|
Rank:6 Inches of Trol
Status:
Waiting for dragons.
Posts: 283
Registered: 01/25/2011
|
I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by silentmajority on Sept 16, 2010, 10:53pm
...so do I have to turn in my nerd card? The reason is that I've never found elves, dwarves, and magic wands overly interesting before. However, I've been thinking that I probably should read these books, but before I do I want to know if they're worth my time. I keep reading that Tolkien will describe a tree in multiple pages. Endless description sounds boring, but I did love the Wheel of Time series, so maybe it won't be a big deal.
What's your thoughts of this classic fantasy series?
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by scorpiknox on Sept 16, 2010, 11:28pm
You have to read it, you just do. I honestly thought it was a bit slow, but that's because I read it relatively late in life, when I was already 20 or so. The Two Towers is a bit of a slog.
Tedium aside, it's the blueprint for all things fantasy and it has some truly glorious moments. The Hobbit is the most enjoyable read, but it lacks the depth of the initial trilogy, probably because it was intended for kids.
Seriously though, I'm not an expert; there are so many more people around here could give you a better answer.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by moose2 on Sept 16, 2010, 11:32pm
I'm probably not in the majority either, but I'm not terribly keen on elves and dwarves and all that either.
I can't exactly put my finger on what I don't like about the writing (the endless singing, now that I can put my finger on) but I didn't notice any particular attention to minute detail regarding trees. Rather that it was on the whole rather dry and not something I could get lost in. The characters (barring the hobbits and Gollum) just weren't terribly interesting. The actual main plot (Frodo and the ring) is really good, but I feel I was just slogging through all the other crap.
I'd say don't bother. Or more accurately, watch the movies. The movies chop it down to a manageable (though still sizeable) portion, and actually try to fill in some parts of the book that make almost no sense (Aragorn and Arwen/Eowyn).
I guess it's quite "of its time". And by that, I mean dated. Hmm, maybe I take it back, you should read it. Because it's a classic, but not because it's the greatest book ever written.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by Slynt/Ser Perfidious on Sept 17, 2010, 5:00am
The Lord of the Rings is an amazing piece of work. The atmosphere and mood is unique, it almost makes me cry just to think of how important this book has been to my development in such fields as English, roleplaying games, appreciation of literature in general, appreciation of nature, and much more.
It is, next to A Song of Ice and Fire and Star Wars, the most important fiction of my life. The archaic language, the dialogue peculiar to Tolkien, the fascinating (and as yet unrivalled) world building, the mythological aspects; the vivid descriptions (and yes, you get a good insight into trees, lol), the dark forces that have inspired so many black metal bands, the simply fantastic array of character and place names that echo throughout the imagined ages of the world.
I will admit that large chunks of "The Two Towers" is a bit.. meh..but I do like Elves and Dwarves - in this particular novel - because they have rich histories and Tolkien's cultures for these races is what eventually was ripped off a billion times by roleplaying games, computer games and movies. And other fantasy authors, obviously.
This novel is alive. I love it to pieces. Except the Ents with their wooden balls with twigs for pubic hair.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by loripetty on Sept 17, 2010, 10:11am
LoTR is great, but I don't really think it's required reading. With all of the great fantasy literature available these days, someone can be a fantasy expert and not really have read LoTR. In fact, I'd say that LoTR almost belongs to a different category than modern fantasy. The genre has just changed so much over time that I don't know if LoTR can rightly be used as a benchmark anymore.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by altraum on Sept 17, 2010, 11:00am
Hoy,
You have to read it! Where do you think gorge got his suprise sex inspiration from?
Altraum...
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by jjh on Sept 17, 2010, 11:17am
Moose is right, the writing style is definitely dated. I'd say it's still a worth while read. I loved it when I read it many years ago. I hadn't read much other fantasy to compare it with, so it had a big impact. Come to think of it, I wonder what it would be like to re-read it now? If I didn't have so many other books I wanted to get through I'd give it a go...
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Sept 17, 2010, 12:08pm
I say go for it.
I used to re-read the trilogy every Fall, to coincide with the hobbits' journey to Rivendell. I will admit, though, that since movies were released, I let those handle my LotR "fix."
Great characters, great plot, great world-building, great emotional themes, simply great. 
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Sept 17, 2010, 12:11pm
Except the Ents with their wooden balls with twigs for pubic hair.
Proof that the trilogy has something for everyone, because my brother and I have both read the books numerous times. I agree with you - I don't much care for the Ents, but Treebeard is my brother's favorite character. 
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by silentmajority on Sept 17, 2010, 12:26pm
I saw collectors boxed set of LotR at a used bookstore that I frequent. That was one of the reasons why I started to think about reading it. Thanks everyone, you convinced me to give the series a shot.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by garth on Sept 17, 2010, 4:06pm
Personally, I found the Lord of the Rings to be a somewhat underwhelming read. So much in the series has become cliché so that it is almost every bit as predictable as say Eragon.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by edmunddantes2 on Sept 17, 2010, 8:37pm
I think the problem is when do you read LoTR? Me I read it after I had already gotten fairly far into the fantasy genre, and I was older. I loved the hobbit as a youngster, and I've read many books longer. However, by the time I got to the LoTR, I had read too much fantasy.
I had always described it as "we're walking, we're walking, we're walking, 5 mins of action, we're walking, we're walking". Plus the middle book always annoys the hell out of me. So by the time I get to the 3/4 part of the third book, I skim through it. I don't think I have ever officially finished the trilogy to tell you the truth. Someday I'll get around to it.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by darkway on Sept 18, 2010, 11:14am
I haven't read the books either, but that is because I hear the movies represent the books fairly well - and I've seen the movies twice. Time is limited and there are lots of good books to read and other things to enjoy in life. I guess this is one of those rare exceptions where seeing the movies is enough.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by aussiechris on Sept 19, 2010, 12:07am
I've only read it the once. I was a kid when I did it and it was a hell of a struggle, but I am glad I did read it. When my must read challenge hits the T's (I'm up to C) the good Prof is there waiting for me with The Hobbit and LotR. I'll actually enjoy rereading it. I think I'll probably appreciate it more now than I did then. BTW Darkway I'd recommend reading the book, even if you have seen the movies. Movies only give you part of the experience. People think that Tolkien was highly respected in his time, and he was, but Christopher Tolkien recounts Inklings meetings at their house where Tolkien was reading chunks of LotR to them and one of the Inklings was laying back on the couch shouting 'Oh no! Not more elves!'
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by moose2 on Sept 19, 2010, 12:12am
I'll second (or third) the sentiments regarding The Hobbit. I really enjoyed it a lot more. The Gondor parts of LotR (and the aforementioned singing) really drag it down for me.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by iblis on Sept 19, 2010, 12:46am
It's ok, SM. I've never read The Unfinished Tales. 
My grandfather gave me an old copy of The Hobbit when i was a kid, and i loved it. The Silmarillion too. Didn't read LOTR until years later. Just not my cup of tea, i guess. By then i was just far too spoiled with other works of fantasy.
But yeah, i think you have to at least give it a try. It's kind of like visiting an old great-aunt with a huge goiter and flatulance problems: you have to at least once or twice, every other year.
I've managed to vulgarize a post about LOTR. God help me.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by fetfnask on Sept 22, 2010, 2:48am
I agree with Slynt on this one.
It's the language, the themes and the world building that gets me hooked every time. I'm one of those who love Silmarillion as well.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by scorpiknox on Sept 22, 2010, 1:18pm
I just wanted to say that you could probably just get by watching the moives it you get through Fellowship and are only "meh" about it.
Thom Bombadill(sp?) is the only real omission besides the songs I think.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by annan on Sept 22, 2010, 3:07pm
Whenever I tell people that I dislike The Lord of the Rings, I always receive horrified gasps in response.
I love The Hobbit, though, partially because of sentimental reasons (my father used to read it to my siblings and I when we were very young), but mostly because I think it's a better read. Then again, I'm horribly uncultured when it comes to my taste in literature.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by sloth on Sept 22, 2010, 4:02pm
My opinion is that it is worth reading solely on the basis of being able to appreciate the formula for the myriad of subsequent derivatives that permeate the modern fantasy genre. Even that may be a stretch though because the silly elves, dwarves, trolls, orcs and such are so ingrained within the modern fantasy genre that most every fantasy reader is familiar with Tolkien's material without ever having read it.
I view Tolkien as having provided a template of sorts that for whatever the reason a ton of authors followed. It is of course absurd to think that fantasy as we know it did not exist pre-Tolkien. Take for instance the Epic of Gilgamesh, which involves many fantastical elements as well as being epic/culture building in scope. Fantasy has been around a long time, and I believe is a fundamental part of the human experience. I'm not saying that every man or woman in the world will wake up one day and want to read Patrick Rothfuss; what I mean is that literature throughout history has shown that the human mind has a need to construct false worlds, cultures and beings for some purpose. In our modern world the elements we call fantasy normally are depicted through literature, film, music, and art. So I guess where I'm going here is that I recommend reading Tolkien due to his influence on our modern fantasy tropes.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by aussiechris on Sept 22, 2010, 5:28pm
Sept 22, 2010, 2:48am, fetfnask wrote:I agree with Slynt on this one.
It's the language, the themes and the world building that gets me hooked every time. I'm one of those who love Silmarillion as well. |
|
George mentioned this when I asked him about the languages in ASoIaF. He said Tolkien created 2 entire languages before he even started writing LotR. George on the other hand has 7 words in High Valyrian. He occasionally gets asked how to phrase things in the language and he usually answers along the lines of: 'I dunno. I only have 7 words. If I need an 8th I'll make it up!' 2 entire languages before he even started, you have to admire that sort of dedication and attention to detail and yeah I know he was a linguist, but damn!
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by oliveira8 on Sept 22, 2010, 5:32pm
Sept 22, 2010, 5:28pm, aussiechris wrote:
Sept 22, 2010, 2:48am, fetfnask wrote:I agree with Slynt on this one.
It's the language, the themes and the world building that gets me hooked every time. I'm one of those who love Silmarillion as well. |
|
George mentioned this when I asked him about the languages in ASoIaF. He said Tolkien created 2 entire languages before he even started writing LotR. George on the other hand has 7 words in High Valyrian. He occasionally gets asked how to phrase things in the language and he usually answers along the lines of: 'I dunno. I only have 7 words. If I need an 8th I'll make it up!' 2 entire languages before he even started, you have to admire that sort of dedication and attention to detail and yeah I know he was a linguist, but damn! |
|
He did it as a hobby. It was his version of collecting stamps.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by oliveira8 on Sept 28, 2010, 10:54pm
Read the books. Ignore the movies
The movies are horrible, apart from the first one.
For two reasons:
1)It ignores a lot of stuff about the work itself
2)It fails a lot as movies goes.
Now the first part, is for fans of the books, and I'm not complaining about removing Tom Bombadil and elves showing up where they shoulnd't and all that shit.
No I'm talking about, how Peter Jackson and pals, fucking ruined half the characters and big moments of the books.
-Frodo is not a pussy. He is suppose to be brave and strong. In the books Frodo is believable as your hero. He takes up the ring because he feels confidant that he can destroy it.(And cause the ring was starting to influence him but whatever) He did not cower, nor stand behind is friends. In Moria his the first after Aragorn to charge the goblins. He gets speared cause he was busy taking ass and kicking names.
When he talks to Gollum, he is extremely severe that he manages to domesticate Gollum, for awhile. In the movie that's all phoned in. Fucking hated it.
Frodo is a hero in the books, which makes his failing more hard to take. That was the point of Frodo, the hero that fails the journey. Frodo is a pussy in the movies. way to missed the point there!
-Aragorn. In the movies his just Strider the Helping Ranger That Tags Along. Though I'll admit this is also Viggo's fault, he does a great Strider not so good King Elessar.
In the book there's two different type of Aragorn. There's Strider then there's King Elessar.
When Aragorn is hiding behind the ranger attitude, he is avoiding his duties. He is not ready to lead Gondor, so he hides. He is a ranger with no name hoping no one really notices him. He doesn't think he is ready to lead Gondor.
When he takes up the sword he finally faces his purpose in life. Aragorn takes up the sword in Fellowship of the Ring not in Return of the King!
He goes with the Fellowship cause that's the path and journey he must take, to prove himself that he IS the King of Gondor. IT WAS HIS PERSONAL JOURNEY! Not because Frodo needed pals.
He also did not take up the Path of the Dead cause Elrond told him, he took it cause he was finally ready to become King. The journey made him believe himself as King. The Path of the Dead was the final challenge.
While we at it.
-They ruined the Path of the Dead! One my favorite parts of the book, the one t I really wanted to see turned into film, THEY RUINED IT!
That part of the book is suppose to be dark, oppressing and close to a horror novel and most of all, a moment of true courage and will. The movie version? Gimli's stand up comedy act, fucking green ghosts and landslide of skulls.
Worst of all the whole section(even in EE) is like 3 minutes! Such an important moment in the trilogy and they almost cut it from the movie!
I can live fine with Tom Bombadil out. Less Tree Beard was good. Small Uruk Hai section in TTT was okay. No Beregond was fine. But the Path of the Dead?
It's when Aragorn and the Grey Company muster courage to face all fears, they even drag the scared shitless horses through a mountain, cause they must.
They pass through forgotten cities, dead people on thrones, it's such an awesome moment and Jackson makes it bloody tunnels and unfunny Gimli jokes!
Where's the dark foreboding? Where's the creepy feeling? Where's the ultimate test of courage? WHERE?
Also the imagery in the final of that chapter is awesome. Aragorn and the Gery Company riding and the dead following them. What we get? SKULLS RAINING ON THEM! ABSOLUTE FUCKERS!
SSSSSSSSLYNNT RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!
-Denethor in the books is a noble man that he is trying to do everything in his reach to save Gondor against impossible odds. His descent into madness is a sad one, he was just trying to do the right thing. In the end he fails cause Sauron got the best out of him. In the whole trilogy, Denethor is when we see how trully twisted Sauron is. Not the armies, or that he is an eye atop of a tower, but that his lies and deceit can pierce through even the most noble of heart, and make a desperate man a misguided fool. He preys on the weakness of man. Not play lighthouse.
In the movies Denethor is an awful person, power hungry and already mad.
Way to miss the point there people.
John Noble does a great job though, one of the best actors of the trilogy, but he could do so much more and give an even more powerful performance, if they sticked with the material!
-Boromir. Another character in which Peter Jackson and crew did not understand! At all.
In the books he is brave, noble blah blah. He cracks under the pressure of the journey and is possessed by the power of the Ring.
In the movies he always wanted the ring, making him greedy and selfish. Kinda the bad guy of the group, when in the books he isn't. His flawed. He symbolizes mankind at his core.
Like his father he tries to do the right thing but in the wrong way. The Ring ends up bringing his worst qualities at his greatest moment of doubt. CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE RING DOES!
His last stand shows that mankind is not always greedy and selfish, they can be altruist and honourable, that's why he saves Merry and Pippin, even though he was destined to fail. His strength in wanting to redeem itself at the end, is what made Boromir a great character. In the movie that subtlety is lost, cause during the whole movie his an asshole!
-Faramir. Gawd they managed to fail all the family!
Faramir is the opposite of Boromir and Denethor. He tries to do the right thing, and manages to do it. Which is let Frodo go. Not drag him to Minas Tirith and regret halfway through. I get why they did it, they needed a climax for Frodo and Sam in TTT, cause Shelob would ruin the timeline. But they should not trample Faramir's character development.
In the book he is not swayed by the Ring, he resists the power of the ring. He is the only person on the whole trilogy that refuses the Ring. He doesn't refuse cause the ring would turn him into a monster, he refuses cause that's the right thing to do. He doesn't take it cause it wouldn't bring anything good to him or his people.
He is the shining beacon of hope in the novels. He is mankind at his best. Not Aragorn, but the one of the secondary characters. Again they miss this, and the whole point!
They keept ruining message after message, theme after theme.
Lord of the Rings is rich with themes and important messages, subtle messages and themes. Yet the movies don't get one right. NOT ONE!
Worst of all Faramir was the avatar of Tolkien. Tolkien saw himself in Faramir. If he ever comes back from the dead he would murder Peter Jackson and Frank Walsh.
They kinda screwed his relationship with Eown to. Not even in the EE. But whatever.
-The confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf the White. I was okay with this part being cut from the theatrical release, even if didn't made much sense, cause I knew it was going to feature in the Extended Edition. So I was a happy cat. Till I watched what they did in the EE.
What.The.Fuck?
Not only they filled that scene with bad CGI but they also ruined Gandalf's crowning moment of awesome.
The reveal that Gandalf was now White was why that Saruman got owned.
In the books Gandalf proves that he is stronger than Saruman when he reveals himself that he is White. It's a "Say hello to my little friend!" moment.
He shows that he is now superior and breaks Saruman's staff, meaning that from now on Saruman is of the Shit. There's no fireballs, or people falling from towers to get impaled.It's all words and will.
Saruman gets humiliated not killed, cause that would do no good, is a bigger fall to Saruman and that Gandalf still believes that he can be redeemed. WAY TO MISS THE POINT FOLKS!
-The siege of Minas Tirith was also poorly conceived. A case they went with the BIG ACTION MOMENT and neglect the subtle parts of the book!
There is no big battle in the books. It was a days long siege. The Orc army just puts the Fear of Sauron into the mens of Gondor. It was dark and hope there is not. The end was nigh and the Great Deceiver was about to win. This was all done with no battle. No armies clashing. Just description and mood.
The hopeless of it it all was almost heartbreaking. There was only Gandalf, cause when the battle starts the defenses don't hold.
When the gate comes down, only Gandalf waits for the army. The Witch King comes, boasting and laughing and lighting is sword on FIRAH! That was the end there. Poor Gandalf knew he was no match for the Witch King at that time, and he was the last man standing in a hopeless defense.
Then the horn blows, and the Rohirim arrive. Hope is regained and a new dawn breaks.
The movie doesn't capture any of this. It does however capture the great charge. But not enough.
-No Harrowing of the Shire? This was also well removed from the theatrical release, but what the fuck! You have the EE, no reason why you couldn't shoot and add it later!
The Harrowing of the Shire is not pointless, it's what completes the themes of the trilogy! That no place is safe from War and Change. The coming of the four Hobbits back to the Shire to find it broken is a sad moment.
All they wanted was to return home, to their friends to their peaceful live, away from business of men. But when they arrive, they find their home broken, their friends slaves and the Hobbit lifestyle ruined.
It's the what the book is all about!
No matter how small or unimportant you are, WAR AFFECTS ALL AND EVERYONE!
How did Peter Jackson and crew miss this? Did he even read the books? What the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?!
Okay in the theatrical release, NOT OKAY on the EE.
-Shelob. I'll admit Sam vs Shelob saves it. But wheres chill down your spine that the book gives? The hobbits trapped in dark corridors, alone, Gollum's creepy lines in the dark, trapped in a maze with something. Then you find out that something is GIANT SPIDER. Holy fuck Giant Spider! Sam desperately trying to find Frodo. only to found him almost being food to a GIANT SPIDER!
It was a pure horror moment, that the movies don't capture.
I was hoping for an Alien moment, and I got nothing. Lame.
Also it would be impossible for the movie to capture this, but this is one of the best lines of the trilogy.
Shelob was gone, and whether she lay long in her lair, nursing her malice and her misery, and in slow years of darkness healed herself from within, rebuilding her clustered eyes, until with hunger like death she spun once more her dreadful snares in the glens of the Mountains of Shadow, this tale does not tell.
This is part is so haunting. This is something you will never see Martin or Erikson or whatever write. The final "This tale does not tell" is so chilling. She might still be out there, still hungry, forever waiting.
Like we are for A Dance with Dragons! Har Har Har....
-The ending. This is kinda of my interpretation of the ending of the movie but they made it to "happy", when in the book is not. It's bittersweet, almost heartbreakingly sad.
Frodo, Bilbo, the Elves and Gandalf sailing to the west signals the end of the magic and the wonder of Middle Earth. That's why Tolkien axed the idea of making a sequel. The magic had left Middle Earth. That's why the place they sail west is called the Grey Havens. The world is left with less wonderful.
The beautiful woods and cities of the elves would die, the wisdom of the great Wizards was no more, all those lovely places of mystery and wonder lost forever. Middle Earth became...our earth. Which it is. In centuries, the hobbit's would be driven by barbarians, the Ents would be cut down, ages of wonder and magic forgotten and the world of Arda would become ours.
The sailing into the Sunset in the movies kinda robs that moment of sadness. They kinda nailed it between characters but not overall, and that was the point. Bah!
Now the parts that fail internally as movies.
-"Go away Sam". Excuse me what?
This, is what this awful movie is telling it's audience.
Frodo, just sends Sam away. Sam. The guy who almost drowns trying to get to his friend. Sam. The guy that he builds an everlasting friendship with. Sam. The guy that decided to go into a volcano even though he doesn't need to. SAM?!?!?!
I don't care if you say that it was the ring or Gollum. No. You know why? Cause it's horrible character development.
I don't care. No. No. No. No. No.
Just awful. These guys are suppose to be buddies now! The movies build a relation between these guys just to piss over it in 10 seconds. Absolute Fuckers.
When Sam does has his heroic/homoerotic moment I'm suppose to feel what? That these guys are true friends? Sam and the ass"My new friend tells me I'm not suppose to like you, so bye!"hole? Absolute Fuckers.
This is also is a Book-Movie complaint. It just makes poor sense in a adaptation and in a movie sense.
-Aragorn falls, people think his dead, but he isn't! Why? What's the point of this scene? Everyone knows that he doesn't die. So why are you wasting time on this plotpoint. For more Arwen flashbacks? Couldn't you add that when he was in Helm's Deep doing nothing on the stairs? Come on...
Instead of wasting time on that, you could used it to send off Saruman properly, you twats.
-The best CGI ever....and the WORST CGI ever. Watching these movies is very pleasing to the eye. The sets are beautiful, the special effects great and Gollum is the best technological feat, since cloning real dinosaurs for a movie. What? They were CGI Dinos? Well...I learned something new today!
Anyway, it's amazing really.
And then you see the Army of the Dead. What the fuck? Did the same company who made Gollum do these CGI aberrations? THEY LOOK AWFUL! Also why did they chose vomit green for colouring them? Did you run out of time or something? The budget was over? What? EXPLAIN WHY THEY LOOKED LIKE THE SHIT!
You can make a total virtual character and a bloody giant spider, but can't make proper ghosts? Did the guys who designed and created Gollum and Shelob have brainfarts when they made the Army of the Dead?
I mean...what happened!
Also that fireball in the final Saruman scene. What was up with that. It looked awful! And Denethor falling from Minas Tirith?
Who the fuck was in charge of the visual effects of Return of the King anyway? It wasn't Weta that I'm sure...
-----
I adored Fellowship of the Ring. When I watched the movie it filled me with wonder and made a little kid again. I guess it was my A New Hope.Then The Two Towers came and the magic was not all there, in some parts in shined, but in others there was so much wrong. When Return of the King came it wasn't the same thing. No magic, no wonder, no passion. It was my Phantom Menace if we still on the Star Wars metaphor.
The Shire was wonderful, Moria impressive, the Nazgul were scary, I let go a single manly tear when Gandalf fell from the bridge even though I knew he would come back. I did it when I first read the book, and repeated when watched it on film.
The other movies fail in a lot of the big scenes. Strange they manage to make a small one in the books(Helm's Deep) a huge bonus. But the rest. I'm not feeling it. So not there.
The movies are okay and really I doubt someone is going to do better, and if you never read the books they are probably great.
That's why when I see people saying that the movies are better than the books I can only assume they:
A)Are high on cocaine.
B)Never read the books or never watched the movies.
C)Are named Peter Jackson.
As for the books which what you wanted, they are lovely books.
No Tolkien doesn't take 3 pages to describe a tree. He doesn't take 3 words to describe a tree really, unless the tree is relevant. He does take time and words describing the world around you.
It seems very boring at first, I did think it was boring when I read it back 15 or so years ago. But later you will find little details and meanings that didn't seem relevant at first. Those descriptions of places lost and endless roads will take up a new meaning.
Like in Frank Herbert's epic, Arrakis is THE Character of Dune. Not Paul or Leto II, but the planet.
So is Middle Earth the character of Lord of the Rings. Tolkien created a stage and he wants his readers to learn about that stage. Not something where the characters just walk around, but where the reader could be part of. I'll admit that describing how many miles places are, is not that important but doesn't drag the book that much.
Most of the trilogy is mood and setting. The characterization is light in modern standards, but they are perfect for the story and thematic.
You just have to let the books take you into those mountain peaks, lost valleys and forests. Cause that's what is about, the world.
Is it mandatory? Ehh...Yes? No? Maybe? I will say The Hobbit IS mandatory. Cause it's just a great tale made for kids, teens, adults and old "should already be dead so stop leeching social security" folk.
If you do get around Lord of the Rings and enjoy it, get Silmarillion. I'm not the craziest fan of it, but the book is the true testament to someone's imagination. It was also his life work, that he never managed to complete. One life time wasn't enough to complete one book.
P.S: Gee I didn't want to make such a small post....Sorry 'bout that!
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by moose2 on Sept 28, 2010, 11:40pm
Holy crap, dude.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by scorpiknox on Sept 29, 2010, 12:11am
You've just made me want to watch and read the whole trilogy again. Dammit. 
I agree with most of what you said. Especially some of the mindless melodrama that went on between Frodo and Sam. And you're right: Frodo was not nearly such a pussy in the books.
And MOAR Uruk Hai. Always.
Nice post man.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by Slynt/Ser Perfidious on Sept 29, 2010, 2:47am
Lol, someone's angry about the movies. I have to agree though, I loved "The Fellowship of the Ring" (got a tear in my eyes as early as Gandalf arriving with his wagon and the children cheering him); "The Two Towers" is a mess for the most part, while "Return of the King" in my opinion has some redeeming scenes (but not nearly enough). The book is obviously much better, and that's how it's gonna stay and that's how it should be.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by fetfnask on Sept 29, 2010, 2:57am
oliveira8, I love you. You summed up my problems with the movies.
What I disliked the most was the total butchering of Boromir, Denethor and Faramir. Their Essences were polluted by Jackson. That, I will not forgive.
That, and how Legolas and Gimili became comic relief.
And quite a lot more.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by darkgreen on Sept 29, 2010, 8:41am
I agree with almost all of what you said, though not enough to dislike the movies.
You hit the nail on the head with Aragorn in the movies. Viggo does a great job as the ranger struggling with who he is supposed to be but when it comes to becoming a king he falls on his face. His performance as king in the last movie is especially glaringly bad when compared to Bernard Hill’s performance as Theoden in the last two movies. Now there is a king.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by oliveira8 on Sept 29, 2010, 8:45am
Sept 29, 2010, 2:57am, fetfnask wrote:oliveira8, I love you. You summed up my problems with the movies.
What I disliked the most was the total butchering of Boromir, Denethor and Faramir. Their Essences were polluted by Jackson. That, I will not forgive.
That, and how Legolas and Gimili became comic relief.
And quite a lot more. |
|
I didn't mind Legolas and Gimli in TTT, one of the things I thought they changed it for the best, was give them more time. In the books their forging of a friendship doesn't seem natural. And the funny parts(Besides nobody tosses a dwarf) were funny.
But RotK was awful. It reduced Gimli to a monkey and Legolas to an insipid action star.
Sept 29, 2010, 8:41am, darkgreen wrote:I agree with almost all of what you said, though not enough to dislike the movies.
You hit the nail on the head with Aragorn in the movies. Viggo does a great job as the ranger struggling with who he is supposed to be but when it comes to becoming a king he falls on his face. His performance as king in the last movie is especially glaringly bad when compared to Bernard Hill’s performance as Theoden in the last two movies. Now there is a king.
|
|
Bernard Hill was the best thing in TTT and RotK. Kinda disappointed that his career didn't explode after those movies, so he could get bigger roles. He remembered me of Michael Caine in his best years.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by scorpiknox on Sept 29, 2010, 9:32am
I have a good friend who did a re-edit of the trilogy, changing the timeline and adding the Gollum/Smeagol origin story to Fellowship. Also, he cut out about 25 minutes of Sam and Frodo man-love, which made it much more watchable. Or as he put it "I cut out all the gay bits."
Fellowship is hands down my favorite installment in the film version. Gandalf intimidating Bilbo to give up the ring is still one of my favorite all time movie moments, and the fight in the Dwarf town (forget the name right now) with the cave troll/ogre guy is fawking awesome.
Man, I really need to revisit the books. Maybe I'll do that over the winter break. You've given me some serious food for thought Oliveira...
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Sept 29, 2010, 9:51am
Oliveira, get off the fence, man, and tell us how you really feel. 
I confess to skimming the latter part of your post, but a lot of the earlier comments, I find myself in the bizarre position of agreeing with your interpretation of the themes of the books, but disagreeing that Jackson and company screwed them up.
I never felt Frodo came across as a pussy in the movies. He's a little hobbit who just wants an uneventful and peaceful life, but fate decrees otherwise, and he heroically rises to the occasion. In the end, without his "dark side" Gollum, he would have failed. It's a tragedy, but out of despair comes triumph. At no point did I feel Frodo wussed out.
I never felt Boromir or Denethor were portrayed as "bad," but rather were gradually corrupted by the Ring, just as Tolkien intended.
And I DO think the changes in Strider/Aragorn over the course of the quest and battles are in there and portrayed nicely.
My biggest problem with Aragorn was the ridiculous scene in The Two Towers, in which he and his horse fall off the cliff after a battle with the Orcs. Not so much because it wasn't in the book, but because it changed stuff while serving no purpose whatsoever that I could see.
And as much as it will anger you, I was never much of a fan of the Paths of the Dead sequence myself. My recollection of it in the books is it was a boring part, too long and basically took one of my fave characters, Aragorn, out of the main action. So I was glad it was given short shrift in the film.
Are the movies as good as the books? No.
In fact, in my experience, the only good movie which has surpassed the good book it was based on, is Stephen King's The Green Mile.
Nevertheless, I'm a huge fan of both the LotR movies and the books. But I will admit I'm overdue to the re-read the books, and maybe I would change my mind afterwards.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by loripetty on Sept 29, 2010, 10:25am
Jesus Oliveira, can't say I agree with most of that about the movies, but I DO however agree with the whole "Go away Sam" part of the third one. Actually, all of the gollum stuff was a little overdone and I wasn't very fond of it.
Everything else is great, because going into the movies, I didn't expect to see the books verbatim. I expected to see something that resembled the books, but took on a life of its own. I think the movies have done that, and it's a credit to the crew who made it that they're able to make such a distinct creation.
EDIT: Oh! Oh! And killing Saruman in the extended edition. I thought that was pretty pointless....but, then again, it WAS in the extended edition. In the "regular" version of the movie, you're left to think that Saruman is just surrounded by Ents and that's the end of that.
I was also kind of fond of the shire being taken over by Saruman when the hobbits get back. That totally shocked me when I read it and it was an interesting side-adventure.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by oliveira8 on Sept 29, 2010, 11:07am
Sept 29, 2010, 9:51am, rolandofgilead wrote:
I never felt Frodo came across as a pussy in the movies. He's a little hobbit who just wants an uneventful and peaceful life, but fate decrees otherwise, and he heroically rises to the occasion. In the end, without his "dark side" Gollum, he would have failed. It's a tragedy, but out of despair comes triumph. At no point did I feel Frodo wussed out.
|
|
See but that's not what Frodo was in the books. Frodo wanted an adventure, just like Bilbo. He wanted to go see forests of Mirkwood visit the dark dungeons of Misty Mountains and all that.
But he did not get an adventure like that, he got something that wasn't for him, but he still did not shy, he faced it head on and would destroy the ring no matter the cost. He took the ring cause everyone else was to scared to do it.(And that Bilbo was to old) That's why it's all so tragic when he fails.
The movies go the opposite way, making him weak and doubtful.
Sept 29, 2010, 9:51am, rolandofgilead wrote:
I never felt Boromir or Denethor were portrayed as "bad," but rather were gradually corrupted by the Ring, just as Tolkien intended.
|
|
But they weren't. They were already portrayed as bad individuals from the get go.
Boromir in council stands up and say "We must use it as a weapon!", Elrond says "Access denied!", Boromir skinks back into his chair grumbling in spite. "If that is the will of the council, then the council are a bunch of pricks. OOps did I say that outloud?"
On Caradhras when Frodo falls, Boromir is salivating over the ring like the Alien did when he saw Ripley in panties. Even Aragorn has a hand in sword in that scene. The movie went through all the effort of portraying him as the bad apple of the group. Never tried to put him in another light. Except from one scene in the EE.
The books you only start noticing Boromir after Moria. When Frodo starts noticing him glaring at him.
Same thing as Denethor right on his first scene, which strangely is almost verbatim of the book, they missed the point of the scene.
When he says "Gondor needs no Kings", it's not cause he is power hungry, it's because he lost all his faith on the line of kings. The Kings turned their back in Gondor, so why should he care for this Aragorn fellow. It meant nothing to the people of Gondor or him. They weren't there when Gondor needed them.
In the movies the whole scene builds his character as a Throne Leech.
Or when he sees the army of orcs amassing at his city gates he just goes Berserk, that Gandalf needs to hit him with the staff. Why did the movies portray Denethor as lunatic? He wasn't...
They were flawed human beings in the book, in the movie their are card board cut outs of the clichés, that haunted Fantasy after LotR.
What they made these changes I will not understand.
Sept 29, 2010, 9:51am, rolandofgilead wrote:
And I DO think the changes in Strider/Aragorn over the course of the quest and battles are in there and portrayed nicely.
My biggest problem with Aragorn was the ridiculous scene in The Two Towers, in which he and his horse fall off the cliff after a battle with the Orcs. Not so much because it wasn't in the book, but because it changed stuff while serving no purpose whatsoever that I could see. |
|
The annoying part is that they took to long to make the twist in the character. It should have been in FotR not RotK. He is always Strider in the movies, when he makes the switch it's to late. His king blood is so lightly touched in the movies that you almost forget who Aragorn is.
Yeah, I complained about the cliff too. Waste of time.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by moose2 on Sept 29, 2010, 6:59pm
I always thought Frodo was a bit of a pussy in the books too, and only got involved reluctantly, but I defer to your superior judgement.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Oct 4, 2010, 9:52am
I'm starting to think LotR is all things to all people.
Maybe that's why it has stood the test of time so well.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by oliveira8 on Oct 22, 2010, 4:03pm
PSSSSSSSST!
Martin Freeman as Bilbo for The Hobbit, which apparently is actually going to get made. To bad Del Toro is no longer in.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by moose2 on Oct 22, 2010, 7:23pm
I read just the other day that he couldn't because of commitments to the next lot of Sherlock that he's making.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by oliveira8 on Oct 22, 2010, 7:31pm
Oct 22, 2010, 7:23pm, moose2 wrote:| I read just the other day that he couldn't because of commitments to the next lot of Sherlock that he's making. |
|
Well he is a terrible liar.
Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Rob Kazinsky, Aidan Turner, Graham McTavish, John Callen, Stephen Hunter, Mark Hadlow and Peter Hambleton have joined the ensemble cast of The Hobbit, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema; Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros.; Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., and Peter Jackson.
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/10/martin_freeman_officially_bilb.php
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by moose2 on Oct 22, 2010, 10:20pm
Or the site I read is a terrible source (think it was the BBC lol).
Thanks for that though. I at least like him as an actor. If Bilbo needs to look perplexed quite often, he's definitely your man. 
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by jaquelecaque on Oct 22, 2010, 11:22pm
Lord Of The Rings is a GREAT read.
However, the first time you see the name Tom Bombadil, just turn a bunch of pages to skip past that whole part. That's the one thing left out of the movies that I wholeheartedly thank them for.
![[image]](http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l2uzz1nWBj1qzmowao1_400.jpg "[image]")
That sums it up right there.
Perhaps on your first read you might think that all they do is walk around and eat but it's much more than that.
It is an impeccably written story that gets to the point. In three books Tolkien gives us an epic saga, an entire world (an extremely developed world), a few languages, rich history and much more. IN THREE BOOKS... wait... IN ONE BOOK. Tolkien never wrote a trilogy, publishers broke it into three.
Martin... "The American Tolkien" LOL... cocksucker doesn't give us a third of that and we're looking at 7 or 8 books. The only thing Tolkien about Martin is the "R.R.". Jordan gives more than Martin, but we're waiting on book 13.
You get more out of the LOTR than you do any other series or trilogy. LOTR delivers the goods.
As far as the elves. They're the only elves I can stand in fantasy.
You're writing a fantasy book? Got elves? Fuck you.
Magic... Surprisingly with one of the main characters being a wizard, there's very little magic. Fine by me. Magic has been a crutch in Fantasy and the less of it a story has, the more I like it.
I say read it and you can see how many authors have been influenced by it (some to the point of plagiarism) and for good reason. LOTR, Howard's Conan stories and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant ("Oh, Martin's characters are brutal assholes and that's what makes his story stand out!" Heh... First thing the Hero in TCOTC did was rape a 16 year old girl. TC was the first protagonist that was a prick.) are the only books I read over and over because they're that good.
Now days the only time I reread something is because Book #7636532187543 is coming out and I need to refresh my memory because, along with the author, I've lost track of what the hell is going on.
LOTR delivers the goods, does not try to wring more money out of you, tells a complete tale, is THE most influential of the genre and very influential outside of the genre as well, and is finished. You know it's done. It's a complete meal. It doesn't leave you hungry wanting more because it satisfies you.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by scorpiknox on Oct 23, 2010, 11:48am
Bwahahahaha @ FoF!
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by serkenneth on Nov 2, 2010, 5:23am
I quite liked the Tom Bombadil stuff actually. One of the things which to me makes LOTR so special is that Tolkien occasionally "stops to smell the roses". The Tom Bombadil chapters were weird in the fact that it didn't really have anything to do with the main story arch, but I enjoyed as much as when the Frodo and co were in Rivendell or any of the other parts of the book where there was a period of rest. Those periods of rest greatly attributed to the development of Middle Earth and LOTR wouldn't have been nearly as good without them.
Anyway LOTR is in my opinion THE quintessential fantasy novel and if it isn't essential reading, then nothing is.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Nov 2, 2010, 10:39am
I enjoyed most of the rest periods in LotR myself, especially the time spent in Rivendell and The Council of Elrond.
However, I can't stand Bombadil and I applaud Jackson for omitting him. I just don't think he "fits" in the Middle-Earth universe at all. And I would go so far as to say, I don't think Tolkien really was happy with his role, either, at least in retrospect. I think that's why we get this weird statement from Gandalf at the Council that Bombadil would be the last as he was the first, whatever that freakin' means, if the Ring were to gain sway through Sauron and corrupt everything.
Bombadil's awesome inexplicable powers just don't jive with the rest of the magical trappings of the trilogy, and his goofiness just got on my nerves. Maybe Tolkien was attempting to satisfy his own children and create a character more worthy of YA fiction, like The Hobbit. I don't care for him at all.
But my brother loves him . . . to each his own.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by darkgreen on Nov 2, 2010, 11:14am
I think that was kinda the point of Bombadil, he was other worldly or pre-worldly. I think he was put there to explicitly not fit. Why Tolkien wanted to do this, I'm not sure. Now I don't think he serves much purpose as far as the story goes, and he probably could have been eliminated, but I did enjoy reading his parts. I can undestand why his chapters might be off-putting to some people.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by aussiechris on Nov 2, 2010, 4:21pm
I preferred the Harvard Lampoons version of Bombadil, a drugged out hippy called Tim Benzedrino.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Nov 3, 2010, 9:41am
One of my all-time favorite lines from Bored of the Rings, Gandalf explaining why Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance:
"Pity stayed Bilbo's hand. Pity he ran out of bullets." 
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by krispistofferson on Dec 4, 2010, 6:28am
I dunno, if you never read it as a kid, you might not be all that impressed now. Sort of like how Final Fantasy 7 was teh shit back in the day, but if you played 10 and 12, you may not appreciate it as much.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by splitter on Dec 5, 2010, 1:07am
Yes, LoTR is required reading. Yes, it is quite good for what it is.
I personally hate elves and, to a lesser extent, dwarves. Ents are just friggin' stupid. But there is enough good in the series to make it enjoyable. Some moments when the Ring Wraiths are in pursuit are real horror/thriller type stuff.
As others have said, you have to appreciate the time and effort the man put into the work, even "The Hobbit" which he originally wrote for his children. I also think it is telling that he apparently invented this world as a form of escapism for his own mind. He saw much horror and death in WWI and even became quite ill himself during that time. Maybe this little world he created in his head saved his sanity?
However, and I think this is important, Tolkien basically said he was just trying to write good stories. Scholars have often tried to assign certain meanings to elements of his works, but he seemed to deny there was anything deeper than a "good story". Maybe there were certain deeper meanings that even he was not aware of consciously. How often does an author turn down praise for "deeper meaning" in his work? Not often I think but tolkien did which I think shows a certain humbleness and honesty.
Plus, Led Zepplin songs will start to make sense once you read Tolkien .
Splitter
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Dec 6, 2010, 4:57pm
Tolkien said he detested allegory, and vehemently denied that LotR was an allegory for the rise of Fascism and technology and the world's response to it.
I agree that Tolkien wrote to escape the horrors of trench warfare, which he experienced firsthand. And I've often wondered who else didn't survive WWI and what might they have created in subsequent years?
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by evilagent on Dec 21, 2010, 6:18pm
I will add my voice to those who say you should indeed read The Lord of the Rings.
Then again, I'm heavily biased. Tolkien is my favourite author, and as of this writing I have read LOTR 7 times, The Silmarillion 5 times, and The Hobbit 3 times (damn... I really need to re-read the Hobbit a few more times!). I've also taken a university course on Tolkien, and have recently been listening to podcast lectures by "The Tolkien Professor" which really examine the material in-depth.
I will admit that Tolkien can be a bit slow and wordy at times. It has been estimated that up to 50% of LOTR is description of landscape! No joke, 50%.
Then again, I think it's a classic of the fantasy genre and of English literature in general. Every time I re-read it I discover deeper layers. Tolkien's work is so eccentric and unique because he spent most of his life creating the world. There is so much backstory and detail that it reaches a whole new level of believability. I think of Tolkien's world as a rich work of art that can be enjoyed on so many levels.
So yeah, you should read it.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by thx4allthefish on Dec 21, 2010, 6:33pm
I'd like to second evilagent's opinion.
For other reasons, though.
I read LOTR when I was young. In the early 70's. By then, rumour still had it, that LOTR was not intendend to be a 'fantasy-story', 'trilogy' ... or what-have-you.
It simply says on the last pages of every book, that this was a story he wrote to keep his son -somehow engaged in WWII- company and to encourage him.
Nonetheless. I was taken. I drew maps that actually served as tapestries.
There was no 'fantasy' at that time. There was no comparison.
There is now - and still LOTR and the Silmarillion are unique. You will not find any author today, giving so many details to a story as he did. A complete language. Maps-real maps - not the .... sorry ... crap that GRRM adds to his book. And his story being so much more in need of maps.
Anyway: there is this Other-In-Law at westeros, doing all the art GRRM should have added to his series - but he's not one for detail in those parts.
Check out the maps, the Other-In-Law did. They are so beautiful- here's one:
http://other-in-law.deviantart.com/art/World-Map-of-Ice-and-Fire-90407664
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by rolandofgilead on Dec 22, 2010, 11:48am
I never realized that Westeros is such a small part of the entire landmasses.
Theoretically, Martin could crank out another dozen books to cover all of the "terra incognita."
Yeah, right, THAT's going to happen. 
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by Slynt/Ser Perfidious on Dec 22, 2010, 2:40pm
Some of Tolkiens landscape descriptions are so evocative, beautiful, haunting...oh I love Middle-earth though I wish it were inhabited by the likes of Bronn and Tywin.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by krispistofferson on Dec 24, 2010, 11:13am
I still say Tolkien isn't required reading, although it is kind of like being a reggae fan having never listened to Bob Marley.
Re: I've never read Lord of the Rings...
Post by wulfred on Jan 5, 2011, 2:39pm
Looks like I'm late to the party (if you've already picked it up), but definitely read it. Don't try to rush through, but as one person said, middle earth is the main character, just flow with it.
Be prepared to be ticked off to leave one story line to go to another (Frodo/Sam back to companions and back again) and then be just as ticked off to leave that story line to return back to the one you had been engrossed in.
If you don't like it? Well, at least you'll know exactly what was plagerized by every other fantasy author in the 70s even to the point of what companions a hero needed: Wise and mysterouis Wizard? check. Elves? check. Dwarf? check. Human? Check. Powerful ancient talisman? check. Evil Overlord to be overcome? check. Orphan who will grow into hero but currently knows nothing? check. Of course in the 70s, everyone realized you needed to add a hot looking woman so the book cover would be exciting. Tolkein pretty much skimped on the female characters (Galadriel was good, Arawn was much less present in the books) and that must be why LotR always had such boring book covers.
usertype:1 --------------------------------------------------------------
 |
Close it
