in disgust.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I guess I feel that skimming is sort of disrespectful, to the book and the author. If I feel the book is worth my time I'll try and respect it enough to stick with it. Weird, huh?
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:It can't be that hard to find. I would imagine Saul Zaentz would be a good place to start. He has owned the worldwide rights to the LOTR and The Hobbit since the late 70's or mid 80's I believe.
Yeah, it probably isn't difficult. It was just an interview I read with the show's Finnish producer, he said he didn't know who owned the rights these days. The interview was practically about why the show isn't coming up on DVD, I guess they have no interest in looking into those rights because they'd have to pay something and the show only has a very small target audience in those who treat it as a sort of a cult oddity. So they see it as not worth it.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I started re-reading the book(s) on Wednesday and I finished Fellowship today. I guess I've found my Tolkien-decoder ring. Here's my trick. Open it up- and read... Yeah man, that's like... deep.
And I guess I got into my head that I wanted to know more about the world than the internal motivation of every character. I read too much OSC between 6th grade and now (end of my Senior year) and so until recently it was hard for me to read a lot of different styles that weren't very similar to OSC.
But I've quite enjoyed it. Even the songs- it tried to sing the songs in my head. Sometimes they slow me down- but I do enjoy the use of song like more older civilizations did. It increases the beauty of the story ever more so.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Now you're talkin' Shawshank! Yay for you for sticking with it! Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: And I guess I got into my head that I wanted to know more about the world than the internal motivation of every character. I read too much OSC between 6th grade and now (end of my Senior year) and so until recently it was hard for me to read a lot of different styles that weren't very similar to OSC.
I love Tolkien a lot, but character development and motivation is definitely not his strong suit. Scenery, history, mythology, he does well and in depth. I've always found his characters to be two dimensional and somewhat wooden. But I still love them dearly. Weird.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
That's what threw me off the first time. That and the epic style.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You think Tolkien's LOTR characters are two dimensional and wooden?
Are we talking about the same Tolkien?
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
I wouldn't say they are necessarily two dimensional or wooden, but I'd say they are deeply idealized. They're mythic characters, not ones that you could be expected to encounter in your daily life.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:not ones that you could be expected to encounter in your daily life.
They're fictional characters sure, and I wouldn't expect to meet Aragorn tomorrow because people generally don't run around with swords proclaiming they are a kind descended from a long line of kings that fell after their island nation was sunk into the sea by angry gods.
In that same sense, I also don't expect to meet a child prodigy being groomed to lead a massive fleet of earth ships bent on destroying our interstellar neighbors.
I believe SOME of them are idealized, but they are also deeply, deeply flawed as well. But I think without a couple characters to be stalwart standing fast, the story wouldn't have worked as well. I know the intention of the creation of these characters, but if you remove that and just look at it as a work of literary fiction and analyze the characters within, there is plenty of depth, fault and quality in there.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
I don't think idealized means the same as two dimensional or non-flawed. Tolkien's view of good and evil, for example, is that otherwise good men become corrupted through external evil powers.
What I meant with idealized was that I can't imagine any real medieval rulers or princes to have been like Aragorn or Denethor or Faramir. All in all Tolkien's Middle Earth is a very sanitized version of Middle Ages, and that is not something the myths he threw inspiration from necessarily were. Which is all as well because it doesn't try to be realistic, and as you said it works well on its own as literary fiction. But I don't think you can say Tolkien's characterization to be realistic in the same way that, say, A Song of Ice and Fire is realistic.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
*Cough* No I'm not obsessed with LOTR at all. Nope. Really! Honest! Don't look at me like that...
On a side note, we had an LotR extended edition movie marathon at my apartment... two weekends ago. It rocked, we showed it on my projector, baked lembas (from a recipe my housemate had, it was actually very tasty and very filling) and had a full hobbit meal (roast beef, mashed potatoes, green peas, various ales and tea). It rocked.
I think the Fellowship is my favorite of the books, I read them all sometime in late elementary/early middle school. I reread them fairly regularly in high school and read the Silmarillion in high school. It was a long slog, a bit like reading a history text book, but totally worth it Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Alcon, that sounds like fun. Why didn't you invite me?
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You think Tolkien's LOTR characters are two dimensional and wooden?
Are we talking about the same Tolkien?
Yes. Except that you're being much more generous than me. Now that I've read OSC, I find that a lot of characters in a lot of books that I've read and loved come up flat. It's not really a matter of flawed/idealized for me. It's more like, could I converse with them? Do they feel anything that's not always highly elevated or completely debased? Would I like to have tea with them? The answer for Tolkien's charaters is not really. I mean, I love me some Gandalf, Eowyn, Pippin, et al, but I can't imagine them as flesh and blood people.
His most in depth character was Sam, and that's because he was based somewhat on himself. I think Tolkien spent a lot more time perfecting a cohesive world history than he did peopling it with anyone I'd actually want to hang with. And don't even get me started on his portrayal of women. Ha.
Regardless of the flatness of his characters to me, I will read those books once a year and love every minute of it. I've been doing it for fifteen years already, and I'm so not done yet. Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I've been thinking a lot about the comments on this thread about Tolkien's supposed inability to write decent dialogue as I've been reading The Two Towers (for the umpteenth time). There is a noticeable shift in the style of the dialogue in The Two Towers. It becomes "grander", especially in the opening book of TTT.
The more I read, the more I disagree that he couldn't write dialogue. He must have been particularly sensitive to all styles of speech, with his love of language, and would have been exposed to all levels in his time in the trenches of WW1.
He deliberately writes in a whole range of styles, from the down to earth of the Hobbits, to the high tone of the Elves and Aragorn. More than anything he used speech to characterise his characters, both as individuals and as types.
So the Orcs and Gollum speak in totally different voices from the rest of the characters. (Tolkien mentions in an Appendix that you can still today find modern examples of 'Black Speech' amongst those of an orcish temperament.)
The hobbits speak in a straightforward voice that is quite modern and down to earth. Frodo's speech patterns change and become more 'noble' the closer he gets to Mt Doom, as he himself changes.
Aragorn the same, as he asserts himself more strongly as the king of Gondor.
I think he was acutely sensitive to the idea that the way people speak reveals their character, and tailored his dialogue to that principle. It's not that he couldn't write decent dialogue, it's more that he chose to use dialogue to express the nobility or otherwise of his characters.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Alcon, that sounds like fun. Why didn't you invite me?
Do ya live anywhere near Saratoga Springs, NY?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I just finished Return of the King today and am now quite glad that I have read it. Very much so. I don't think I will ever read it again- it wasn't 'entertaining' enough for me to do that. But it was amazing.
Return of the King was my favorite- the build up of tension through books 5 and 6 were completely tangible IMHO- even despite the fact I had seen the movie several times. The Scouring of the Shire was of course the only major event that wasn't covered in the movies but I still knew about it- made me just laugh quite a bit. And then watching the Hobbits kick out "Sharkey" was just pathetic in a good way.
Fellowship was my second favorite, and the Two Towers my least favorite. I didn't actually skip over any parts that I know about- except some of the really long songs. Now I think I might try to make my way through the Silmarillion.
So woohoo for me- I finished it. And as to some people asking why was I trying to force myself to read it. It wasn't so much force- it was I could tell even from the movies that the story would be one I love- the nobility, the sacrifice of it all- I sensed there was a powerful story for me to read and unearth if I could get past the style. Which in the end I came to appreciate very much.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Yay!
(puts a "Frodo lives!" pin on Shawshank's jacket")
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
RotK was, and is, my all time favorite. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just finished rereading the Silmarillion for maybe the dozenth time, I love it.
I'll give you a warning though, it's quite literally an Elvish history book, albeit far more entertaining (for me) than any other history book I've ever read. There's little dialogue in it, it's mostly storytelling and it has a very slow start. If you want to read more about the Elves, and want to hear some of the best characters and stories in 20th century literature, by all means read it, just go into it knowing what to expect. One last warning is you might want to refer to the back of the book a few times to try and get all the names right. Tolkien throws a LOT of names at you, and considering Middle Earth's penchant for naming children after the fashion of their parents, you get main characters like Finwe, Ingwe, Elwe and Olwe, who sound a little similar, but are the leaders of four very different peoples. And then you get the leaders of the Noldor, Finrod, Fingon, Fingolfin, Finarfin, Finwe, Feanor, and still more. Even just looking at that list, and having read the Sil a dozen times my memory isn't always good enough to readily identify which was which. I forgive Tolkien, because he left the work unfinished at his death, and it was finished later by Christopher before he could polish it up, but it's the driest of his texts. Don't take any of this as a slam on the Sil though, I've read it more than any other Tolkien book, and I love it. It's also extremely depressing, I was (and am) really attached to the characters, and some of them don't make it to the end of the story, which is sad to see for many reasons.
Let us know how you like it when you finish it.
Personally I love the stories of Beren and Luthien, the life of Turin Turambar, the rise and fall of Beleriand, the all too short story of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin (for more on many of these stories, check out the Unfinished Tales).
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I'm with Lyrhawn, but I'd also strongly recommend not judging the book by the first section, the Music of the Ainur, which is Tolkien's creation myth for Middle Earth. It's very poetic, and can be hard going. The second section, The Quenta Silmarillion, is the real meat, and contains some extraordinarily powerful and tragic stories, as cited by Lyrhawn above.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm the opposite, I love the Music of the Ainur. I find that creation story beautiful and magical.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
.
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)