Whats so good about the Lotr?

[Braus]

Im just curious, since i can admit that i liked, the hobbit(bilbo), the first time i read it, even though i never was obsessed with it. But ive never understood the greatness of LOTR. Im not really here to count up negative things about LOTR, or tolkiens writing, im just curious what makes him so great in other minds, compared to others. And why almost noone speaks up against bashing of other authors, just because they didnt write their work first.

 

 

People keep saying, that author stole that and that from tolkien all the time, and some are extremly silly and some are true, but at the same time silly. Like the nazguls and the myrdraals... They are hardly the same, not in history/personality/rank etc etc.

 

I say(which im proberly am very alone saying?) that tolkien invented something(unless we should start digging in all the references tolkien had, people he "copied" from etc), but he didnt do a very good job of adapting it.

[Mangakhan]

You have actually read The Lord of the Rings, right?

[Braus]

Ive actually read Lord of the Rings, yes.

1.5 times(cba rereading it fully when i tried) and ive ofc watched the movies.

 

WOT ive read once in swedish 1-11.

On english once 1-11.

And ive heard it at least two or more as a english audio book on my old summerwork/when i go out with the dog/when i train sometimes.

 

Besides that ive read abit of david eddings and all the harry potter books + read about 80% of Eragon before i gave that book away to a relative. Cant say im that much into the general fantasy with elves/dwarfs etc, just into good books(which ofc is my own special opinion, but i didnt write this thread to count up why i dislike LOTR, id rather try and understand what makes tolkien into some kind of genious, while RJ just seems to be a "good" author).

 

I dont read a fantasy book because its fantasy, i read it because i think a book is good and im just trying to understand what tolkien did so good.

 

[Barmacral]

I think in part it is that Tolkien was the first, he was the one that all other authors kinda built upon, and he put a tonne of work into his world, developing entire languages, a comprehensive geography, amongst other things.

[Corki]

I think in part it is that Tolkien was the first, he was the one that all other authors kinda built upon, and he put a tonne of work into his world, developing entire languages, a comprehensive geography, amongst other things.

What about Homer? Fine, he didn't create his own language, but created his own worlds and geography and a host of other things. PLUS he did it in verse. And he did it orally.

 

And Braus, you are not the only one not to understand why people rave about LotR. I can't stand the books. I find them difficult to read. But I agree with you on The Hobbit - that is an awesome little book!

[Werthead]

Whilst there are other important works pre-Tolkien that led to the creation of modern epic fantasy, such as Robert E. Howard's Conan stories or Jack Vance's Dying Earth books, Tolkien was the first one to really 'nail' what people liked about the genre. The richly detailed background setting, the fantastical landscape, the evocation of (a somewhat sanitised version of) the real medieval period and a lot of interesting thematic ideas about the passing of ages, the development of industry and so on.

 

Interestingly, a lot of the cliches Tolkien gets accused of he doesn't actually have: his 'hero' (both with Bilbo and later Frodo) is a middle-aged landed aristocrat of humble parentage, not a callow farmboy who is really the heir to the throne. Similarly, whilst a lot of epic fantasy is based around searching or finding a magical artifact, LotR is about destroying one the main character already has. Frodo also notably fails in the quest (which is only saved by the unplanned intervention of Gollum), which is an cool spin on the idea.

 

LotR is an important and respected book because of its role in the history of the genre. Some people find it very dry and too old-fashioned to read today, but I still quite like it. I do think as a work of the imagination, The Silmarillion is more important, more adult, more epic and more effecting, though.

[wite wo1f]

I really never enjoyed the LotR series, I have read it twice once because I wanted to see what was so great about it and then again for school. My problem with it is the details, I really only care about the dialogue and basically just skim all of the books I read except for the dialogue. There just was not enough dialogue in the book and I found it really boring.

[Majsju]

 

What about Homer? Fine, he didn't create his own language, but created his own worlds and geography and a host of other things. PLUS he did it in verse. And he did it orally.

 

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? Homer did not create anything, everything he tells about really happened ;D

[Barmacral]

 

What about Homer? Fine, he didn't create his own language, but created his own worlds and geography and a host of other things. PLUS he did it in verse. And he did it orally.

 

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? Homer did not create anything, everything he tells about really happened ;D

 

Maj would know, he was Achilles in his first life time.

[Loreina]

Similarly, whilst a lot of epic fantasy is based around searching or finding a magical artifact, LotR is about destroying one the main character already has. Frodo also notably fails in the quest (which is only saved by the unplanned intervention of Gollum), which is an cool spin on the idea.

:) I agree. And this is just one excellent example of what prevents this work from becoming predictable pulp and instead elevates it to the realm of literature.

 

LotR is an important and respected book because of its role in the history of the genre. Some people find it very dry and too old-fashioned to read today, but I still quite like it. I do think as a work of the imagination, The Silmarillion is more important, more adult, more epic and more effecting, though.

Again, I agree.

The Silmarillion is so good that I found myself thinking and feeling as though I were reading a real history of real people.

 

People who get The Hobbit and enjoy it, and then get the LotR expecting the same sort of experience will be disappointed. They were created for different purposes. The Hobbit was written solely for entertainment purposes. It began as a bedtime story for his kids and became a sort of modern fairy tale. But from what I've read about the process, Tolkien wrote and rewrote the stories and histories that resulted in The Silmarillion and the LotR mostly for his own pleasure and as an outlet for his creative energies. True, the publisher was hoping for another success like The Hobbit, but I don't think a career as a Fantasy author was ever Tolkien's motivation for writing.

wite wolf's reaction to LotR is quite common. I did almost the same thing the first time I read LotR. I had to read it again (and then The Silmarillion), before I understood I was not reading just another fairy tale.

id rather try and understand what makes tolkien into some kind of genious, while RJ just seems to be a "good" author).

In addition to what Werthead wrote above, I'd say that it's the depth and breadth of the creativy that impresses. Tolkien was a poet, a linguist, an historian. Middle Earth is like a real place. I see no gaps in it's creation. But then, LotR is a smaller work.  Perhaps the gaps I see in RJ's creation are due to the huge scale of the work. He simply didn't get around to finishing the finer details.  That said, I would never call RJ just a "good" author. ;)

[Hybrid]

Besides that ive read abit of david eddings and all the harry potter books + read about 80% of Eragon before i gave that book away to a relative.

Well...

You can compare those books to LOTR and the answer should be self-evident.  LOTR is not necessarily a "fun" series to read.  I personally enjoy it quite a bit but I can definitely understand people not enjoying it or finding it very tough to read - which was the case when I first read it (admittedly, I was younger).  But the scale of the worldbuilding is tremendous.  And the writing, while not the peak of literature, is very good for fantasy.  You may not enjoy it, but it is without a doubt one of the greatest works in fantasy. 

[Braus]

Had forgotten this topic:P

 

But yeah, i absoluetly got nothing against anyone who likes tolkien. My question was more as you quoted, what makes tolkien into a genious, while RJ gets bashed quite alot outside the major fansites(i dont bash tolkien >.<, why does others have to bash RJ, just look at that guy who just had to spend a whole day spamming dragonmount.com with useless posts about why WOT sucks. Binaryworm or something)

 

And about fun, well we all think different things is fun and as time goes that changes aswell. Im pretty certain ill still enjoy RJ in 20 years when im 40, and not only because of nostalgia, i hope.

 

 

 

About taste and personal opinions and deciding whats a good book, a intelligent book etc etc:P

I think saying that the lesser people who read an author, the better he is, or lets say intelligent, could be one way to put it. Since afterall there is so many extremly strange books out there that according to the only people who can understand them(the cultural elite?:)), is so extremly great.

[EramofAmandous]

The Silmarillion is so good that I found myself thinking and feeling as though I were reading a real history of real people.

 

I've tried to read the Silmarillion like 3 times, can't do it, it like reading the bible....boring.

[Loreina]

The Bible is full of murder, mayhem, incest, and illicit romance. It even contains some steamy love songs. Maybe you're not reading the right parts.  ;) ;D

[EramofAmandous]

Its the way its worded, I simply can't read it. After I read one page it feels like a hour has pasted.

[Loreina]

True. I prefer the love songs in the King James Version because it's more poetic. But the newer translations contain fewer errors and are much easier to read. It still lacks descriptive detail, but I find it interesting.

 

Interesting. The Bible bores some people because it lacks descriptive detail and LotR bores some people because it contains so much descriptive detail.  :) Also, they are both better read aloud. But I veer off topic.

 

I'm curious Braus. Who described RJ as just a 'good' author? Was that in a review somewhere or just here on the forums by an excited LotR fan?  ;D

 

[Thorum]

The Bible is full of murder, mayhem, incest, and illicit romance. It even contains some steamy love songs. Maybe you're not reading the right parts.  ;) ;D

 

I've often heard this. I just wonder: which ARE the right parts?

[EramofAmandous]

I recently read the Gospel of Judas and that was kinda interesting and I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that I have browsed.

[Loreina]

The Bible is full of murder, mayhem, incest, and illicit romance. It even contains some steamy love songs. Maybe you're not reading the right parts.  ;) ;D

 

I've often heard this. I just wonder: which ARE the right parts?

 

I was somewhat jokingly referring to King David's adultery with Bathsheba, Samson's betrayal, Joshua at the battle of Jerico, Joseph's being sold into slavery, Lot's daughters, etc. The Bible is just full of people being people.  :)  That's why it's been a major source of inspiration for writers for so many years.

[EramofAmandous]

Yeah but I'm always wary of religion, it can make some people to dumb things (and great ones too, to be fair).

[CTM]

The history and world building. It's also an introductory series to fantasy, so it is often remembered fondly.

 

The Silmarillion is amazing if you can get past the first sections where it just names 40-50 characters in rapid fire.

 

 

[Loreina]

Yeah but I'm always wary of religion, it can make some people to dumb things (and great ones too, to be fair).

 

As you should be. But as the NRA asserts "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."  In the Religion+people equation, it's the people that choose to do dumb things. Those are the people who would have done dumb things even without religion. But that's a topic for another day. :)

 

The history and world building. It's also an introductory series to fantasy, so it is often remembered fondly.

 

The Silmarillion is amazing if you can get past the first sections where it just names 40-50 characters in rapid fire.

 

True, it's very hard to keep track of the Pantheon of Gods, Demigods, etc. at the beginning.  :)

[Braus]

 

I'm curious Braus. Who described RJ as just a 'good' author? Was that in a review somewhere or just here on the forums by an excited LotR fan?  ;D

 

 

Not on these forums, but on alot of others :) and the thing isnt that people dont absolutely love RJ like most people at dragonmount. The thing was that ive seen to much bashing going on, especially when comparing RJ with tolkien >.<

[Thorum]

I recently read the Gospel of Judas and that was kinda interesting and I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that I have browsed.

 

Neither of which is in the bible :o

[Loreina]

:) I don't like to compare authors by saying that one is better than another. That's like saying apples are better than oranges. If you're looking for vitamin C, they're not. All you can really say is how strong an author is in some aspect of writing. If you really enjoy reading about people, you will favor authors that can create well-rounded characters. If you enjoy a fast action adventure, you will favor an author who can create that action and really make it believable. In most genres, I am a 'character' person. I can forgive a few plot holes, if the characters capture my imagination. But in mysteries, the plotting has to be absolutely tight. I will forgive the author for a few stale characters, as long as the plotting is logical and consistent. I don't read mysteries for the people in them, but for the puzzle.  ;)

 

Neither of which is in the bible  :o

*lol* I think some of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained pieces of some Bible Gospels, but I don't recall which ones. I didn't even know you could get copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sounds like a good topic for another thread.  :)