Books People Can't Finish

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by ManosHandsOfFate

I read LoTR when I was about 12. I was so enamored with Middle Earth that I immediately started The Silmarillion. It was a slog. I think I got about 50 pages into it and gave up. I tried it again a year or so later and it wasn't any better.

That was many years ago. Maybe as an adult it'll go better?

The Silmarillion is one of those books I think I should read because I enjoy The Lord of the Rings trilogy so much. I've tried to read it a couple of times, and quit not long after starting. I think I'll try reading it again this year, now that I've had more exposure to literary epics.

[Dngrsone]

Originally Posted by ManosHandsOfFate

I read LoTR when I was about 12. I was so enamored with Middle Earth that I immediately started The Silmarillion. It was a slog. I think I got about 50 pages into it and gave up. I tried it again a year or so later and it wasn't any better.

That was many years ago. Maybe as an adult it'll go better?

Nope.

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

Nope.

If they could stretch The Hobbit into three movies, just think how many movies they could make out of The Silmarillion!

Here's another book I tried and failed to finish: A.S. Byatt's Possession. According to its description, the book has almost everything I should enjoy:

The novel traces a pair of young academics—Roland Michell and Maud Bailey—as they uncover a clandestine love affair between two long-dead Victorian poets. Interwoven in a mesmerizing pastiche are love letters and fairytales, extracts from biographies and scholarly accounts, creating a sensuous and utterly delightful novel of ideas and passions.

Despite the premise, I just couldn't get into the book.

[Dngrsone]

A lot of the padding in the Hobbit movies is taken from the Silmarillion, from what I understand.

Knowing that doesn't make it any easier to read.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

A lot of the padding in the Hobbit movies is taken from the Silmarillion, from what I understand.

Yes, and from the appendices. The timeframe is also compressed, by having some things happen during the timeframe of The Hobbit, while these things would normally happen before.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

The timeframe is also compressed.

I'm still cross about the missing years in the first LotR film. (Between the Party and Frodo leaving Bag End.)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm still cross about the missing years in the first LotR film. (Between the Party and Frodo leaving Bag End.)

Yes. You see Gandalf doing research. In the books, it takes him 17 (!) years to be certain of the ring, despite the 100 million signs he already had. In the movie, the research takes him a few months.

If true to the book, Frodo should be 50 when Gandal returns, while Sam and the other hobbits should be fortyish. (They are in their 'tweens' during the party.)

In The Hobbit, the timeframe between several events was compressed so they'd all fall around the time of the Erebor quest.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

Have you ever read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke? I have been meaning to read this book for years--I even have an autographed copy--but I keep putting it off in part to the copious footnotes. It's a thick book, and some pages are almost entirely footnotes. Footnotes, mind you, not endnotes, so they can't be easily ignored. I like editions of classic books with footnotes that I can consult if needed, but in this case, I am given to understand that the footnotes are very important to following the plot.

One of the only fantasy books that I started but couldn't finish. I thought it might just be because maybe the Dickens style of writing wasn't right for me. But then I gave it to my mother to read (a Dickens fan) and she couldn't get through it either.

There was a section of it I did like. I'm struggling to connect the characters to the actions now, but it involved war and resurrected soldiers. I found it effectively horrible - in a good way. But mostly, I just felt blah, and the blah ended up winning.

I don't know if I'll ever bother going back to read it again, but I know that it had significant acclaim, so my opinion isn't exactly representative.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm still cross about the missing years in the first LotR film. (Between the Party and Frodo leaving Bag End.)

They couldn't have done as bad as the film makers who made Troy I don't think pdurrant. It starts out with the 'abduction' of Helen and we see Paris' brother and his family which includes his infant son, then it skips 10 yrs and the 'baby' is still a baby. I realize they can't fit 10 yrs of battles into a movie, but at least age the kids up so that those that were pre-teens are young adults and the baby is at least a pre-teen child. If an author made a mistake in their writing like that the editor would catch it, why it wasn't caught in the movie I don't know.

[Dngrsone]

Because Hollywood does not care about continuity, or logic, for that matter (unless absolutely required for plot purposes, after which it is completely forgotten again).

Sadly, the overwhelming majority of the audience is of the same mind.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

Because Hollywood does not care about continuity, or logic, for that matter (unless absolutely required for plot purposes, after which it is completely forgotten again).

Sadly, the overwhelming majority of the audience is of the same mind.

You may have a point there. It's good that publishers are a bit more observant I think. Though sometimes you have to wonder if they are with some of the errors that sometimes pop up in ebooks. Hard to enjoy, much less finish a book that's filled with errors.

[NNolan]

Now I don't feel so bad that I abandoned Catch-22. I also gave up on Dahlgren and Titus Groan. I loved the Gormenghast mini-series, though, so I guess Mervin Peake proved that a picture really is worth a thousand or 5 of his words.

On the other hand, I've read LOTR multiple times and enjoyed it every time. I also finished (and liked) Wicked. I read Eat, Pray, Love with increasing annoyance at the author, but I did finish it. I'll never read anything ele she writes, though.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm still cross about the missing years in the first LotR film. (Between the Party and Frodo leaving Bag End.)

OMG, me too! That's funny. I think it's because of the obvious; Hollyweird wants YOUNG heroes, not middle-aged or, heaven forbid, older ones. (The late-in-life action heroics of Liam Neeson aside). Ergo, Frodo and Sam both become much, much younger.

Hitch

[MeSue]

Re: Eat, Pray, Love… I enjoyed Eat, skipped over most of Pray, and skimmed through Love.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

OMG, me too! That's funny. I think it's because of the obvious; Hollyweird wants YOUNG heroes, not middle-aged or, heaven forbid, older ones. (The late-in-life action heroics of Liam Neeson aside). Ergo, Frodo and Sam both become much, much younger.

Hitch

Frodo is 33/34 at the time the quest starts out in the LotR movies. That's no young hero; IMHO, it's a good age. I often feel the urge to burn a book if it becomes apparatent that the "hero" is a 15 to 17-year old boy (or girl) again. It's overdone.