WHy TOLKIEN and LOTR is overrated!!! - Page 5

astra · 06-11-2009, 08:27 AM

I had to read Hamlet by Shakespeare when I was in grammar school. Utterly boring. Could not read it. Had to skip in some places...never again.

I read The Lord of the Rings 5 times. Next time probably will be in a distant future...in 5-6 years time? The number of books I read twice is less than 10....no time for re-reads.

khalleron · 06-11-2009, 11:41 PM

As to Shakespeare: I have read all the plays, only because I can't see all of them performed.

I agree that if Tolstoy only read Shakespeare and never saw a production that, while he's entitled to his opinion, his opinion is not based on Shakespeare's *intention*. Drama =/= novels. I also wonder just how good Tolstoy's English was. I doubt I'd have the courage to pass judgment on a writer of whose language I was not a native speaker.

As to Tolkien: I've often observed that the people who try to read Tolkien have one of two reactions: either they love it to death, or they're bored to tears. I've never seen anything else. I have sympathy for the ones bored to tears, but I pity them, too. I first read LOTR at a time when I had a desperate need for what he had to offer, so it's my all-time favorite book, I do confess. I've read it about 20 times, and although I'll probably never again experience the emotional depth of the first reading, I always find *something* there that I never saw before. The book is deep, rich and beautiful. What more could I ask for? It's not *perfect*, but it's wonderful. I'll take wonderful over perfect anyday.

I had one friend who read it who kept reading slower and slower the closer she got to the end, because she didn't want it to be over. I pointed out that she could read it again, but she said, "Not for the first time!" and I understood perfectly.

khalleron · 06-11-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

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

It's not that big a book, but it is out in an eBook version now.

Harmon · 06-11-2009, 11:51 PM

Lessee now.

On LotR: I first ran across the books (LotR is 6 books, you will probably recall, not a trilogy) in the early 60s, in college. At that point, they did nothing for me. Fast forward to the early 2000s, when for some reason I don't remember, I picked the books up again. This time around, I read them straight through. Not for the quality of writing, which IMO is second rate, but because I found them to be a good story, about the solipsistic nature of evil, and how it permeates creation at every level as an ongoing temptation. Note that the only person to not be vulnerable to the temptation of the Ring is the one person who is wholly other directed - Sam.

So I think that, putting aside the adventure story, what attracts people to LotR is that they resonate to the moral underpinnings of the story. At least, that's what did it for me.

On Shakespeare: I think that the greatness of his plays lies in his ability to brilliantly deploy the several layers of meaning in a word - the connotations as well as the denotations - coupled with what Samuel Johnson observed: "His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion."

It is no surprise to me that Tolstoy didn't get Shakespeare. Tolstoy was the kind of author that Johnson was referring to when he observed: "In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species."

That is to say, Tolstoy was a writer of trees, while Shakespeare was a writer of forests.

pdurrant · 06-12-2009, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Note that the only person to not be vulnerable to the temptation of the Ring is the one person who is wholly other directed - Sam.

Bombadil. I disagree that Sam was not vulnerable to the temptation - he just didn't have it long enough for it to have a big effect.

hidari · 06-12-2009, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

"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.

NB: nOT EVERT POST THAT i MAKE IS MEANT TO PISS OFF PEOPLE. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. I RARLY POST COMPARED TO MOST. SO TAKE A CHILL PILL YOU ARE ACCUSATORY AS WELL. SUCK IT UP AND TAKE IT. NO EVERY PERSON AT MR AGREES WITH YOUR COMMENTS.

SUre GRANNY . I wont Post you a PM again. Dont want to create EYE STRAIN FOR YOU. .

I do NOT haTE LOTR> Just trying to get a different "VIEW" To the monotonous... I love every thing that is famous because it is Famous idea.

Actually. I like LOTR. LIKE I SAID> I Just think It is overrated.

PERHAPS I need to Be on the Inside of the MR POSSE: Ie Pilot bob, or Granny, or NATche. Then I will Have an opiinion.

Actually Granny Your reaction to my original postwas as immature as My original post. But At Least I can admit it. You Seem to be an expert on EVERY THREAD THAt is posted.

I have had run ins with quite a few people at MR. So. GET OVER IT!!! Post less and READ a book if it offends you. OR DON'T post on a thread you do NOT LIKE.

hidari · 06-12-2009, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I don't normally post here anymore [I have other places to visit], but I saw your post and a light-bulb came on -- but that's only because I flipped the switch on my way to the bathroom.

Seriously: I do have three important comments/points I would like to make:

1) I admire your courage to say what's on your mind and to tell "everyone else" exactly what you think about this series.

2) I totally and completely disagree with your opinion. (I'm stating mine, just as you stated yours.)

3) You have my utmost respect. I admire your honesty. Good luck!

Don

TO tell you the truth. I like LOTR . Just think it is overrated. Thanx for at least mentioning that you do not agree with me. I Just think many works are overrated. too many people read newspapers and lit reviews and do not think of what they thik of the work themselves. I must ad mit GRANNY DONT AGREE with me.

hidari · 06-12-2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

She's right. You're a troll. Go back under your bridge.

That is original. Another Toll defending my TRoll. If you do not like the Thread. DONT POST> GO BASH ANOTHER THREAD>

hidari · 06-12-2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no.guru

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:

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.

Hey. Had a few pints in me when I posted. I usually DO not POSt BECAUSE the MR Posse is near. and One CAN not Have an opinion far from it.

mores · 06-12-2009, 06:01 AM

Never read LOTR, but the movies made me fall asleep very often - the visual FX were stunning, though.

I had to read The Hobbit for school, and I think I never really got into it enough to continue past the first couple of pages. Not sure how I managed to hide that fact from my teacher.

I think that I don't like fantasy in general. Hobbits, Elves, and the whole shebang ... I'd much rather stick to flying broomsticks, hovering golden balls and navel-pulling artefacts

Seriously, I like to stick to facts, even if it is fiction.

khalleron · 06-12-2009, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hidari

I have had run ins with quite a few people at MR.

That says a lot about you. You've posted a whole bunch of very mean-spirited posts here. "I was drunk" is no excuse.

No one has said you're not entitled to an opinion - it is YOU who have lashed out at everyone whose opinion is different than yours, not the other way around. People are reacting to your manner, not your choice of topics.

So sober up, learn a few manners, and then come back when you wish to discuss books and ebooks.

hidari · 06-12-2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mores

Never read LOTR, but the movies made me fall asleep very often - the visual FX were stunning, though.

I had to read The Hobbit for school, and I think I never really got into it enough to continue past the first couple of pages. Not sure how I managed to hide that fact from my teacher.

I think that I don't like fantasy in general. Hobbits, Elves, and the whole shebang ... I'd much rather stick to flying broomsticks, hovering golden balls and navel-pulling artefacts

Seriously, I like to stick to facts, even if it is fiction.

The best fantasy and Fiction is about reality o he human condition.....Just don't tell the Fantasy and Sci-Fi Maniacs.

bertold · 06-12-2009, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hidari

The best fantasy and Fiction is about reality o he human condition.....Just don't tell the Fantasy and Sci-Fi Maniacs.

See? You're still insulting people, calling them maniacs and suggesting one can't have a discussion with them (whoever they are). And you still insist, that the reason you got slapped around with a big trout in this thread, is because you have a different opinion than others.

bertold · 06-12-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hidari

The best fantasy and Fiction is about reality o he human condition....

What does "reality of the human condition" even mean? Can you please explain that?

HarryT · 06-12-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

LotR is 6 books, you will probably recall, not a trilogy

At the risk of being pedantic, to quote from the "Note on the Text" at the start of LOTR:

Quote:

J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is often erroneously called a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel, consisting of six books plus appendices, sometimes published in three volumes.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
LoTR Trilogy cleaned up?	Mrgauth	Reading Recommendations	12	09-26-2010 07:28 PM
Amazon Kindle projections overrated?	Alexander Turcic	Amazon Kindle	49	07-05-2008 01:55 PM
LOTR: What happened to Tom Bombadil?	Pride Of Lions	Lounge	5	09-23-2005 11:05 PM
Harry Potter #5 & LOTR	Kurz	Reading Recommendations	0	08-01-2003 12:10 PM

06-11-2009, 08:27 AM	#61
astra The Introvert Posts: 8,307 Karma: 1000077497 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: United Kingdom Device: Sony Reader PRS-650 & 505 & 500	I had to read Hamlet by Shakespeare when I was in grammar school. Utterly boring. Could not read it. Had to skip in some places...never again. I read The Lord of the Rings 5 times. Next time probably will be in a distant future...in 5-6 years time? The number of books I read twice is less than 10....no time for re-reads.

06-11-2009, 11:41 PM	#62
khalleron Kate Posts: 1,700 Karma: 3605799 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Oregon, United States Device: MeeBook, Kobo Libra Colour	As to Shakespeare: I have read all the plays, only because I can't see all of them performed. I agree that if Tolstoy only read Shakespeare and never saw a production that, while he's entitled to his opinion, his opinion is not based on Shakespeare's intention. Drama =/= novels. I also wonder just how good Tolstoy's English was. I doubt I'd have the courage to pass judgment on a writer of whose language I was not a native speaker. As to Tolkien: I've often observed that the people who try to read Tolkien have one of two reactions: either they love it to death, or they're bored to tears. I've never seen anything else. I have sympathy for the ones bored to tears, but I pity them, too. I first read LOTR at a time when I had a desperate need for what he had to offer, so it's my all-time favorite book, I do confess. I've read it about 20 times, and although I'll probably never again experience the emotional depth of the first reading, I always find something there that I never saw before. The book is deep, rich and beautiful. What more could I ask for? It's not perfect, but it's wonderful. I'll take wonderful over perfect anyday. I had one friend who read it who kept reading slower and slower the closer she got to the end, because she didn't want it to be over. I pointed out that she could read it again, but she said, "Not for the first time!" and I understood perfectly.

06-11-2009, 11:51 PM	#64
Harmon King of the Bongo Drums Posts: 1,630 Karma: 5927225 Join Date: Feb 2009 Device: Excelsior! (Strange...)	Lessee now. On LotR: I first ran across the books (LotR is 6 books, you will probably recall, not a trilogy) in the early 60s, in college. At that point, they did nothing for me. Fast forward to the early 2000s, when for some reason I don't remember, I picked the books up again. This time around, I read them straight through. Not for the quality of writing, which IMO is second rate, but because I found them to be a good story, about the solipsistic nature of evil, and how it permeates creation at every level as an ongoing temptation. Note that the only person to not be vulnerable to the temptation of the Ring is the one person who is wholly other directed - Sam. So I think that, putting aside the adventure story, what attracts people to LotR is that they resonate to the moral underpinnings of the story. At least, that's what did it for me. On Shakespeare: I think that the greatness of his plays lies in his ability to brilliantly deploy the several layers of meaning in a word - the connotations as well as the denotations - coupled with what Samuel Johnson observed: "His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion." It is no surprise to me that Tolstoy didn't get Shakespeare. Tolstoy was the kind of author that Johnson was referring to when he observed: "In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species." That is to say, Tolstoy was a writer of trees, while Shakespeare was a writer of forests.

06-12-2009, 06:01 AM	#70
mores Guru Posts: 834 Karma: 102419 Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Vienna, Austria Device: iPhone	Never read LOTR, but the movies made me fall asleep very often - the visual FX were stunning, though. I had to read The Hobbit for school, and I think I never really got into it enough to continue past the first couple of pages. Not sure how I managed to hide that fact from my teacher. I think that I don't like fantasy in general. Hobbits, Elves, and the whole shebang ... I'd much rather stick to flying broomsticks, hovering golden balls and navel-pulling artefacts Seriously, I like to stick to facts, even if it is fiction.