Lord of the Rings boring books

[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]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

[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.