You should read the OP again. This thread is about people who don’t read Lord of the Rings and solicits like opinions. If someone is here who shouldn’t be, it is you.
I don’t have a clue what the first two are, and I wouldn’t consider Shakespeare and Dickens fantasy writers.
I have to say that this kind of snobbery bewilders and dismays me. It’s so “cool” to be anti-enthusiasm. “Cool,” to a large degree, among a large number of its practitioners, consists of a kind of frantic denial of enthusiasm of any kind, for anything. I can think of few things sillier (or more paradoxical and self-contradictory) than this desperate need to be seen as apathetic.
Geeks can be annoying, but at least their narrowly focused energies are focused on something that they enjoy, that makes them happy. Geekdom–giving yourself over to, celebrating, your enthusiasms–does no one any harm, and does a lot of people a lot of good.
I haven’t watched or read any of the LOTR series.
In fact, I thought The Two Towers was a 9-11 memorial film. No, I’m not making that up.
FWIW, I’m 33, liked Matrix, Starwars, etc.
With your user name, you probably should at least look for Smith of Wootton Major. I think you would enjoy it if you enjoyed the Alice stories.
I have heard a few other people who confused The Two Towers with a 9/11 tribute. One lady was even complaining that it was horrible they were trying to profit off the tragedy.
Jim
So, are you saying that in the books, Frodo was NOT saved by Sam multiple times? In the books, Frodo, did NOT want to give up multiple times, and only continued because Sam encouraged him to? In the books, Frodo was NOT taken over by the ring, and saved by Sam? If so, sounds like the movies radically changed the entire story. If not, then sounds like Sam was the true hero of the books, too.
In the Books Frodo never gave up until after Shelob had poisoned him and the Orcs had kept him prisoner in the Tower. He was weaken and more susceptible to the ring by that time. Frodo set off from Rivendell knowing he probably would not ever return home. He fled from the party to protect the rest of the Party from the Ring and the Horrors of continuing on to Morder. Sam was very heroic. Frodo would not have completed the quest without help from Samwise, Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, and in the end Gollum. The Compassion and pity Frodo felt for Gollum is part of what allow him to resist the ring far longer than anyone else would have. Sam barely wore it and was almost immediately feeling its sway. You are thinking of Heroes in the traditional sense. Frodo was a hero in a way that could only come across in the writings of Tolkien, not on screen.
Jim
Off Topic but Replying to Roadfood: One of the great things about literature is that readers can interpret a story in different ways. Here are a few of the reasons that for me Frodo, not Sam, is the central hero of LOTR: Frodo takes on the quest for the greater good, to save his homeland. Sam goes along on the quest out of love/loyalty for Frodo. The quest would have failed at Mt. Doom when the power of the ring overcame Frodo, except for the pity and kindness that Frodo had showed over and over to Gollum. It was Frodo, not Sam, who earned this grace. (Frodo does not fall in the volcano after Gollum in the book; Gollum in his joy after biting off Frodo’s finger and obtaining the precious, stumbles and falls.)
Well, there’s more I could say, but it would bore anyone not into the LOTR any way, so I’ll end my hijack.
To Lamar Mundane:
Magic Realism is a literary genre, often found in–but not limited to–Latin American fiction. Italo Calvino was a Cuban who wrote Magic Realism.
Many do not consider “A Tempest” or “A Christmas Carol” to contain fantasy elements.
Correcting my mistake:
Many DO consider “A Tempest” or “A Christmas Carol” to contain fantasy elements.
(Do the LOTR fans who have posted in this thread also “not belong”?)
To Bridget Burke - a small correction: Italo Calvino, while born in Cuba, is primarily known as an Italian author. I do not find his novels to my liking, but I treasure his collection of Italian Folktales. It’s wonderful.
(end second or third hijack)
Psst. I’ll let you in on a little ‘snobby’ secretOutside of a small subsect on the Internet (including the SDMB’s Cafe Society) - People rarely discuss the LoTR, Star Trek or Star Wars franchises. Other than fan conventions, you won’t hear the name Frodo, Spock or Vader mentioned at taverns, book launch parties, museums, art shows, sporting events, around the water cooler, billiards, bowling alleys, night clubs or other mainstream gatherings.
Psst: I let you in on a Geeky little secret.
The WWW got off the ground with people that constantly talked about computers, Star Trek, Star Wars and Tolkien, it has changed a lot since the days of 14400 baud rates
Jim
Jim, I work in a field that relies almost totally on computers and the internet. My wife and I are connected. But every single other place I go IRL, nobody talks about LOTR or ST or SW, or computers or the internet. You may have to concede that some people are living in a bubble where much of what the rest of the folks do never intrudes…
So, what do you think A Midsummer Night’s Dream is, then? One of his history plays?
So, you describe Shakspeare as a fantasy writer, then?
Of course I concede that. It is a fact.
I was making reference to the days when the WWW users were measured in the low millions. I am talking about pre-1996.
Remember once upon the time the Internet was that thing for Geeks that people were starting to hear about.
Jim → It looks like the Spoiler Tag is broken again.
Shakespeare is a fantasy writer like Banks is an SF writer - half the time.
OK, Dickens was a stretch, only “A Christmas Carol” qualifies. But you do get the point, I hope - fantasy isn’t all elves and fairies. Chocolat is as much a fantasy film as Lord of the Rings.
WOW.
I just went through this thread again and found something like twenty people arguing over something that had nothing to do with OP.
I didn’t have a point, but if I did, that would prove it.
Mods, I still think a 30 second delete rule is rational…
That said, ummmm, wow?
I’m confused?
To JohnBckWLD: Your “little snobby secret” spoiler box was just so mean-spirited. I have many hobbies and special interests (including, but not limited to Lord of the Rings) which I don’t talk about at the water cooler or the bowling alley or art gallery opening or whatever other venue you mentioned. Doesn’t mean it’s not important to me, or others. Come to think of it, I don’t talk about really important social issues - the war in Iraq, AIDS, world poverty, the environment, etc - at all those venues all the time either. And you won’t hear the names of Stephen Dedalus, or Ishmael or Colonel Buendia or Kristin Lavransdatter or whoever from whatever literature you like, discussed at all those places, while they’re not mentioning Frodo.
to close I’m going to repeat Lissener’s earlier post (I hope that’s ok), because it bears repeating:
"I have to say that this kind of snobbery bewilders and dismays me. It’s so “cool” to be anti-enthusiasm. “Cool,” to a large degree, among a large number of its practitioners, consists of a kind of frantic denial of enthusiasm of any kind, for anything. I can think of few things sillier (or more paradoxical and self-contradictory) than this desperate need to be seen as apathetic.
Geeks can be annoying, but at least their narrowly focused energies are focused on something that they enjoy, that makes them happy. Geekdom–giving yourself over to, celebrating, your enthusiasms–does no one any harm, and does a lot of people a lot of good."