That post about Harry Potter vs. Tolkien has reminded an odd thing about me. I’m trembling as i write this (oh, the flames i’ll get…), but something that’s apparently odd about me is that i don’t like Tolkien. Or more specifically, Lord of The Rings. Well, just Fellowship of The Rings, because i couldn’t bring myself to read the next one after i forced myself through Fellowship.
It’s not that i don’t like epic fantasy or anything (I LOVE Dune. wait… epic sci-fi… arrggh, close enough), but i just… don’t… like… Tolkien. The Tolkien’s world is fantasically detailed, but that’s only the setting. The plot, to me, was extremely boring. But i’m hardly qualified to judge literature.
I liked “The Hobbit,” but was less impressed by LOTR. In fact, “The Fellowship of the Ring” was the first book I ever started reading and left unfinished.
Eventually, I got through the trilogy, but only so that I would be better able to understand “Bored of the Rings” (which I can’t recommend highly enough).
“Five nine is your height and 180’s your weight/You’ll cash in your chips around page 88.”.
Well, seeing as the plot is driven through a series of three books, the Fellowship of the Ring is absolutely going to go slower than The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a stand-alone story. LOTR is actually one Book divided into 3 books divided into 2 books for each book. They all tie together, and of course it’s going to be unsatisfying if you only read one part.
I think the detail can be a problem. Trying to absorb all of it at once can be distracting. I read it for the first time in high school but didn’t like it very much. I read it again after I got out of college and thought it was great (and still do). I think this was partially because I already knew the story and so could pay more attention to the detail. (The same thing happened with me when reading Dickens.)
Maybe you could try re-reading Fellowship now.
I like “The Hobbit” less than the rest because its child’s fairy-tale atmosphere wears a little thin for me.
I read it the first time when I was 13. It remains one of my favorite books ever, but I have to admit that it’s more than a little slow at the beginning (say, until they reach Bree). But it picks up nicely after that. As an indication of how the pace picks up, it took me over a month to read the first half of Fellowship of the Ring, a week to read the second half, only a few days to read The Two Towers, and just one day to read Return of the King. I have read it several times since then.
I similarly read it first in High School, when I was 12, and enjoyed the Frodo/Sam/Gollum adventure, but didn’t like the war going on as it totally confused me.
Since then, I have continued to enjoy Fantasy books that have travelling adventure in it, but not really enjoy war, battle, fighting, or strategy based tales.
I have just recently bought LotR again so I can read it for a second time. Maybe this time I’ll appreciate it more, being older and wiser and a more experienced reader.
The following is based on the people that I know. Once you get down to the group that likes fantasy, the ones who most appreciate Tolkien, have a better ability to see the story with their mind’s eye. In discussions with people who liked the books; the detail was what set it apart and allowed them to “be” there. I fall into that category, I loved the detail. My wife never completed the first book in Fellowship. I have mixed feelings about the upcoming movie for this very reason. How well will the director’s portrayal, fit in with what has been floating around in my head for the last 25 years?
Friends, two or three seasons ago. Ross is trying to explain to Joey why he (Ross) and Chandler nicknamed an old college friend of theirs “Gandalf.”
ROSS: Gandalf! You know, Gandalf. The wizard?!?
JOEY: [blank stares]
Ross: Didn’t you read Lord of the Rings in high school?
JOEY: No, I had sex in high school.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously, tho. I read LOTR a few months ago, and I suppose I’m a better man because of it. At least on some level. Anyway, at least now the movies will make more sense to me.
You have to understand, OP, that LOTR (and all of Tolkien’s works) are very allegorical. The final chapters of the Hobbit were almost completely about the Great War, for example. Do you think all of those people would have read Moby Dick if it were about a whale?
If Tolkien heard you say that, he would rise from his grave and spit you personally.
Tolkien despised allegory in virtually every form.
I have undertaken spirited defenses of Tolkien’s prose, his narrative, and the complexity of his allusions for years. Just pick up The Road to Middle Earth by Tom Shippey. He does the job better than I possibly could.
I’ve read LOTR several times (including once out loud to my kids). And there are certainy parts I like better than others. Generally prefer the parts featuring orcs, Nazgul, and other meanies. And I really like some characters (Gimli), while others are a pain in the ass (not a huge fan of elves or Rohirrim). And I read it on the most simplistic plot driven level.
Heck, it is a huge series of books. It has something for just about everyone. And many folk can certainly disagree with me, and be exactly as correct as I am.
I like the orcs a lot too, and they are also an excellent plot device: they’re not human and are irredeemably evil, so no one need have any compunctions about slaughtering them. If you’re battling humans, things like compassion and uncertainty about motives get in the way. Kinda like the way the Nazis get used in reality-based fiction–a nice class of uncomplicated evil we can kill with impunity. Man, if you’ve got to stop and think about the morality of everyone you have to battle, it really slows down the plot.
I love Tolkien’s work. I loved The LoTR when I first read it as a kid. I recently reread it for the first time is a few years, and I still love it. Rereading The Hobbit as an adult is more difficult than rereading The LoTR. The Hobbit is more specifically a children’s book, whereas The LoTR can be enjoyed by any age. I do think, though, that it is unlikely for an adult to enjoy Tolkien if he or she was not exposed to Tolkien at a younger age.
I agree with Sn-man about why I like Tolkien. The way he created an entire world and his ability to bring me into it was what hooked me. I liked the languages and the genealogies as well as the story lines. I also think Tolkien’s prose is wonderful in terms of how it flows and how it is not “dumbed down” for children.
Although not everyone needs to like Tolkien, it should be recognized how much influence he had in the development of fantasy and science fiction. I’ve always thought Dune (currently being discussed elsewhere) was heavily influenced by The LoTR.
I have said this many, many times. The Return of the King is by far the most exciting book in the series. You can’t read Fellowship and then shelve it – the story’s just getting started! (endorsement: I have a colleague who did just that, until I begged him to read the other 2. Finally he did, and now he’s sworn off Robert Jordan.) Personally, I love the details. I read it for the first time in the 5th grade and adored it straight off the bat. I never cared for The Hobbit (kids book… feh!) although it does give some background for LOTR.
The Return of the Kingis indeed the best part, but you need the first two parts to understand it. The Fellowship of the Ring is probably the weakest of the three. It’s a little disjointed–the whole Tom Bombadil subplot is completely irrelevant to the rest of the story. It takes a while to get going, but once you get past Rivendell, it’s great! {/gushing fanboy}
Tolkien’s style can turn people off. Like a lot of European writers, he is too wordy for a lot of American readers. J.R.R. Tolkien is to James Joyce, as Robert E. Howard is to Ernest Hemingway.
