Thread: The Lord of the Rings

Started reading the books when I was about twelve, got halfway through Two Towers and had to quit. Then when I was about 16, I heard the movies were coming out and I wanted to get through the books before I saw the movies. I am in general a huge nerd and sci-fi fan - no I don't like just anything sci-fi - but the movies made the story come to life for me and I love them dearly.

I just recently decided that it's time to read through the books again, maybe I can understand them better. If I do get through them this time, it will be the last time. It seems like every time I sit down to read a bit more, I end up falling asleep! This is one time I prefer the Cliff's Notes version of the movies.

A friend of mine calls the movies "Lord of the Walkin' Around".

I somehow managed to get through the entire trilogy in sixth grade. I doubt I could do it again now.

Lord of the Rings is over-description and author self-indulgence at its worst. Yes, Tolkein is brilliant for being able to create entire histories, cultures, songs, and languages. He is not a great author for jamming all of those things into his novels. The novels have far more completely skippable pages than are acceptable. The acceptable number is zero. The Lord of the Rings contains dozens.

But why elaborate? Everything wrong with the books can be summed up in one convenient character: Tom-fucking-Bombadil. Prepare for three chapters describing his goddamn wallpaper.

I recently read the book again, and I have to say, after hearing everybody complaining about all the descriptions, I feared that the passage of time would have me saying the same thing, since it'd been about two years since I read it. But after finishing it, I just can't agree with what everyone else says. I didn't find any "completely skippable pages." The Tom Bombadil chapters are, I think, necessary to the story because they provide a short rest for the hobbits. You have to remember that at this time they are only four hobbits, with no great fighters to protect them, and they have been fleeing the Black Riders the whole time. They needed this rest, this time of just sitting and being. But still, I didn't find this part boring or skippable. I was actually amazed at all the little details I forgot throughout the book, because the movie left them out. For example, Fredegar Bolger, the fifth hobbit who got left behind. Also Prince Amroth, and the fact that the spirits of the dead did not fight in the Battle of the Pelenor Fields, but far to the south, and it was the farmers and men there who went with Aragorn to the battle in the north. All kinds of things like this drew me back in to the story, and it just wouldn't be the same if any parts were cut out.

I have read the trilogy twice and I agree that some of the descriptions are long and boring yet I enjoyed the read. Although i skipped over most of the songs that were entwined into the story.

Originally Posted by VinrAlfakyn

I recently read the book again, and I have to say, after hearing everybody complaining about all the descriptions, I feared that the passage of time would have me saying the same thing, since it'd been about two years since I read it. But after finishing it, I just can't agree with what everyone else says. I didn't find any "completely skippable pages." The Tom Bombadil chapters are, I think, necessary to the story because they provide a short rest for the hobbits. You have to remember that at this time they are only four hobbits, with no great fighters to protect them, and they have been fleeing the Black Riders the whole time. They needed this rest, this time of just sitting and being. But still, I didn't find this part boring or skippable. I was actually amazed at all the little details I forgot throughout the book, because the movie left them out. For example, Fredegar Bolger, the fifth hobbit who got left behind. Also Prince Amroth, and the fact that the spirits of the dead did not fight in the Battle of the Pelenor Fields, but far to the south, and it was the farmers and men there who went with Aragorn to the battle in the north. All kinds of things like this drew me back in to the story, and it just wouldn't be the same if any parts were cut out.

Well put. The novels were written for people who can read and enjoy the small details in the novel, not for the modern era of rapid-fire readers and writers.

I used to love to curl up next to the fireplace and jump into Tolkien's world. His books had everything for me--excitement and tragedy and, though rarely, triumph too.

Everyone has their own taste of course. And that is a good thing.

Well, as far as I know Tolkien was creating his own myths. He wrore his only languages and created a new world. He might have used Beowulf for inspiration. I am reading the return of the king as the moment, I love reading the lord of the rings. Compared to modern works its takes a while and can be hard for some but its worth it. I didnt liek The Hobbit though.

There is nothing even remotely boring about anything Tolkien wrote. He did much more than use Beowulf for inspiration. He drew from the whole range of Scandinavian mythology and invented very little, but presented the stories of Middle Earth in a fresh, powerful, and personal way. 'The Hobbit' is an essential part of the story of the rings and is, you might say, the overture. Only Richard Wagner has equaled Tolkien in telling the story of 'Der Ring des Nibelungen'. And Tolkien goes beyond Wagner, putting a believable face on many more of the old myths.

Edit - LothR, by the way, is the only fantasy work I've ever read all the way through. Other fantasy I've tried to read I have found truly boring. I don't count Rowling as fantasy but as elevated reality.

I have never sat down and read the entirety of lord of the rings. The movies, on the other hand, I've watched and love. My only problem would be with the villain.

I'm gonna get complaints for this I know, but what did lord sauron really do? He took in a whole race of creatures who, previous to his intervention, were hated,oppressed, and basically used for elven target practice, and turned them into an army to claim the land for themselves. His army, the only nonsegregated force in middle earth besides the fellowship, was aiming to conquer land, and they did. They killed people along the way, just like every army in history. Ever think they may want to make a home for themselves in land that was, I don't know, not underneath a constantly erupting volcano?

Note that the above is mostly a joke, though I guess you could view it that way.

I'm glad it's a joke! What did he do? Gosh, I'm getting mad just thinking about it. For anyone who does view Sauron in that way, I'd say: he did lots and lots of evil deeds for Morgoth, two ages before Bilbo's quest with the dwarfs. Not going to go into the numerous evil things that Sauron did in the third age- but he did crossbreed men and orcs, and rage war with most of Middle Earth. For me that's doing quite a lot, and I don't see how anyone could ever see it any differently JJ!

Note I am going mostly off of the Movies, never having been able to sit through the books. I can not speak to past acts he committed, but if you have seen the movies, think to how the mess with Frodo started. The humans attacked mordor, and Sauron defended his home. His body is killed, and his killer takes his most valuable possession from his corpse. Wouldn't you want to get it back? as for war waging, he has an army now, and has only a small country to house his people, who he knows have a naturally violent disposition. by going to war, he expands living space for his people, and lets the orcs take their violence out in war,to keep it out of a domestic environment.

I personally view this argument as a joke, but I do know people who see his actions as mostly positive. I never really cared much for who was right or wrong. The winners write history. If Sauron had won, we would be reading bout how the noble warrior king had defeated the evil forces of man and elves, bringing peace to the long oppressed orcish race.

Originally Posted by jj1027

The humans attacked mordor, and Sauron defended his home.

That's not quite how it went down. In the movies they even said prevented him from "covering the lands in a second darkness," which is basically what would have happened. He would have enslaved all the free peoples and ruled as an evil tyrant. I actually think he instigated that war, too, and the good guys were merely responding. In the books it goes more in depth, how Sauron was one of Morgoth's lieutenants and a vicious vampire thing.

That being said, I don't like the way Tolkien makes the bad guys all ugly and hideous. Makes them easy to laugh at when a flood invades their caves and tree people bash them together. In real life the villains and good guys aren't so black and white. Unless you're KKK.

Tolkien may have typecasted his villains in appearance, but he also fairly defined most staples of the modern fantasy genre. I first read LotR when I was a kid, but couldn't get more than 60 pages deep. Then, after seeing the first movie I was so into the story that I went out the next day and bought the books. I read them all in time to be disappointed not to see Tom Bombadil in the second or third films. I've read the trilogy twice since (but not recently), and hold Tolkien as one of the masters.