JRR Tolken

[Spirit_of_Song]

Honestly I liked the Hobbit, but I can't get into the trilogy. even though I can't see the movies until after I've read the books.  

[Bookwyrme]

Give it time. Tolkien builds his story slowly and carefully, and it takes a while (about halfway through the first book) for things to get moving.  

[Spirit_of_Song]

I got through the first one, but I'm stuck on the second one.  

[Bookwyrme]

Oh dear. I don't know what to recomend, then, except--try to let go of your 20th c. ideas about what a plot should do & be & let the tale proceed at its own pace. It is worth it, I promise!  

[Harbone]

When I was young, I found it very hard to get into the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It's slow reading and sometimes not very rewarding... at least so it seems at first. You really need to build up more experience, both in life and in hearing people tell stories, before it starts to take hold.

In many ways, I think the Peter Jackson films are more like "The Hobbit" than the trilogy. It adds a lot of modernisms (like Aragorn's "Let's hunt some ork!" aside near the end of the Fellowship movie) and has a quicker pace than the books.

Back when I first tried to read Tolkien, I only got about as far as Tom Bombadil (which isn't even to the Prancing Pony, yet!) But about five years later, after I had some more schooling and grown my hair out a bit, so-to-speak, I picked up the books again and they were much more engaging.

Still, the Hobbit and Farmer Giles of Ham remain favorites of mine from the first time I read them (and to this day I can't get into the Silmarillion!)  

[Bookwyrme]

The Silmarilion is an odd sort of book. Really, it's more like a scholarly collection of myths than a novel.

I think there is material for at least 3 more books in there, but they never got written.

I've read it a couple of times because it is interesting to see where some of the plotlines running through LOTR got started, but it's not a relaxing book.  

[Harbone]

Yeah. I see what you mean. I mostly read fantasy to relax, however. Heh.
Brain candy.

Maybe that's why I never got into Smith of Wotton Major.  

[Ex Obscurum ut Incendia]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[Bookwyrme]

You & I are going to have to agree to disagree on the quality of Tolkien's works, then---the alternative being to get into an endless series of "He's a genius!" "No he isn't!" "Yes he is!" which hardly sounds practical or appealing.

Sidenote (sort of): There were fantasy writers before Tolkien. Most of their work is seldom read today, but they were their & they were writing.

Lord Dunsany, for example, or George MacDonald, E.R. Eddings, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Mervyn Peake, H Rider Haggard, William Morris, Hope Mirlees . . .  

[Harbone]

Sadly, I've never read anything by Hope Merilees*.

However, I'd have to agree with Bookwyrme. Just because Tolkien can be hard to get into, that doesn't mean he wasn't a very good writer... and an engaging one. It's just that he wrote in different voices - often about the same subject!

Like I said, I find his "fun" voice, the one used in the Hobbit and Farmer Giles of Ham and several other works to be his most enjoyable, but as far as epic fantasy goes, he takes you deep into the world of Middle Earth for the Lord of the Rings. His invented languages alone make the book worth getting into!

But yeah, that's all I've got to say there, too, before the He's A Genius/No He's Not reflex takes over! (You're certainly allowed to dislike his style! But I whole heartedly reccommend leaving off with the Lord of the Rings stuff and trying one of his smaller offerings before discarding him as an author altogether!)

*But I wanted to... although I STILL haven't spelled the name right.  

[Ex Obscurum ut Incendia]

True, it is not very like to to judge soley on one peice of work... I guess I like to rebell against everyone else when they say it is so good, but my own thoughts take me elsewhere.

And as to their being other fantasy writers, I know this, ever read the bible? domokun domokun domokun Heh, I am mean. But the torah, eddas, kuran, etc. All fantasy, but he is the first to write THIS form of fantasy. Since he took it mostly from the Eddas, I can see his reasoning and where his boring streches came from........... confused  

[Hakumei_Tenshi]

We read The Hobit this year in English, and we are watching The Trilogy movies in Music Explorations. I've seen the movies, but it's lovely to see them again!!

 

[Harbone]

Tiamit

True, it is not very like to to judge soley on one peice of work... I guess I like to rebell against everyone else when they say it is so good, but my own thoughts take me elsewhere.

And as to their being other fantasy writers, I know this, ever read the bible? domokun domokun domokun Heh, I am mean. But the torah, eddas, kuran, etc. All fantasy, but he is the first to write THIS form of fantasy. Since he took it mostly from the Eddas, I can see his reasoning and where his boring streches came from........... confused

Well, some of us do kinda think the Bible isn't a fantasy. So yeah, you're mean. But you're allowed to be. I'm just contractually obligated to say that I beleive in the bible. But, yeah, even some of us Christians find it hard to swallow the entire book. In many ways, Tolkien actually goes down smoother than the Bible, with an easier-to-follow plot.

But the eddas are a pretty good read. Tolkien got a lot of his inspiration from folklore, I hear. You can certainly trace several very prominent motiffs.  

[Bookwyrme]

Tiamit

True, it is not very like to to judge soley on one peice of work... I guess I like to rebell against everyone else when they say it is so good, but my own thoughts take me elsewhere.

It's possible to admire something & acknowledge it as great without necessarily liking it or wanting to read it. I'm not especially fond of The Scarlet Letter, but I can admire it as a work of art, even if I won't be reading or studying it voluntarily.

Quote:

And as to their being other fantasy writers, I know this, ever read the bible? domokun domokun domokun Heh, I am mean. But the torah, eddas, kuran, etc. All fantasy,

Mean or trolling for trouble? People tend not to like their religions taken lightly & taking this tack seldom leads to profitable or civil conversation.

Also, there's a recognizable difference between myth (which can be true as well as myth) and fantasy which you are also overlooking. They're very different in style, approach, and meaning.

And, yes, I'm one of the "people" I'm mentioning. I'm a Christian & I take miracles quite literally.  

[Bookwyrme]

Harbone

But the eddas are a pretty good read./quote]

Yes indeed.

And Kevin Crossley-Holland has a great translation/combination with an amazing set of endnotes (yes, I'm crazy enough to read them).

Quote:

Tolkien got a lot of his inspiration from folklore, I hear. You can certainly trace several very prominent motiffs.

Oh, tons and tons. Lots from the Eddas, some from various British sources, and, oh, all over the place (how's that for a scholarly description?).

I was able to study some Old English & one of the fun things about the class was finding out that several of the Elvish words scattered throughout LOTR are derived from OE.

My professor used to get slightly annoyed that people would take his class because of Tolkien--he wanted Old English studied for itself, and also he thought Tolkien should be remembered as a scholar rather than a fantasist (as of the last time I talked to said professor, he had yet to read LOTR).