Lord of the Rings boring books

[Lotrelf]

Hi, friends! Yeah, that's the title. I just want to know, how do you guys react when someone says, "Lord of the Rings is boring"? I just saw a girl crying out loud how she found LotR boring. I maintained my patience, and told her that she's lucky for I have learned patience. And, she said that She meant offense. I STILL FEEL LIKE TO PUNCH IN HER FACE!! Jeez!
How do you people react?

[Inziladun]

I've never had anyone say that to me personally. My response would be that it's one heck a lot more meaningful and inspiring than anything modern instant-gratification-Kardashian-loving-loud-social media obsessed-fast food society can offer.

[Galin]

I cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

No wait, that's what I do when I spill milk :D

[Lotrelf]

Here's what happened.

Lord of the rings is one of the most boring books I have read till now
How dare she??
For you. There are others for whom it is an ocean of inspiration that makes their lives better.
That's cool. Fits on me perfectly. :p

Um. Yeah. Though I find it boring I will not debate on others' opinions and choices. And I mean no offence to the book,though my opinion shall remain constant.
Heh! Why so proud on hating the best fantasy work ever? (am I wrong when I say so?)
Read Addict
Making no attempt to change your opinion. Just sharing mine in return of yours.
That's fine. :)

My God! Admin, what you said is true for me.
LotR ain't boring. I don't know how to react when someone insults Tolkien or his work. You're lucky, girl for I've learned patience.Good luck.
That's me.
If I find it boring does not mean it is actually boring. Just depends on an individuals' aspect of seeing things. I honestly am not tagging lord of the ring as boring. It is just my opinion for crying out loud. I still respect the author's work regardless of how I find it.
'Tis a bit okay.

[Lotrelf]

I've never had anyone say that to me personally. My response would be that it's one heck a lot more meaningful and inspiring than anything modern instant-gratification-Kardashian-loving-loud-social media obsessed-fast food society can offer.

You're lucky, I'd say. I heard someone else say so too. He met me on Facebook. I was reading the books those days. And he said while discussing books that he found books BORING, and I deleted him! :pI felt relieved.
You can't compare LotR to the modern literature by any means. LotR and other stuff by Professor is CLASSIC. It definitily offers much more than any other modern book can.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"The intelligent man finds everything fascinating; the dullard is constantly bored" --Belloc

Five bucks says this young person also finds Shakespeare boring and stoopid.

[Galadriel55]

I have a friend who found LOTR boring. She didn't quite say so - I think she was interested in the characters and plot, but she said she couldn't get through all the descriptions in FOTR. She got bogged down somewhere in the middle of it and dropped the book (and to think that I'm trying to get her to read Victor Hugo!). I told her I respectfully disagree, because the book is awesome even if you don't like the descriptiveness, and because I found the descriptions of the landscapes quite picturesque and thus fascinating. In the end, we've left each other to our own opinions.

However, despite my disagreement, I can see where she's coming from. For a long time I had to really force myself through the Shire chapters in FOTR. I still find them less interesting than the rest, but there was a time when I found them downright tedious. You have to read the entire LOTR to appreciate everything in it, but if it's not your type of book, then there's only so much you can do. Some people can be convinced to suffer through Shire with a promise of a story that keeps you on your feet more a bit later. Other's aren't even wavering about it. Either way, it's not worth fighting with real people over their taste in books. (However, I do agree with and second Zil's complaint about the modern instant-gratification-[...]-society.)

[Orphalesion]

Okay I might make myself unpopular here :-(

First of all, NO I do NOT think that the LOTR is boring, however I can see how somebody might find it so. I myself find the Two Towers my least favorite of the three parts, but I LOVE the Return of the King. The Two Towers simply doesn't have anything for me, it doesn't have the wonder/magic of Fellowship (except the Ents) and it doesn't have the epic climax of Return, instead we spend a whole book sitting in Rohan with the boring blonde horse people that could be cut out of the story without losing anything -_- And the LOTR is awesome but by no means perfect (no book is)


You can't compare LotR to the modern literature by any means. LotR and other stuff by Professor is CLASSIC. It definitely offers much more than any other modern book can.

Please don't take offense, but saying that is a tiny bit narrow minded and discards a huge corpus of literature. Not sure what you define as modern literature if who mean the "Twilight" "World of Warcraft" "Magic the Gathering" s***te, I totally agree, but what about all the good stuff that was written since the LOTR was released?
Even if we only count fantasy: "The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle, "Gormenghast" by Mervyn Peake "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman, "A Song of Ice and Fire" by R.R.Martin "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White... do I need to go on? I would count all these books as on the same level, if different, and in some ways superior/inferior to the LOTR (Song of Ice and Fire, for instance, has imho more relateable and colorful characters, but it does have annoying, gratuitous sex scenes and the way the story slags since book 4 is the "Rohan Situation" taken to its extreme) AND "Song of Ice and Fire" has something I have always missed in LOTR: an "evil" character who, over the story redeems themselves: Jamie Lannister. In the LOTR good characters can fall from grace: (Denethor, Saurman) but there is (for instance) no Orc that changes sides. Considering Tolkien is a Christian writer that is a bit strange.

Anyway: If we expand that statement beyond fantasy....then I have to check if these posts have a maximum word count.

Bottom line, new stuff is not automatically inferior to old stuff (just like old stuff is not automatically inferior to new stuff) and if we believe that we'll end up like the Elves at the end of the Third Age; in a state of endless, cultural stagnation and melancholia for the "good old days" The LOTR times also had their fair share of horrid literature, but horrid literature doesn't survive usually and gets forgotten, while the good stuff gets remembered and remains in print to become "classics".

That all being said, I do think that the LOTR Movies are mindboggingly boring and ugly to look at (Minas Tirith looks like poo, Llothlorien looks like unholy spiderwebs etc.) But that has nothing to do with the books of course.

[Mithalwen]

Only boring people get bored.. my mother had a very effective technique for dealing with children who claimed to be bored which was to give them silver or brass to polish... anyway... I have always been fascined by language and languages... I have a clear memory of waiting by the car for my mother prodding the grass verge with my foot and wondering who decided that grass got to mean grass..sadly that was the moment. I discovered my Mother was fallible because she didn't know (my father's infallibility was crushed when he failed to convince me that the sky went on forever when I wanted to know what was beyond the stars. With mature reflection I realise that the problem was with my understanding but six year olds are so judgemental...and yes I must have been a horrible child). So discovering Tolkien and its created languages AND cosmos was pretty much heaven and I have found it all fascinating ever since.

[Mithalwen]

I rather like the blond horse people. The Rohirrim are responsible for some of my favourite bits like Eomer exulting even in the midst of grief because he was young and king of a fell people..and Eowyn was magnificent and then there is Theoden and Saruman "we will have peace...". And in Elfhelm you get one of those minor characters that Tolkien somehow makes so vivid.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Sometimes, I find LOTR boring. Overall though, I'd say it holds up very well for something I've read a score of times and expect to read again.

Anyway, I'm reminded, once again, of Gollum's lullaby to Sam and Frodo:

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means, precious.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

But they got, Diff'rent Strokes. It takes,
Diff'rent Strokes. It takes,
Diff'rent Strokes to move the world, my precious.

Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got,
not alot, so what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine
(Oh yes we will precious, yes we will...)
And together we'll be fine....

But they got, Diff'rent Strokes. It takes,
Diff'rent Strokes. It takes,
Diff'rent Strokes to move the world,
Bless us and splash us, my precioussss!


In other words, opinions are like fishes: everyone's got one, and after a day or two without proper refrigeration they all stink.

[Orphalesion]

In other words, opinions are like fishes: everyone's got one, and after a day or two without proper refrigeration they all stink.

Very true! Plus now I have the picture of Gollum, Sam and Frodo dancing in giant 70s afro wigs in my head :D

And Mithalwen: I give you Eohwyn, I did like her and (to a much lesser degree Eomer) in Return of the King. I just wish the reason for their introduction wouldn't have taken up a whole book in which the plot on Aragorn's part screeched to a grinding halt. Particularly the whole Helm's Deep plot-line was painful and the whole "weak leader controlled by outside forces" aspect was then repeated with Denethor anyway.

Actually, the war along with Saruman in the Shire displays for me a quality of Tolkien's writing that is at the same time one of his strengths and weaknesses. The invasion of Rohan and the ruin of the Shire were things that would have logically happened in a war like the War of the Ring and it speaks for Tolkien to go the extra mile in describing them. Yet a run of the mill fantasy writer would have skimmed them over because, while they also contribute to the themes of the work, they are not necessary to advance the plot and, can be perceived to be less enjoyable by some.

[Mithalwen]

I do agree if you want the essence it can be eliminated - they did that in the musical and it worked-effectively Rohan and Gondor wete merged and in the circumstances quite understandable.however I don't find them boring in themselves and I love the expansion given in UT on the battles of the. Fords of isen. I haveto admit it is the slog through Mordor and Bombadil I skip.

[mhagain]

Meh. Different people are different.

On the other hand, and if she genuinely meant offense, then just do what you're supposed to do with trolls: not feed them.

[Orphalesion]

I do agree if you want the essence it can be eliminated - they did that in the musical and it worked-effectively Rohan and Gondor wete merged and in the circumstances quite understandable.however I don't find them boring in themselves and I love the expansion given in UT on the battles of the. Fords of isen. I haveto admit it is the slog through Mordor and Bombadil I skip.

Yeah that's what I meant; Rohan and Gondor could easily have been combined without losing anything. Eowyn, for instance, could have been the niece/daughter of a Gondorian noble. The whole of Two Towers just felt like lukewarm prelude where our heroes fight a "wannabe Sauron" to safe Gondor's "hick cousins".

Well, that's personal preference, I think what ruined Rohan for me was that when I first read the Lord of the Rings I was still in Middle School in Germany and we just learning about all those Old Germanic sagas in literature class (the Nibelungen, Grendel etc.) and I detested those for their language that, form a modern point of view, sounds a bit fascist and I guess Rohan reminded me too much of that (After all, wasn't Rohan inspired by Grendel?)

[Morthoron]

Very few people would say that to my face and not get their nose bitten off.

[Nerwen]

Orphalesion, please do not think I'm one of those fans who set an author on a pedestal when I say that no, I can't agree with you that the Rohan section should have been left out- I think the story would have been poorer for it. (There are other parts that I do indeed think could have done with omission, or at least heavy editing.)

As for the rest- look, I don't where to start, honestly. The best way I can put it is to say that whatever they were trying to teach you about this stuff in school, I'm afraid they don't seem to have succeeded very well. You'll no doubt shortly be set right on a number of points, and I hope the people doing so will be polite about it and not just jump all over you. <--hint, hint.

However, what you are basically saying here is that for you, all Germanic-sounding names are sort of tainted by association with Nazism. Okay. You do understand that's a completely separate *type* of complaint and not really fair as a purely literary criticism?

[Nerwen]

The invasion of Rohan and the ruin of the Shire were things that would have logically happened in a war like the War of the Ring and it speaks for Tolkien to go the extra mile in describing them. Yet a run of the mill fantasy writer would have skimmed them over because, while they also contribute to the themes of the work, they are not necessary to advance the plot and, can be perceived to be less enjoyable by some.

Actually, a run-of-the-mill fantasy writer of the current crop would have expanded each of those into its own eight hundred page novel. :rolleyes:

[Orphalesion]

Orphalesion, please do not think I'm one of those fans who set an author on a pedestal when I say that no, I can't agree with you that the Rohan section should have been left out- I think the story would have been poorer for it. (There are other parts that I do indeed think could have done with omission, or at least heavy editing.)

As for the rest- look, I don't where to start, honestly. The best way I can put it is to say that whatever they were trying to teach you about this stuff in school, I'm afraid they don't seem to have succeeded very well. You'll no doubt shortly be set right on a number of points, and I hope the people doing so will be polite about it and not just jump all over you. <--hint, hint.

However, what you are basically saying here is that for you, all Germanic-sounding names are sort of tainted by association with Nazism. Okay. You do understand that's a completely separate *type* of complaint and not really fair as a purely literary criticism?

Oh god, I hope I haven't offended you or anybody else :(. If so Nerwen, I am very sorry.
Look I'm way more eloquent in face to face conversations or academic papaers where I have time to research than I am in forum writing. But I will try to explain better and I will actually take quite a bit of time writing it.

No I don't think you're putting Tolkien on a pedestal for disagreeing with me. Why would I? My favorite part of the book are Lothlorien and the climax chapters of Return of the King, lot's of people probably disagree with that first part. Everybody is free to have their own opinion.

I didn't just dislike the Rohirrim because they reminded me of Grendel, another big part is that they were simply not "magic" enough. Come on the first book gave us enchanted forests and black riders and fire demons and Rohan doesn't measure up in that department imho.
There ARE some good parts in Rohan, I particularly like it when Grima tires to put down Galadriel and Gandalf counters with that "In Dwimordene, in Lorien" poem. Etc.

And no, the German part was not meant as literary criticism but just as why I personally don't like the Rohirrim. Basically I find the part of the book less good than the other parts AND I don't like the Rohirrim. The Shire part in the beginning is also not the most thrilling, but to me it can make up for it by being whimsical and Hobbitish, so the less enjoyable part of narrative gets saved by the enjoyability of the setting. Likewise Tom Bombadil, completely unnecessary and should be cut out, but I happen to like folklore stories about fairies reminiscent of Tom and Goldberry so it gets kinda saved in my eyes. Rohan was much less fairytale-like and more historical, which can be fun too, but I didn't like it in that specific situation, it's almost like a sub-genre shift.
In Rohan I find the narrative less enjoyable (as a said a lukewarm prelude of Return of the King) AND the setting fails to safe it to me.

And yep, my teacher that year was an idiot. And I never said I associate everything German with Nazism, and I would never accuse Tolkien of supporting such thought (I know his thoughts on that subject!) I just said that the fleeting association with one to the other was enough for 13-year old me to ruin that part of the book and while I'm now older and more learned, it's difficult to . The Rohirrim DO seem like ripped right out of the European Dark ages or the Migration Period and at that time I was simply sick of that subject/setting. The next year I head a better teacher who actually addressed some of the concerns I had with pre-war German literature and had quite a few, very interesting discussions with me. However, the damage was done in concern to the Sagas. I can see as a rational person that the sagas do not have any fascism in them (how could they, it wasn't invented yet for a few thousand years) and were actually perverted by the Nazis. However, the damage was done and I was never able to enjoy them. I think Tolkien something like that was also a concern of Tolkien if I remember correctly he said something to the effect that he was worried that the Nazis perverting German mythology would prevent late generations from enjoying them.

And the Rohirrim are among the more warlike cultures in the LOTR, (well of course they are at war) but compare Eowyn *must-seek-battle-battle* with Faramir (my second-most favorite character) or with Haldir's complaint that the peace has left Lorien. However I know that the Rohirrim are not in fact monsters, when Peter Jackson in the movie version had Theoden arm 10 year old children and elderly grey beards I almost screamed at the theatre screen that Theoden would never have done such a thing unless the situation would have been much, much more dire than Helm's Deep.

TL/DR: I don't like the part of the book and the Rohirrim, independent from one another. And I wouldn't have liked the narrative of that part even if Tolkien had set it in a (to me) more interesting setting and wouldn't have liked the Rohirrim if the part of the narrative had been more interesting to me. The combination of me not liking the setting and me finding the part of the narrative superfluous in part was what killed i for me.

I don't want to derail the thread, if you want we can discuss this further in PMs? Don;t worry I'm not offended, I'm always happy to learn something from discussion or have one of my misconceptions corrected. One of my biggest flaws is that I sometimes jump to conclusions and find it difficult to realize that I have done just that.

Actually, a run-of-the-mill fantasy writer of the current crop would have expanded each of those into its own eight hundred page novel. :rolleyes:

No, each its own series of trilogies :D

[Morthoron]

I didn't just dislike the Rohirrim because they reminded me of Grendel, another big part is that they were simply not "magic" enough. Come on the first book gave us enchanted forests and black riders and fire demons and Rohan doesn't measure up in that department imho.
There ARE some good parts in Rohan, I particularly like it when Grima tires to put down Galadriel and Gandalf counters with that "In Dwimordene, in Lorien" poem. Etc...

...And the Rohirrim are among the more warlike cultures in the LOTR, (well of course they are at war) but compare Eowyn *must-seek-battle-battle* with Faramir (my second-most favorite character) or with Haldir's complaint that the peace has left Lorien. However I know that the Rohirrim are not in fact monsters, when Peter Jackson in the movie version had Theoden arm 10 year old children and elderly grey beards I almost screamed at the theatre screen that Theoden would never have done such a thing unless the situation would have been much, much more dire than Helm's Deep.

With the Rohirrim, Tolkien was describing an entirely different culture than what we have met previously, and one of wholly mortal men, not Half-Elves and Hobbits, Istari and Elves, or Dwarves and Dunedain. It was important to Tolkien that these stoic and superstitious men -- distant relatives of the Edain -- should be given their due, particularly because they mirrored the Anglo-saxon literary heritage that Tolkien felt was denied England when the Normans damned the newly evolving language with their Frenchified foppery and lawyerly Latinate. We gain insight into normal mortals with the Rohirrim, not the impossibly pristine Noldor or all-powerful Maiarin sorts that fart magic. These are Dark Age men and women fighting a foe that they know is beyond them, yet they fight on anyway.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Once you get past the Tim Benzedrine bits, the Bombadil chapters contain some of the finest writing in The Lord of the Rings.

[Nerwen]

Orphalesion, I'm not offended at all- if it came across that way, well, you know, it's hard to get the "tone" right over the net.

Once you get past the Tim Benzedrine bits, the Bombadil chapters contain some of the finest writing in The Lord of the Rings.
True. All the same, if you were going to pick a section that *could* be excised without too much effect on anything else, that would be a better choice than the Rohan chapters.

[Lotrelf]

The discussion went way too deeper than I had imagined, and slightly 'beyond' my own understanding. :D
Books are not perfect, true. None is. Absolutely. By any means boring? Hell, no. Am I the only one who found no part boring as others did? Shire scenes are mindblowingly beautiful. You get to know, this is the race the story is mainly about. The unlikely four heroes emerge from this place whose presence affects the story greatly(One can find these chapters boring either he is only in love with 'action' or doesn't care about the Hobbits much, imho). The chapters are childish, indeed, not boring. Bilbo wrote them, and the tone of "The Hobbit" is explicit in the first chapters of the Fellowship. Though, they are relief for me, because the later story becomes darker.
As for the book 3 & book 5, i.e. Rohan and Gondor's story. That isn't boring either. True, it doesn't have the magic that we got in FOTR, but it still tells the tale of EPIC freaking awesome battles. Professor wrote books multiple times and finished it in 10 years. He added many things that most of us can't understand or judge on our own. This is why putting our opinion above Professor's, I don't think, is fine(may be that's just me!).

Tom Bombadil! :D
Yup, he's a weirdo. There's an article saying he is evil. Another thing to add, if someone finds books boring, I guess it is because of his or her personal opinion, and the books can't be accused for that.

[Belegorn]

I liked the story from the beginning to the end too. I guess people don't like Hobbits, or their customs and way of living at least. I thought the Shire part was cool, and the prologue.

[Belegorn]

How do you people react?

I'd disagree with them as they would disagree with me. But I would not expect them to conform to my views, rather to embrace their own.

[Zigûr]

I think I would have to be very thin-skinned to object to people claiming that The Lord of the Rings is boring. Lots of people think it's boring. I don't, but plenty do.

The main objections seem to be:
1. too much description, especially of landscapes: "he describes every blade of grass"
2. too much monotony: "they just walk for ages"
3. too much archaism: "the characters say things like 'Forsooth! Thou art slain!'" etc

I've actually heard people say some of these things. But if people think it's boring, well, they're perfectly entitled to.

Interestingly, Book Three (or the first part of "The Two Towers" if you will) is one of my favourite parts. When I was a child my least favourite was Book Four. These days I appreciate every part of the book.

This isn't specifically related to The Lord of the Rings but in terms of 'boredom' I've always been impressed with how, in my opinion, in Chapter VIII of The Hobbit, "Flies and Spiders", Professor Tolkien manages to convey a sense of the horrible oppressiveness, tedium and drudgery of the journey through Mirkwood. I'm always as desperate to escape as the characters themselves.

[Lotrelf]

Okay I might make myself unpopular here :-(

No. You did not make yourself unpopular. I liked your posts. :)

Please don't take offense, but saying that is a tiny bit narrow minded and discards a huge corpus of literature. Not sure what you define as modern literature if who mean the "Twilight" "World of Warcraft" "Magic the Gathering" s***te, I totally agree, but what about all the good stuff that was written since the LOTR was released?
Even if we only count fantasy: "The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle, "Gormenghast" by Mervyn Peake "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman, "A Song of Ice and Fire" by R.R.Martin "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White... do I need to go on? I would count all these books as on the same level, if different, and in some ways superior/inferior to the LOTR (Song of Ice and Fire, for instance, has imho more relateable and colorful characters, but it does have annoying, gratuitous sex scenes and the way the story slags since book 4 is the "Rohan Situation" taken to its extreme) AND "Song of Ice and Fire" has something I have always missed in LOTR: an "evil" character who, over the story redeems themselves: Jamie Lannister. In the LOTR good characters can fall from grace: (Denethor, Saurman) but there is (for instance) no Orc that changes sides. Considering Tolkien is a Christian writer that is a bit strange.

Anyway: If we expand that statement beyond fantasy....then I have to check if these posts have a maximum word count.

Bottom line, new stuff is not automatically inferior to old stuff (just like old stuff is not automatically inferior to new stuff) and if we believe that we'll end up like the Elves at the end of the Third Age; in a state of endless, cultural stagnation and melancholia for the "good old days" The LOTR times also had their fair share of horrid literature, but horrid literature doesn't survive usually and gets forgotten, while the good stuff gets remembered and remains in print to become "classics".

That all being said, I do think that the LOTR Movies are mindboggingly boring and ugly to look at (Minas Tirith looks like poo, Llothlorien looks like unholy spiderwebs etc.) But that has nothing to do with the books of course.
No offence really. When I meant "modern literature", I didn't mean to say the new stuff is bad or something (yup, Twilight was in my mind :p ). But, it can not be said that the new stuff is as good as old one. New work is inspired from old(not sayin' copied).
It's like, today scientists invent/discover, and we say, if the invention is useful, that they are "better" than Al Einstein. Surely, they did something that is more useful than Einstein's discovery, but who led them?
Similarly, modern literature is inspired from old ones; not inferior, but not as powerful as classics.

Saruman & Denether good people? I can say that for Saruman 'cause he was a Maia. Can't say the same for Denether 'cause he was already 'bad' from the start. Not that bad, but ego led him to arrogance, and his arrogance led him to his own fall.
As for Saruman, I feel, he kind of redeemed himself. Not upto that extent from where he could gain his old self and dignity; but he accepted his defeat and fall(isn't that the first step to redemption or repentance?)
Gollum? What of him? He does repent. But, there is something else at work. There is something that, imho, is as valuable as characters turning good from bad. Frodo's mercy(and later Sam's as well) leads to the ultimatel success of the quest.
Evil in Tolkien's word is stronger than I have ever seen in any Tale. After being overpowered by it, it takes alot to be the same. The Evil isn't the Evil of outer world, but that of inside of us. The fall of the Tolkien's characters, instead of showing them turning evil, shows their big flaws.

[cellurdur]

I wouldn't care much, but would ask them why they thought so and then perhaps have a conversation about it. At the end of the day I am sure I would fine many of the things they like boring.

[Pervinca Took]

Fantasy just isn't everyone's bag. I find gothic novels on the whole dreadfully dull (although I love Victorian novels with gothic elements). A friend of mine loves the gothic genre but can't get into fantasy at all. We both love lots of other books/literature, though.

As Tolkien said, "Many people who have read [LOTR], or at least reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, [another pejorative adjective?] or contemptible, and I have little cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their work, or of the kinds of writing they evidently prefer. But even from the point of view of those who like the work, there is much that fails to please."

Approximate quotation only. I think it's in the Foreword to LOTR.

[mhagain]

As Tolkien said, "Many people who have read [LOTR], or at least reviewed it..."

That was a nice little snipe at some of his reviewers too, the obvious implication being that those who reviewed it badly never actually bothered to read it.

I wonder has the girl in the OP read Wheel of Time? :D

[William Cloud Hicklin]

... since I have similar opinions of their work, or of the kinds of writing they evidently prefer.

Meee-ow!

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Plus now I have the picture of Gollum, Sam and Frodo dancing in giant 70s afro wigs in my head :D

That's Tolkien for you!



...




(Or Rankin/Bass RotK, maybe.)

[demnation]

I can certainly agree that parts of the book are slow, but then lots of great books are slow. And I could probably prattle on all day about what I don't like about the book, but my positive feelings far outweigh the negative. I happen to like The Shire bits and Tom Bombadil, the parts that seem to give people the most trouble. LOTR is quite probably my favorite book (depending on the day of the week and what kind of mood I'm in) and it is certainly one of the two or three books that have affected me greatly. But there really is no accounting for taste.

[Faramir Jones]

I can understand when someone, who has made a genuine effort to read LotR, finds it boring. I recall feeling that way at the start, when first reading it at thirteen; but then things began to pick up for me by the time of Gandalf's death, then Boromir's. :(

I remember particularly enjoying, by the time of RotK, how everything was coming together, hoping that Minas Tirith would be relieved, and that Frodo and Sam would succeed. That they did with Gollum's intervention amused me. Farmir and Eowyn's romance made me go all mushy. :D In short, I was no longer bored.

All this is, of course, my own experience. ;)

[Erestor]

Society today is very rushed, and this is also something that defines the taste of a large part of the population. Films, which is the most popular artform nowadays, are densily packed with action, with almost no room to breath. People today seems to find it boring to relax, find any moment that doesn't seem to be a large step forward in a story (or anything else) as a waste of time, and boring - of course, this is not including holidays, when those same people are being grilled on beaches.

However, the thing that makes it boring to other people, is the thing that attracts me in LotR: it gives me room to breath, to let me wander throughout Middle-Earth. It makes it feel the journey more realistic: not a chain of action sequences, but a long time travelling while there isn't happening much.

Of course, this is a matter of taste and state of mind, so I can't criticize them for finding it boring. If they actually read it of course.

[Morthoron]

There are plenty of classics that are infinitely dull; for instance, Camus could perhaps be the only writer to make a plague tedious, and I would rather stick a rusted fork in my eye than read Jane Austen or Thomas Hardy ever again (Jude was obscure for a reason!).

But I love the long novels of Victor Hugo, Tolstoy and Umberto Eco. I even enjoy James Joyce (but Joyce requires more research than actual reading, honestly, particularly in the case of Finnegan's Wake and Ulysses).

It is all a matter of preference, really. There are those readers who agree with me, and those with no evident taste. ;)

[Belegorn]

I used to think the Odyssey sucked. I couldn't really follow along when we had to read it in 9th grade.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I found The Fellowship rather boring when I first read it, it took me a month before I made it to Rivendell... I don't know what happened then, but I got hooked and finished the rest of the trilogy in a weekend.

I normally acknowledge that Tolkien's writing style is very detailed, and not necessarily an 'easy read'.

I find it much harder to deal with my nerd friends, that insist that LotR is more of a mythology, than it is 'proper/good fantasy'.

[demnation]

I found The Fellowship rather boring when I first read it, it took me a month before I made it to Rivendell... I don't know what happened then, but I got hooked and finished the rest of the trilogy in a weekend.

I normally acknowledge that Tolkien's writing style is very detailed, and not necessarily an 'easy read'.

I find it much harder to deal with my nerd friends, that insist that LotR is more of a mythology, than it is 'proper/good fantasy'.

And I'd say being called a mythology is really rather a compliment, anyway.

[Faramir Jones]

Welcome to the Downs, demnation! :)

I agree with your comment about Rune calling LotR more a mythology being 'rather a compliment' to the author. ;)

[demnation]

Welcome to the Downs, demnation! :)

I agree with your comment about Rune calling LotR more a mythology being 'rather a compliment' to the author. ;)

But thanks for the warm welcome! I do like it here. I think I'll stay!

[jallanite]

I first came across The Lord of the Rings as volume one of the Ace paperback edition. I was in my final year of high school and was very much into books of sf and books of mythology. And here was this book on the stands in a drugstore which I had never heard of before. This book called itself The Fellowship of the Ring, was about three times the thickness of a normal Ace paperback, and cost 75¢ when Ace paperbacks normally cost 25¢ each.

A glance through the book showed I had to have it. The killer was when I happened to turn to the page where Frodo first saw the ring inscription and Tolkien had printed it out in the text in strange characters.

Starting through it at home, I realized almost at once that this was a sequel to children’s book called The Hobbit which I had read and enjoyed years before. But after reading a few chapters I realized that this was indeed a magnificently told tale and that I was going to have to read it correctly. So I put the book aside and rushed off the closest public library to take out a version of The Hobbit so I could refresh myself for a proper reading.

After reading The Hobbit I started again on Fellowship, still determined to read this book right. I am normally a speed reader, but for this book I was determined to read it aloud and not to speed read. It took me about two months to finish, and I found every page wonderful. Then I came to the end of Fellowship with the story obviously still incomplete. Puzzled, I looked through the publisher’s blurbs and discovered to my joy that this was only the first of three books in a series, and that I had still two more books of hopefully the same amazing quality to read!

I had previously read some modern fantasy works, but nothing that had come close to impressing me like Tolkien had.

I have since met many who feel the same, and many who cannot stand Tolkien.

One case occurred a number of years ago when a local fan named Debbie, whom I did not know, decided she would finally read The Lord of the Rings and review each chapter on her website as she read it, with comments by those who wished to comment, the comments being previewed by a friend who would remove any spoilers. The reviews were wonderful, even when she was not in synch with standard opinions. Though an avid filk-singer, she for quite a time had difficulty with the hobbits’ propensity to burst into song, until others pointed out her own love of singing. She also took somewhat of a dislike to Gandalf. Then, remarking on the upcoming chapter on Moria, she naïvely remarked that she was aware of Moria’s reputation but didn’t think much of it because she knew no-one was going to die there or anything like that. So she was completely devastated by Gandalf’s apparent death, realizing suddenly how much and how unknowingly she had come to care for Gandalf.

Another friend tried to write the same sort of reviews on the same site and failed miserably. He would get bogged down with terms like “eleventy-first” for “111th” trying to find out what Tolkien meant by this slender jest. He would ask questions about Frodo’s occupation which were admittedly slid over by Tolkien and other questions that were answered and then was forced to admit that he had skipped that part of the story because it didn’t seem important. Finally one of the commentators wrote a long comment indicating that the story was obviously just not for him, because he just couldn’t or wouldn’t be concerned with what Tolkien was concerned about and of course he couldn’t even understand the story when partially reading it in those terms. This second friend seems to have realized he was messing up badly and stopped posting.

[Lotrelf]

I find is rather amusing how LOTR books are declared "annoying and boring" by many people we see on the web.

I have a couple of questions that I believe needed no separate thread to be answered.
1). Why would one believe Tolkien was a poor writer (and thus over-rated by the 'fans of the books')?
2). Why would people think the story doesn't move anywhere?
3). Why would people think characters do not evolve throughout the book?
4). Why would someone state PJ does a better job in storytelling than Professor did? (Kill me!)
I have come across these points again and again all the time and have found those who state the above mentioned points quite ignorant.

Of course, it all falls down to "This is all about different tastes and you cannot force anyone to like the books if they're not interested in them."
True enough. But isn't that the thing? If you aren't getting the beauty of the books, you have to be open-minded enough to admit this. Why mention someone with far greater qualification, dedication and knowledge is not as good as you want them to be? This is offensive to say for any writer perhaps, and especially for someone who has literally poured out their heart and soul in their works. Ignorance of our generation. Ugh!

[Morthoron]

The Twilight saga sold millions of books, as did Fifty Shades of Grey. Having read a single page of each and finding the dialogue stilted and monosyllabic and the characters flat and tedious, I can only say one should never be surprised by the limited attention spans and juvenile reading capacity of the general public.

But then, one should consider how modern folks have been trained via media and the internet to react to stimuli. The world is full of brief memes and cat videos that requires the patience of a gnat to view and digest. The 24-hour news cycle has rendered reporting down to momentarily sensationalistic headlines and flittering twitters within a regimented amount of characters repeated long enough for the next news item to take its place, and the song structure in popular music has been reduced to catchy hooks repeated over monotonous rhythms and borrowed beats.

Big-box, brick-and-mortar stores, the bastions of consumer spending for a century, have gone the way of the dodo because people simply do not want to disengage from the internet and spend an afternoon shopping in a crowded mall. Order the crap online and be done with it. Let someone else deliver the goods. Likewise, the education system has all but eliminated cursive writing in school, because...who writes? Putting pen to paper has become as archaic as putting quill to parchment. Affix your X to the online document and proceed with your order.

And so, the works of Tolstoy, Hugo or even Tolkien, massive, sprawling story-lines with numerous characters and much dialogue and a lack of stimulating action or violence every few paragraphs, would naturally be viewed negatively with the jaundiced eyes of the tragically hip and eternally bored. I hate to invoke the name of Peter Jackson, but he did film Tolkien's works to play to this restless audience. Insinuation, ambiguity and nuance has been deleted in favor of action, chases and violence, dangling the string in front of the cat long enough to keep it engaged and then moving on to the next toy in his arsenal of arrested development.

Alas, to be an old fart in this day and age, and watch with dying eyes the collapse of culture! I may be a cynical curmudgeon, but I don't believe I am too far off in my presentiment.

[Barrel-rider]

Isn't is strange how Professor's use of the language holds up even now?

If he were alive today, as Professor John Ronald Reuel "I'm-so-not-immortal" Tolkien, I'd like to think he'd be proud of what we do.

[Kuruharan]

And so, the works of Tolstoy, Hugo or even Tolkien, massive, sprawling story-lines with numerous characters and much dialogue and a lack of stimulating action or violence every few paragraphs, would naturally be viewed negatively with the jaundiced eyes of the tragically hip and eternally bored.

In fairness, we have Martin with his massive, sprawling story-lines with numerous characters and much dialogue.

This one just has numbing action and violence every few paragraphs...and a great deal of sprawl.

[Nerwen]

I find is rather amusing how LOTR books are declared "annoying and boring" by many people we see on the web.

I have a couple of questions that I believe needed no separate thread to be answered.
1). Why would one believe Tolkien was a poor writer (and thus over-rated by the 'fans of the books')?
2). Why would people think the story doesn't move anywhere?
3). Why would people think characters do not evolve throughout the book?
4). Why would someone state PJ does a better job in storytelling than Professor did? (Kill me!)
I have come across these points again and again all the time and have found those who state the above mentioned points quite ignorant.

Of course, it all falls down to "This is all about different tastes and you cannot force anyone to like the books if they're not interested in them."
True enough. But isn't that the thing? If you aren't getting the beauty of the books, you have to be open-minded enough to admit this. Why mention someone with far greater qualification, dedication and knowledge is not as good as you want them to be? This is offensive to say for any writer perhaps, and especially for someone who has literally poured out their heart and soul in their works. Ignorance of our generation. Ugh!
It really doesn't do to get angry, though- better just to say, "Well, I see it differently, here's why". I realise that can difficult, if you happen to be dealing with people who don't really understand the concept of taste being subjective in the first place. (You can usually spot them by their constant use of words like "factual" and "objective" to describe their personal reactions.;))

Now it has been my own experience that self-identified fantasy fans do quite often dislike Tolkien. This is perhaps in part because the real explosion of epic fantasy as a genre only happened in the last few decades, so that those who make it their chief reading material are used to a more modern writing style (with, perhaps, dips into faux-archaic dialogue). And then, the very fact that it *is* a popular market means that a lot of it is pitched at a fairly simplistic, light-reading level. Nothing wrong with that, either- the point is populist writing tends to signal things like character development very heavily, because it has to allow for its readership not necessarily paying close attention.

As for "PJ being a better storyteller", I think the version of something you encounter first, if you like it, tends to seem like the "real" version, with others feeling not quite right. Though I regard the "Lord of the Rings" films as achievements in their own right, they *are* blockbusters and they adapt the story accordingly. I can see some movie fans being jarred by the difference when they come to read the book.

Basically- some people have a limited comfort zone, and automatically dismiss as self-evidently "bad" anything outside it. Obviously, since taste *is* so individual, they might not like "Lord of the Rings" (or whatever is in question) anyway, but the point is that they won't give it a chance in the first place. That mindset is not something you can change overnight. To get back to my original suggestion, calm, low-key disagreement is likely to work better than a passionate defence, since it suggests that maybe their opinions are not "objective facts" believed by all rational human beings. But you need to be patient.

[Lotrelf]

I do not mean to be pestering to anyone, but I'm curious to know (since my questions have been buried within for months and months) why are their arguments that JRRT wasn't a very good writer?

I wouldn't pretend to know much about writing since I truly don't. I have had my own reasons and standards to see which book I like and will read and which ones I won't or can't, and the only book I have read and found impossibly horrible is Gone Girl (ugh, it still makes me cringe!).

Professor Tolkien comes off as an ideal writer who has explored everything in his works, and apart from him I absolutely love Charles Dickens.

Just one question, if it can be answered.

[Kuruharan]

I do not mean to be pestering to anyone, but I'm curious to know (since my questions have been buried within for months and months) why are their arguments that JRRT wasn't a very good writer?

It varies from person to person. Good writing is in many respects in the eye of the beholder.

That being said, a common complaint about The Lord of the Rings is that it is slow to get going. That is hard to disagree with. It just comes down to whether the individual likes that or not.

People also complain that Tolkien is too descriptive of a writer. That too is a matter of taste (although I think those people are objectively on some powerful, brain-addling drug).

[Nerwen]

Bumping because I had a few more comments-

Remember, these things aren't static. Until a few years ago you'd hard put to find any but the most backhanded "praise" of Tolkien's writing in the online SF&F fan community. Used to be the general view, in many areas of the net, that he was "a decent worldbuilder but a terrible writer" whose unreadable work had been heroically salvaged by Peter Jackson and whose contribution (if any) had been to come up with the crude beginnings of the genre later perfected by real writers (like Jordan or G.R.R.M). And that's when they were being nice...:(

Now that has changed quite a bit in recent years, I think. You still see people bashing away, as described by Lotrelf, but it seems more like individual opinion rather than general consensus- a definite improvement. Could it be we actually have "The Hobbit" film trilogy to thank for this?

[Inziladun]

You still see people bashing away, as described by Lotrelf, but it seems more like individual opinion rather than general consensus- a definite improvement. Could it be we actually have "The Hobbit" film trilogy to thank for this?

Really? How would the Hobbit films have made a more favorable impression? Though I still haven't seen them, I thought the general consensus was that they were inferior to the LOTR movies. Is that opinion largely confined to book fans, or does The Hobbit trilogy just give the casual movie-fans more of what they liked in PJ's earlier adaptations?

[Zigûr]

I wonder if the "good world-builder, bad 'writer' " arguments tend to come from readers of Fantasy who are used to less considered (and at times less challenging) prose produced for a mass market.

For some reason this has always stood out to me as a piece of "beautiful" writing in The Lord of the Rings, from Book IV Chapter 1:
Clear sky was growing in the East once more. The skirts of the storm were lifting, ragged and wet, and the main battle had passed to spread its great wings over the Emyn Muil; upon which the dark thought of Sauron brooded for a while. Thence it turned, smiting the Vale of Anduin with hail and lightning, and casting its shadow upon Minas Tirith with threat of war. Then, lowering in the mountains, and gathering its great spires, it rolled on slowly over Gondor and the skirts of Rohan, until far away the Riders on the plain saw its black towers moving behind the sun, as they rode into the West. But here, over the desert and the reeking marshes the deep blue sky of evening opened once more, and a few pallid stars appeared, like small white holes in the canopy above the crescent moon.
It's perhaps not "sophisticated" prose in, say, the Modernist sense (although I doubt many critics would be making that comparison) but I find this kind of expression very evocative, and that's just describing the weather.

[Inziladun]

I wonder if the "good world-builder, bad 'writer' " arguments tend to come from readers of Fantasy who are used to less considered (and at times less challenging) prose produced for a mass market.

You know, Tolkien knew he was writing for a "mass market", the people who had made The Hobbit a success. Yet, he could not allow himself to alter his prose to be more in line with other "fairy stories" and fantasy of the period.
He retained his own inimitable writing style, and still managed to produce something both critically and commercially successful. That's seemingly an accomplishment beyond the ability of modern writers as a whole.

[Zigûr]

"Mass market" was probably a poor choice of words on my part; I was meaning to compare his writing to the kind of thing that is written to be easily digestible in a cynical attempt to have a wide appeal. By contrast I would argue that The Lord of the Rings had that appeal more naturally. Yet I think critics might find Professor Tolkien's style to be a bit too far outside their comfort zones.

[Galadriel55]

Well, to brighten up the discussion with what I think is a fair point on the "LOTR books are boring" score, I met a person once who thought so after genuinely attempting to actually read the books. When I asked him why he didn't like the books, he said that he really enjoyed The Hobbit (book), and was looking forward to LOTR. But FOTR turned out to be a big disappointment - as he told me, it's just The Hobbit repeated, except a lot more dragged out. After that he just lost the interest in the series. And I think it is a fair point - there is a lot of similarity in the structure of the stories, even though the themes are quite different. Not an issue for those who read LOTR first, or who aren't as attached to TH, but you can't blame that guy for finding FOTR redundant.

[Nerwen]

Really? How would the Hobbit films have made a more favorable impression? Though I still haven't seen them, I thought the general consensus was that they were inferior to the LOTR movies. Is that opinion largely confined to book fans, or does The Hobbit trilogy just give the casual movie-fans more of what they liked in PJ's earlier adaptations?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I mean that Jackson, perhaps, no longer looks quite so much like the Messiah of Middle-earth.

[Inziladun]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I mean that Jackson, perhaps, no longer looks quite so much like the Messiah of Middle-earth.

One would hope not. He hasn't exactly brought about universal harmony and eternal peace among Tolkienites, has he? ;)

[Zigûr]

Not an issue for those who read LOTR first, or who aren't as attached to TH, but you can't blame that guy for finding FOTR redundant.
Hmm. I read The Hobbit first and am very attached to it, but I must say personally I didn't find Books I and II of The Lord of the Rings redundant. It's an interesting point of view, just one I can't say I experienced myself. Personally when I first read The Lord of the Rings (at age 10) I found Book IV to be the most dry part.

I suppose I just think for some readers Professor Tolkien's style isn't much like what they're used to from fiction. I wonder if that's why children have been known to like The Lord of the Rings even though it's not much of a children's story – they might sometimes be a bit less set in their ways when it comes to reading.