WHy TOLKIEN and LOTR is overrated!!!

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by hidari

YO GRANNY. I was not Trying TO FLAME or TROLL or whatever you call it. Just Having Fun. It is the Lounge not the Big Brother Section 42.7 WARD.

I am sure your supporters will come to your rescue If I have offended you in anyway.

hidari.

PS. I hereby have no opinion. Does that make you happier?

"Yo Granny"?

Hidari, your posts were designed to create an inflammatory thread.

You deliberately came here for one reason.

You wanted the world to know just how your felt about LOTR, and then you wanted others to join you and trash something many consider a valuable contribution to literature.

For no other reason than think its "fun" .

Sorry, I don't think MobileRead is the place for this kind of "fun".

Oh...........and please do not PM me again.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by hidari

PS. I hereby have no opinion. Does that make you happier?

Look, you're entitled to your opinion same as anyone. The problem is you started from your first post in, shall we say, the wrong spirit. You said:

If anyone does NOT LIKE LOTR please post here.

First day on the internet, hidari? That's not the way things work here. You stated your opinion, fine, but you have to expect if it differs from the prevailing opinion you're going to get trounced. Whether anyone agrees with your opinion or not is irrelevant.

Differences of opinion should be interesting and the source of civil discussion, not creating an unfriendly us v. them mentality.

[bertold]

Yo, hidassi, I'm sorry I called you juvenile. It was unfair to juvenile people. You're what Clint Eastwood would call "a punk".


Clint is cool.

Originally Posted by hidari

PS. I hereby have no opinion. Does that make you happier?

If that keeps you from posting, it'll make most of us ecstatic.


Yes, yes, I know. Don't feed the punk.


/me exits thread, stage left.

[Alphapheemail]

I am going to unsubscribe from this nonsense.

[HarryT]

I am currently re-reading The Silmarillion for the umpteenth time. Each time I read it, I think that I enjoy it more. I've just bought the 2nd edition of it, which has lots of additions from the first edition that I previously owned.

[HistoryWes]

There are a great many books in many different genres that are and will for generations be considered great. Often times these are not "easy reads." It is their very complexity that makes them great. And I'm not using the word great to mean "really good", but its real meaning-- large, weighty, substantial.

I find it amazing to go to the bookstore today and see shelf after shelf of fantasy books. When I was a kid, LOTR and a very few others was basically it. You can love LOTR for its language and scope, its sheer genius... or not. But the fact is, that without it, we wouldn't have Eregon, the Wheel of Time, His Dark Materials, Thomas Covenant, and hundreds of others.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am currently re-reading The Silmarillion for the umpteenth time. Each time I read it, I think that I enjoy it more. I've just bought the 2nd edition of it, which has lots of additions from the first edition that I previously owned.

I'm going to break a promise to myself and post in this area for the second time (but only because of the thoughtful, reasoned post from you, Harry).

I feel exactly as you do about The Silmarillion. It's such a rich and enjoyable book: The whole of Creation is contained within its pages. In fact, I feel it's the best religious book ever written, better than the King James version of the Bible. (I'm almost certain we disagree here, Harry. ).

The language is exquisite and gorgeous. My one lament is that I traded my American First Edition to another peson about 25 years ago, when - as we say in the South - I was a mere piss-ant and without much common sense. I was into collecting Stephen King at the time, moving away from Fantasy and into Horror.

I remember owning, back in the mid-to-late '60s, both the Ace and Ballantine sets of The Lord of the Rings. I was one of those strange people able to read a paperback without breaking the binding.

Great fun and great memories,

...And Hadari: Don't be dissuaded by differing opinions. People here are "ruffled" (hahahahaha!) because they have emotional investment in The Lord of the Rings. They "dislike" your comments, not you.

Continue to have fun.


Don

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am currently re-reading The Silmarillion for the umpteenth time. Each time I read it, I think that I enjoy it more. I've just bought the 2nd edition of it, which has lots of additions from the first edition that I previously owned.

As soon as there's an electronic version, I'll probably read it... Not going to lug around that book!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I feel exactly as you do about The Silmarillion. It's such a rich and enjoyable book: The whole of Creation is contained within its pages. In fact, I feel it's the best religious book ever written, better than the King James version of the Bible. (I'm almost certain we disagree here, Harry. ).

The language is exquisite and gorgeous. My one lament is that I traded my American First Edition to another peson about 25 years ago, when - as we say in the South - I was a mere piss-ant and without much common sense. I was into collecting Stephen King at the time, moving away from Fantasy and into Horror.

I've never thought of it in that light, but I know exqctly what you mean about The Silmarillion being a "religious" book. It does have very much that "feel" to it, doesn't it? I wouldn't be so bold as to put it on a par with the KJV myself, but I understand why you do.

[bbusybookworm]

Well, The title did get me to jump in, even though the first post was a bit strong

Still Tolkein and LOTR has always been an emotional subject among fantasy fans, with emotions running strong on both sides.

I have to admit that while I'm in awe of what Professor Tolkein has done in creating such a complex and detailed work, the books can be though going at times.

In the past I had tried reading the Trilogy nearly a dozen times, but kept getting bogged down in the first 100-200 pages. At That time I was regularly reading other books 600-1000 pages long so it was not the size that was the problem, but the slow pace.

I finally managed to get through the whole series the night came back from seeing the Fellowship and just had to know what happened.

I've read it a few more times after that, and while the level of detail and the scope is great, I've come to expect and enjoy a faster pace, so rereads are not as often, and then too, just selected sections usually.

While I appreciate the influence LOTR has had on the fantasy genre which in turn influenced most of my favourite authors, I can't claim to consider it one of my all time favourites.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by Alphapheemail

I am going to unsubscribe from this nonsense.

Don't give up on it yet. The discussion has improved.

I'm a sf reader who never really saw the appeal of fantasy other than Ray Bradbury, but I have an open mind.

Who knows, this thread may change a few minds about Tolkien for the better.

That would be delicious irony, wouldn't it?

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by hidari

This is worth posting just to get people angry for no reason. I could go into my own reasons for the BORING parts of LOTR but I will let a few of the links below help people to guide their way out of Middleearth:

[snipped]

Yes, It will be fun to see Fantasy Freaks have a heart attack at anyone who would actually post an anti-LOTR thread. Fact is, I read the LOTR several times as well as other of Tolkien's works. I think he was a very interesting person. And, I loved to read him in my youth. BUT:

HELLO Character DEVELOPMENT

HELLO PACE

HELLO PEOPLE: THERE ARE OTHER BOOKS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.

I keep running into LOTR freaks that reming me of Deadheads, Ayn Rand Freaks or Harry Potterheads!!!! ( Still dont get that either. Another thread for that monstrosity!)

Enjoyed that tirade. Anyways. If anyone does NOT LIKE LOTR please post here. Hey It was a good series. BUT It aint Shakespeare!!!

Okay, I probably shouldn't even post in this thread because I have no horse in this race anyway. I have no valid opinion one way or the other. I haven't read LOTR and don't intend to. I don't have any reasons why not . . . just have many others things I'd prefer to read instead.

Maybe I'm a bit thick headed or slow, or just plain dumb . . . but I don't understand, if, as you state in your OP that LOTR was boring, lacked character development, was slow-paced, etc.; yet you found it to be a good series; then again that it ain't Shakespeare; then again that other books have been written . . . well, duh.

Nothing is Shakespeare except Shakespeare, and why should every literary work be compared to it as a gauge of how worthy a work is? Apples and Oranges?

You seem a bit conflicted in your opinions and don't know how you yourself feels about this subject since you state all it's shortcomings as reasons it's so bad, yet if you thought it was really THAT BAD . . .

Why woiuld you bother to waste your time reading LOTR SEVERAL TIMES as well as other of Tolkien's works?

Did you think that upon subsequent readings that the pace would pick up? the characters would magically become developed? and it would become a Shakespearean work as opposed to a Tolkien work? and it would also become the only book ever written as opposed to your original take on it all? Why would you bother if it was so bad the first time around?

From your own words in your OP, I would surmise that you may very well BE one of those LOTR freaks to whom you refer. With all the time you've apparently spent reading the series, etc. and now your seeming disdain for it, you seem obsessed with it all. Which ever way you go, seems kind of freakish to me.

But that's just me.

Have to give you credit though. You pretty much admitted in your OP that your intention was to create discord amongst your "audience." Did the result meet with your expectations?


Oh, and desertgrandma . . .

I'm with you, granny.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The point about it is that Professor Tolkien created an entire "world" with languages, a mythology, etc. That is something which nobody else has ever done - it is a staggering achievement. You really need to read "The Silmarillion" to appreciate the sheer scope of it all.

I am certainly not a "Fantasy Freak", but I am in awe of what Professor Tolkien achieved.

The good Professor was a fine Conlanger and a noteworthy Conworlder, but his stories I find to be nothing short of tedious and jejune!

- Ahi

Ps.: Which is not terribly bizarre--despite being far from the common consensus--given that he stated outright at one time that he wrote his books as an excuse to showcase his constructed languages.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Nothing is Shakespeare except Shakespeare

I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium, and doubted as to whether I was senseless in feeling works regarded as the summit of perfection by the whole of the civilized world to be trivial and positively bad, or whether the significance which this civilized world attributes to the works of Shakespeare was itself senseless. My consternation was increased by the fact that I always keenly felt the beauties[5] of poetry in every form; then why should artistic works recognized by the whole world as those of a genius,—the works of Shakespeare,—not only fail to please me, but be disagreeable to me? For a long time I could not believe in myself, and during fifty years, in order to test myself, I several times recommenced reading Shakespeare in every possible form, in Russian, in English, in German and in Schlegel's translation, as I was advised. Several times I read the dramas and the comedies and historical plays, and I invariably underwent the same feelings: repulsion, weariness, and bewilderment. At the present time, before writing this preface, being desirous once more to test myself, I have, as an old man of seventy-five, again read the whole of Shakespeare, including the historical plays, the "Henrys," "Troilus and Cressida," the "Tempest," "Cymbeline," and I have felt, with even greater force, the same feelings,—this time, however, not of bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the unquestionable glory of a great genius which Shakespeare enjoys, and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to[6] discover in him non-existent merits,—thereby distorting their esthetic and ethical understanding,—is a great evil, as is every untruth.

--- Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy on Shakespeare

P.s.: 'Tis be some fine pot-stirring, say I!

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by ahi

I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium, and doubted as to whether I was senseless in feeling works regarded as the summit of perfection by the whole of the civilized world to be trivial and positively bad, or whether the significance which this civilized world attributes to the works of Shakespeare was itself senseless. My consternation was increased by the fact that I always keenly felt the beauties[5] of poetry in every form; then why should artistic works recognized by the whole world as those of a genius,—the works of Shakespeare,—not only fail to please me, but be disagreeable to me? For a long time I could not believe in myself, and during fifty years, in order to test myself, I several times recommenced reading Shakespeare in every possible form, in Russian, in English, in German and in Schlegel's translation, as I was advised. Several times I read the dramas and the comedies and historical plays, and I invariably underwent the same feelings: repulsion, weariness, and bewilderment. At the present time, before writing this preface, being desirous once more to test myself, I have, as an old man of seventy-five, again read the whole of Shakespeare, including the historical plays, the "Henrys," "Troilus and Cressida," the "Tempest," "Cymbeline," and I have felt, with even greater force, the same feelings,—this time, however, not of bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the unquestionable glory of a great genius which Shakespeare enjoys, and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to[6] discover in him non-existent merits,—thereby distorting their esthetic and ethical understanding,—is a great evil, as is every untruth.

--- Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy on Shakespeare

P.s.: 'Tis be some fine pot-stirring, say I!

I don't care to stir pots.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with not liking or appreciating Shakespeare, Plato, Tolkien, or Dr. Suess. I also don't think you can fairly compare one with the other any more than you can compare "The Sound of Music" with "Ben Hur," or a "Monet" with a "van Gogh." There's no accounting for an individual's tastes and preferences, and there's no right or wrong in an individual's opinions.

On first read of the above quote from Tolstoy on Shakespeare:

Sounds like Tolstoy was of the understanding that Shakespeare was by reputation, some god of the written word. And after reading many of his works he was terribly disappointed that his experience with his writings was lacking in the appreciation and awe he expected to experience from it.

Later in life, after giving Shakespeare's genious another chance to impress him the way it apparently impressed so many others in the world, he still found Shakespeare's work (to paraphrase) useless trash, in his opinion.

And that's okay. No one is required to enjoy Shakespeare. But it seems Tolstoy spent an extraordinary amount of time reading, and then re-reading in 5 or 6 different languages much of Shakespeare's works in order to "get something out of it" and still "came up empty."

I wonder many things about Tolstoy's seeming obsession with Shakespeare in the above quote:

Did he doubt his own ability to understand and appreciate Shakespeare's work that he felt the need to "read him" so extensively, over such a long period of time, in so many forms and languages in order to "get it" as he understood the rest of the world had? . . .

Did he really think that after reading his works in 3 or 4 languages and "not getting it," that it was worth continuing to try to "get it" in still another language or two? . . . (too much time on your hands, Tolstoy?)

Did he spend so much time on Shakespeare's works to prove to himself and others that Shakespeare was a "false literary god" as the rest of the world seemed to think he was? . . .

Or was Tolstoy simply envious of the extraordinary acclaim Shakespeare's works had received? (Possibly a 19th century troll; possibly an ingenious literary critic.) In any case he sounds a bit bitter about his final opinions on Shakespeare and the pedestal the world had placed him on. Get over it Tolstoy, and move on.

Who cares? He's entitled to think Shakespeare's work is useless and overrated, just as other's are entitled to think he's genious.

I like Tolstoy's work but can't stand Dr. Suess. I'm not comparing the two with each other. It just didn't take me reading Dr. Suess' work several times before deciding I had no use for it. And after finding no use for it, I didn't feel compelled to dwell on it's uselessness and try to stir the pot with those who feel the work is wonderful.

I'm sure none of the above had much to do with the OP, so sorry for the response to what might also have been

I just say to each his own.

But that's just me.

Did I just stir a pot?

I kept getting lost there (due to pausing to work) . . . I have no idea what I just said. I apologize for rambling.