# The Lord of the Rings



## The Space Cowboy

I loved these books. 

When I was in eigth grade I found "The Hobbit" on a desk in the library. I was intrigued by the picture on the front and I took it home, read it, and loved it. I found out that the series "The Lord of the Rings" is somewhat of a sequel to "The Hobbit" and so I read those as well. Possibly the best books ever written (in my humble opinion)

I've heard that there a biblical references in LOTR but, me not being a very religious person, I'm unable to pick them out. Has anyone heard anything along those lines as well?


----------



## sugarpeepunited

My Mother pointed the biblical references out to me, but I didn't get them either. I'm guessing that when Gandalf falls from the bridge, it's like Jesus dying on the cross. But that's just what I get from it...


----------



## The Hooded One

Religion is a touchy subject, however if you've read the series and look at the series outline you get this. The all seeing eye would be the devil,gandalf could represent an arch angel figure helping out humans in there fight against morder(the devil). Frodo represents humanity in there struggle against the everyday trials and temptations. Smeagle and the ring represent along the lines of sin. So altogether the plot comes down to good vs evil with religious guidelines. 

ps. hope this helped                                                    

                                                                        Yours Truly - J.C


----------



## Hodge

Tolkien wasn't a big fan of religious overtones. There's some stuff in LOTR, but it's nothing you even need to know about to get the message. Not at all like C.S. Lewis, who Tolkien looked down upon for the overt allegorical nature of the Narnia books.


----------



## J. Bryan Shoup

If you read _The Silmarillion, _you'll find it possessing a creation myth very similar to the Judeo-Christian myth - one deity creates a horde of angelic beings who sing before him. One of them, a leader among the beings, begins his own melody, and some of the other angelic beings join him, causing discord with the god's melody.

There are differences, of course. The god there doesn't condemn the rebel to hell, and the leaders among the angelic beings are entrusted with creation. It's much as if the Jewish God created the Greek Titans to create the world.


----------



## The Space Cowboy

That's awesome, I didnt know that. Keep them coming. Anybody have anything else on _The Silmarillion?_


----------



## NealCassady

I don't think Tolkien had much in mind about the bible when writing this...although you can find religion in anything mellodramatic if you really look for it in a subjective frame of mind. I think most of Tolkien's referances were taken from Irish/English/Norse folklore and he rewrote most of it giving it new names and new styles (as folklore is usually treated) to be bought by the masses. 

If anything I see a lot of political satire and cultural alleghory. Famously; the scene where the hobbits are partying with the goblins before their adventure off to the misty mountains before _The Hobbit_ and there are vague referances to drugs and drinking. This lead to a general rumor by the next generation of hippie pot smokers that the book was an alleghory for a drug trip where the hobbits were off to the "misty mountains" to fight the dragon "smaug."


----------



## The Hooded One

NealCassady said:
			
		

> I don't think Tolkien had much in mind about the bible when writing this...although you can find religion in anything mellodramatic if you really look for it in a subjective frame of mind. I think most of Tolkien's referances were taken from Irish/English/Norse folklore and he rewrote most of it giving it new names and new styles (as folklore is usually treated) to be bought by the masses.
> 
> If anything I see a lot of political satire and cultural alleghory. Famously; the scene where the hobbits are partying with the goblins before their adventure off to the misty mountains before _The Hobbit_ and there are vague referances to drugs and drinking. This lead to a general rumor by the next generation of hippie pot smokers that the book was an alleghory for a drug trip where the hobbits were off to the "misty mountains" to fight the dragon "smaug."


 
Ever hear the song "Puff The Magic Dragon?? O


----------



## FinnMacCool

I loved the Lord of the Rings! I'm an atheist so I don't care for it's christian backdrop but I still am cool with it. It's a bit difficult to read at times but I find myself appreciative of the vast effort Tolkien made in literally creating his own world. I have to admit, I was a bit less taken of him after I found out that he supported the fascist Franco but this does not make his writing any less good.


----------



## K-P

Can't say I was a fan of Tolkein's writing style. He fell too hard onto the details, and he'd go off talking about the trees and the mountains and the river that meandered off into the ocean where the fishies played and the elves sailed off to their secret land and... by the time he got back to the story I'd forgotten what was going on.

Some parts were exciting and enjoyable, but they were encrapsulated by the most boring prose this side of Ayn Rand.


----------



## Pebble

The 'Fall' motif is very present in Tolkien's writings : the Ainur (god-like, angelic beings) fall, the Elves fall, the Humans fall, then they fall again...I even think I read him write somewhere (where's the Silmarillion when I need it ? I think it was in an introduction to that book) that much of what he wrote was in fact about the Fall. Many so-called Christian values are in that book also - hope not least amongst them, love, er, swearing oaths is (very, very) bad, etc. However, I found it interesting to notice that, even though there is a god (Eru) who is outside the world and intervenes extremely rarely as well as god-like figures, his 'agents' in the world (the Ainur), religion (as an institution, rites, etc.) is hardly present at all, in any of his books.
If there is an allegory at all though, I would rather look for it in his attitude towards nature, technology and industry, as represented through the figures of the Ents and Saruman. 
But then as said earlier, he disliked allegories...
It might be more interesting to pick his cultural influences I suppose...the story of Turin in the _Silmarillion_ resembles very much that of Kullervo in that Finnish epic myth, the _Kalevala_. Speaking about Finnish, one of the languages he created, the Quenya, is very close to Finnish, while another, the Sindarin, is close to Welsh. Most of the names the Dwarves in _the Hobbit _ bear are from the _Edda_. An unfinished time-travel story, _The Lost Road_ would have involved twentieth-century men, Lombards, Danes (Scyld Shefing), the Tuatha de Danaan, etc.

Having said that, I think I'll go back in a corner and rant about how much I love the _Silmarillion_ and the rest.


----------



## TheInklings

Hodge said:
			
		

> Tolkien wasn't a big fan of religious overtones. There's some stuff in LOTR, but it's nothing you even need to know about to get the message. Not at all like C.S. Lewis, who Tolkien looked down upon for the overt allegorical nature of the Narnia books.


I've read alot of indepth information on the lives of both men. They were best friends and helped each other write. Tolkein helped with Narnia and Lewis with Middle-Earth. Tolkien did not like Lewis' straight forward aproach to his allegory however, he did use some himself. The whole creation of middle earth which is told in The Silmarilian is like the bible. Morgoth is the devil as he fell from grace from Illuvitar as satan fell from heaven and God. Tolkien was not as straight forward but it was there. And in no way did he look down upon his best friend. It was just minor dissagreements. He was the one who brought Lewis into christianity in the first place. Tolkien may not of written with the purpose of informing people of the Grace of God but it is quite clear that his Faith has influenced his writing.


----------



## Dephere

Hey, thought I'd drop in and throw my opinion into the mix. When I read the books I liked them, but now that I've read so many others I can't say that Tolkien was a great writer. He was a good world builder, but I'm not too fond of the way he uses his prose. I must give him props, however, for giving a good kickstart to Fantasy. THANKS FOR THAT!

Oh, about the religious thing...I can't believe no one mentioned the resurrection. Jesus died and then was resurrected, much like Gandalf. And he came back all pure and as a white wizard, washed away of all his sins.


----------



## jrudder

> He was a good world builder, but I'm not too fond of the way he uses his prose.


That's because he wrote in the "old style". Look at all the old writers; a bunch of them wrote that way. Just because it may be a bit difficult to read doesn't detract from how good something is.


----------



## Kane

It my not detract from how good something is, but it doesn't make it any more readable.  I read the Hobbit and LOTR when I was in 9th grade, some 15 years ago or so.  I loved them all immensely.  However, I tried to go back and read Return of the King a few years ago, after the first movie came out, and found myself getting bored easily.  The same happened when I read the Iliad, The Oddyssey, and Quo Vadis, among other stuff.  It just reads so clunkily to me.  Perhaps back I'm just used to reading more modern stuff, but the older stuff just doesn't get me goin' like it used to.


----------



## jrudder

I agree, but I was talking to Dephere, who basically said Tolkein wasn't a good author because she couldn't understand the language he used.


----------



## Dephere

Well, looks like you can't understand a simple gender tag...I'm a guy...that wasn't too hard for you, was it?

I could understand the language fine, nothing was complex in that book, nothing. And that's exactly why I didn't really like the prose. It just kind of presented the information, almost like a history book, but a little more interesting.

I have no problems with reading comrehension, in fact that is one of my strong points, so please don't tell people what I'm trying to say, because you obviously have no clue.


----------



## kalibantre

jrudder said:
			
		

> That's because he wrote in the "old style". Look at all the old writers; a bunch of them wrote that way. Just because it may be a bit difficult to read doesn't detract from how good something is.



I read a lot more of old literature than modern and I could not get through Tolkien, as much as i wanted to, I lost where I was in in the narrative while he was describing an ancient blood line or something.. I just couldn't do it..

It's not cause he was an older writer it's minaly his style, which is all fine and dandy for some, however, not for me.


----------



## jrudder

Dephere said:
			
		

> Well, looks like you can't understand a simple gender tag...I'm a guy...that wasn't too hard for you, was it?


Whoa, my bad. :lol: I dunno, I had an idiot moment.  As for the rest of it, my fault. I have met so many people who complain about how they don't like Tolkein because he writes weird and they can't understand it, and it looked like you were saying the same thing. Sorry.


----------



## Dephere

It's okay...I guess...

You're forgiven. I actually have no problem understanding books, especially considering I've read A Clockwork Orange, which is by far the strangest written book. Pretty much in another language.

I just hate when people speak for me, especially when they don't know me.


----------



## jrudder

Yeah, sorry for doing that. Come to think of it, I hate that too and I dunno why I did it. :shock: A Clockwork Orange? Never read it. Have you read any of Robert A. Heinlein's stuff? Not hard to understand, but freakin weird anyways.


----------



## kalibantre

and they get it wrong. I'm sure you'd accept someone speaking for you, if they said what you wanted.


----------



## Dephere

Exactly, Kal...See, I feel perfectly comfortable having Kal speak for me, but then again she knows me.

I haven't heard of that, jrudder.


----------



## jrudder

Heinlein is most famous for his book "Starship Troopers", a book that uses sci-fi to comment on the Cold War. If you've seen the movie "based" on the book, forget it because the only thing the two have in common are the names of the characters. For example, they changed something as basic as the sex of one of the characters; Dizzy was a guy in the book and a girl in the movie. :shock: Anyways, his other stuff is pretty weird.


----------



## kalibantre

way to ruin that book jrudder.


----------



## jrudder

I'm not an idiot. The book's impossible to find because it's not around anymore. If you're wondering how I read it, I didn't; I read a summary.

Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land are still around, and those are good reads.


----------



## kalibantre

I never called you an idiot, and books can be found again.


----------



## jrudder

I know you didn't, I was just saying I'm not stupid enough to ruin a book that is around for everyone to read, like telling everyone the ending of A Tale of Two Cities or something. Yes, books can be found again, but this one is so obscure.


----------



## kalibantre

this is very off topic but just to say never take that as a guarantee. I've read a lot of books by authors no one I know had heard of and then I'll come online and someone else will be a lifelong fan. 

Books can be found you may think it's obscure but it could be on a dusty bookshelf waiting to be picked up somehwre and off hand comments like that can then take what enjoyment someone could have found away.


----------



## jrudder

Very well. Post edited, no matter how unlikey.


----------



## zoecat

So, you can all kill me when you hear this, but I hated the books.

I read The Hobbit when I was 7, and it was okay. Not great, but okay. I started LOTR a few years ago. I didn't like it because it was so long winded, and the story line was very boring. It isn't the "old style" language was boring, it's the writing itself. He wastes too much time on describing things that are irrelivant and the story doesn't pick up speed anywhere. If you asked me what the climax was, I couldn't say. The whole stupid thing felt like a beginning.


----------



## penfeind

just want to point out that the creation myth in the samirillion is closer to the hindu or norse creation myths


----------



## Mungye

oh well, I felt just the opposite, I loved the writing style of Tolkienn, was enthralled with his philology and his subcreated world. 
Quite literally his books, especially Unfinished Tales, quite changed my life and gave me the courage to do some hard things I simply could not bring myself to tackle before.


----------



## VinrAlfakyn

From the first time I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings I have been a major fan of anything having to do with Middle Earth. I never really cared that he described his entire world, I thought it was awesome that he could create something so massive and it inspires me to try as equally hard on my own writing.


----------



## DEIfan4life

I love "The Lord of the Ring" books. The movies on the other hand were OK for those that didnt want to read the books. The movies skipped around to much. There were parts from "The Two Towers" that was in "The Fellowship of the Ring", and so on. The books were much better.


----------



## Jukebox

i personally enjoyed both of them while i couldn't finish lotr to the end because i have to agree it dragged on.....


----------



## Scarecrow

It was dull. I mean, I can appreciate the extent that it shaped the modern fantasy genre, but the trilogy itself is very tedious reading. There's nothing wrong with the world, or the overall story - in fact, it's great - it's just that Tolkien is terrible at suspense and excitement. The pace is awful, and it's just tedious to read.


----------



## Buddhapants

The in depth and meandering descriptions are all for a purpose in LOTR. Middle  Earth is not a reflection of modern western culture where patience and subtlety are lost in the blare of television, movies, internet, video games, etc. I believe that Tolkien intended every single word to be just where it is for very definite reasons. With him it's all about atmosphere and setting, you just can't evoke the same kind of emotion with your typical bang, bang, non-stop action piece. This is not to say that such styles are all bad, James Ellroy is fantastic with his minimalist technique. But first and foremost, Tolkien was painting a world. Shotgun's and car chases don't require the same kind of detail.


----------



## Scarecrow

Buddhapants said:
			
		

> Tolkien was painting a world.


 
Painting a world and telling a story that's actually exciting are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Kane

You're right, Scarecrow, Tolkien's writing doesn't capture the same feel of a Hollywood suspense thriller, for which, I am undyingly grateful.  Nonetheless, I found his work to be very interesting, but then I read Tolkien before the current pop-cultural mindset where buzzwords and instant gratification have been woven into the fabric of Western Civilization.  Nevertheless, I found plenty of excitement when I read the Hobbit, and LOTR.


----------



## Scarecrow

"Suspense" and "thrill" are not trademarks of Hollywood. They're not a _bad_ thing.


----------



## Buddhapants

> Painting a world and telling a story that's actually exciting are not mutually exclusive.



Aaah! Here is something you don't see every day on internet forums...someone misrepresenting what another person says. How fresh, how enlightening. A straw man...whaddya know...


----------



## Scarecrow

You certainly seemed to suggest that painting a world was above or better than telling an exciting story, judging from your obvious contempt of Hollywood action movies. Which, incidentally, have nothing to do with LOTR. Excitement and suspense do not require firearms or high speed chases; they just require the plot to move along a bit quicker.


----------



## Fantasy of You

sorry.. the lord of the rings sux (in my opinion) i am an avid reader of fantasy, but in fantasy, a certain amount of reality must still remain.. the characters are 2dimensional and have no REAL emotion... 

the kingdoms seem to run on maigc.. they get food, coin and materials from nowhere.. mordor is a wasteland, therefore nothing can be gorwn there, but somehow.. its running fne -_^

when pippin finds the drug(sorry i forget the name) ALLLL the way away where he finds it, after the ents kick the wizards ass.. i laughed... and it happens more than once...

and how many chapters end with a dumbass hobbit being knocked unconscious 

as a writer,tolkien has talent.. obviously lol.. but i just dont like them just my opinion


----------



## Fantasy of You

also.. remember you are talking about the story of lotr.. not middle earth.. middle earth is one of the best creations in literature.. ever.. but he used it too much in lotr to hide the crap story line and bland characters.. 

snooze.. long winded tripe


----------



## Fantasy of You

sorry to not post this all at once, my comp was screweing up.. 

buddhapants: try your hardest not to make a mountain out of a mole hill.... obviously tolkien isnt god.. and every word was not where he meant it to be.. im sure if he had the chance he would change something.. 

i dont think he was trying to show flaws of modern life by setting a slow place.. he just wanted to show the epic size of his creation middle earth.. which i feel brought down the story...


----------



## Kane

> the lord of the rings sux



I could never take seriously the literary criticism of a person who uses the word(?) "sux" to describe a book.


----------



## Fantasy of You

its how i speak, and so its how i type.. this isnt the most formal of forums out there.. and dont choose the easy way to belittle my opinion because you don't agree with my opinion


----------



## Kane

I'm not belittling your opinion, I just wouldn't expect a person who says "sux" to be able to fully appreciate LOTR, in the first place, and would therefore not take your literary critiques very seriously.  Had you not said "sux," I may have commented on the other ridiculous things you said, but since you did say it, I decided not to bother.  You may run along now.  Shoo.  Shoo.


----------



## josephwise

Flawed though it may be, LOTR gave us one of literature's most sympathetic villans. Sauron's story is a long and sad story, which is why the victories in Return of the King are shaded a bit with tragedy.

This, my most cherished element of the books, was lost in the movie translation.


----------



## Hakeem

Ah! Lord Of The Rings... I wanted to read that book since forever, but I just didn't! I don't know why, everybody says that it's the perfect book and it's wonderful to read, but somehow I'm cursed (or the book for that matter).. I went two weeks ago the the bookshop to get it, they said that it will be available in a month (??), tried to download it as a pdf. but that didn't go well either.... After 2 weeks I'm going to head for that same stupid bookshop and try to buy it, but the earth will probably open or judgment day won't find any better timing...

Still I'm sure the books are going to be wonderful (that is if I laid my hands on them).


----------



## Stewart

Hakeem said:
			
		

> Ah! Lord Of The Rings...everybody says that it's the perfect book and it's wonderful to read


 
The people who have read it to the end are going to say it's wonderful - why else would they bother? - and then there are those who realised by the first book that it's just dull tripe with pointless happenings and didn't bother to read it to the end because there was little benefit to be had.


----------



## josephwise

> and then there are those who realised by the first book that it's just dull tripe with pointless happenings and didn't bother to read it to the end because there was little benefit to be had.


 
Whether you finish it or not really depends on what you hope to get out of it. I think a lot of people were expecting the same breezy escapism found in The Hobbit. I can understand why they would abandong LOTR. But if you're interested at all in refining your own writing, I recommend reading it to study technique. You'll find Tolkein does a lot of things well, and you'll find he does a lot of things poorly. But you'll learn from it, even if all you take away is a lesson in what not to do. 

I make it a point to pick through popular books even if I don't like them. They're popular for a reason, and the autopsy helps me understand why. Of course, in some cases this is excrutiating and takes a long time. I'm still trying to get through Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## Fantasy of You

I agree with you wise  reading lord of the rings does give insight into what to do and what not to do(and i agree about the film missing out the tragedy of the victory- it was an important part for me). 

stewart i read the trilogy til the end and i can say i didn't like them. I felt the books were drawn out and too flowery. The only reason i read them til the end is becaused of the praises it received. 

The first book focussed too much on frodo, which i guess tolkien had to do since he was the hero and it bored me even more than the other books.


----------



## Scarecrow

I read it to the end (just so I could say I could) and yep, found it boring.


----------



## Stewart

josephwise said:
			
		

> Whether you finish it or not really depends on what you hope to get out of it.



Like all fiction, I'm looking for an entertaining read. _The Fellowship Of The Rings_ was a sloppy novel, as I see it, for stuff like Tom Bombadil and all the unnecessary world building that got in the way of the overall story. Tolkien may have spent so much time as a linguist and creating all these fancy languages using the etymological roots of others, but he could have spent some more time with English.



> if you're interested at all in refining your own writing, I recommend reading it to study technique.


If you are interested in learning the art of writing, then tawdry fantasy novels may be a stepping stone (for reference, mind) but, I find, the best writers  - the ones to really learn from - are those with protean tendencies for whom the words matter. Unless you are just in it to try to make a buck or two rather than giving a damn about the craft.



> I make it a point to pick through popular books even if I don't like them.


Most certainly. It can be entertaining - of the car crash variety - wondering how on earth some of the schlock out there got published and then it brings you to the conclusion that _people actually buy this stuff!_


----------



## Jabatt

speaking of Tom Bombadil (he was mentioned a post or two ago), does anyone have any new theories of who Tom Bombadil was? Tolkein doesn't mention Bombadil in any of his history of middle earth books. I've heard several theories, such as Bombadil was a Maia or was the King of the Wringwraiths, but I am stilling looking for more theories.


----------



## josephwise

> does anyone have any new theories of who Tom Bombadil was?


 
I believe the intention was for him to remain a mystery. He is something that even the histories do not fully know, thus he is not related to or a member of any of the classifications listed otherwise in Tolkien's work. He is something that has not been mentioned by any name other than his own.

In short, he is a literary device.


----------



## schoolmarm1895

I read LOTR completely. 3 times.  I found it interesting in how the characters each helped save Middle Earth. Even when return of the King ended I wanted Sam to have an adventure himself.  Even Merry and Pippin traveled and visited the friends they made.  I also read The Hobbit and loved it. I managed to read Silmarillion.  Got a bit of background form it, but felt more like a history book from high school.


----------



## Tsaeb XIII

Personally, I felt that Lord of the Rings was a great story written in an overly flowery style. The writing style makes for incredibly interesting battle/action scenes, however anything else seems dull and lifeless.


----------



## VinrAlfakyn

For over a year now I've been reading through all the new books I have received (whether from birthdays, Christmas, or just me splurging at the bookstore). I still have about two and a half shelves of books to read before I can reread any of my others, but I must say, as soon as I'm done with all my new ones, The Lord of the Rings is going to be one of the first ones I read again (making it my fifth or sixth time to read it, I'm not sure).


----------



## Garden of Kadesh

I read The Hobbit and the LOTR series in 6th grade. I can't believe I understood it at that age - I pick it up nowadays and I get lost in the flurry of names and history.

I greatly admire Tolkien. He created a world, and still managed to create some of the best stories in fantasy literature. But his strength is also his weakness. His extraordinary attention to the history, language, places, and people of his world is both engaging and exhausting.


----------



## Leyline

LMAO@ the dude saying that Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_ is an 'obscure' and 'impossible to find' book. It's never been out of print and I've never been in a bookstore that didn't sell it.

Good lord, at least Google before you make such sweeping statements.


----------



## Patrick

The Lord Of The Rings, for all its pomp and ceremony is ultimately trivial, to my mind. I find it perplexing that a book in which we have no exploration whatsoever into what makes for conflicting viewpoints and presents only the black and white concepts of good and bad, can achieve so much critical acclaim.

We know who is good, we know who is bad and the book plays out to the ultimate triumph of good. That is the book. Fine if you're a devout Catholic and don't want to waste your time thinking about conflicting viewpoints and issues of human value.

Each to their own but I don't have a tendancy for sheathing my criticism. :read:

It's a decent yarn, though. Which is all you may want to take from it.


----------



## Patrick

josephwise said:


> Flawed though it may be, LOTR gave us one of literature's most sympathetic villans. Sauron's story is a long and sad story, which is why the victories in Return of the King are shaded a bit with tragedy.
> 
> This, my most cherished element of the books, was lost in the movie translation.



This comment is the exact opposite of what is so obviously true, in fact.


----------



## Leyline

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> This comment is the exact opposite of what is so obviously true, in fact.



LOL. Exactly. Sauron, in fact, is almost the poster boy for 'generic inhuman bad guy.'

I could see a case for Gollum, sure. But _Sauron_? Ha.

I've never cared for Tolkien or his many imitators. An impressive work of world construction, but not my kinda world. *shrug*


----------



## MEShammas

All you haters have no clue what makes for a good story. Tolkien's vision is one of the best stories in the history of the human race.


----------



## Patrick

Helicio said:


> All you haters have no clue what makes for a good story. Tolkien's vision is one of the best stories in the history of the human race.



You haven't explained why I don't know what makes for a good story; you've just made the statement and then given me another statement that Tolkien's vision is one of the greatest stories in human history. A sentence that makes little sense in itself.

I've actually explained where I think the novel (of six books) is lacking. You'd do well to consider those points if you're serious as a writer. There are actually many writers and critics who have similar opinions on Tolkien's LOTR as myself. Not everybody is a fan. That doesn't mean those who are not fans don't enjoy the fantasy genre in some way or are just plain clueless.

I also can't see anything wrong with what Leyline said about the book. Do we all have to like the same colour socks as you, as well?


----------



## MEShammas

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Do we all have to like the same colour socks as you, as well?


 
I can only hope.

Lord of the Rings is great for many reasons. It follows the Hero's Journey outlined by Joseph Campbell, and before posting again I suggest you look at that. Star Wars, the Odyssey, and other great stories follow that same pattern. And like it or not--whether you think it may be cliche or not--this pattern has forever and will forever capture human interest because it is largely the story of our lives. Hope, pain, despair, delight, tragedy, triumph--it's all in there.


----------



## Leyline

Helicio said:


> I can only hope.
> 
> Lord of the Rings is great for many reasons. It follows the Hero's Journey outlined by Joseph Campbell, and before posting again I suggest you look at that. Star Wars, the Odyssey, and other great stories follow that same pattern. And like it or not--whether you think it may be cliche or not--this pattern has forever and will forever capture human interest because it is largely the story of our lives. Hope, pain, despair, delight, tragedy, triumph--it's all in there.



OMG U Hav to2lee blue mi mynd! I've never heard of Joseph Campbell before, only having been reading and studying literature, mythology, folktales and the intersections between those subjects for LONGER THAN YOU'VE BEEN ALIVE. :roll:

Tolkein is overwritten, stylistically clumsy, ridiculously obsessed with linguistic experiment and one of the most poorly paced novels ever written. It's amusing you yank out yet another clumsy pile of cliche -- STAR WARS -- as some sort of 'gotcha'. Pulling the hero's journey out your ass like it proves something only makes you look like a tool. There are well done trips and not so well done.

Now, go away and write a thousand times: "I will not pretend everyone must love my nerdgasm material."


----------



## Patrick

Helicio said:


> I can only hope.
> 
> Lord of the Rings is great for many reasons. It follows the Hero's Journey outlined by Joseph Campbell, and before posting again I suggest you look at that. Star Wars, the Odyssey, and other great stories follow that same pattern. And like it or not--whether you think it may be cliche or not--this pattern has forever and will forever capture human interest because it is largely the story of our lives. Hope, pain, despair, delight, tragedy, triumph--it's all in there.



The fact the convention for a hero's journey is adhered to in LOTR is not an argument for the quality of the work itself. I don't see any reason why such a basic example of character development should asuage my very valid arguments.

I have not once mentioned cliche. I can point to a great many pieces of literature that do all the things you mention and in a great deal more depth than LOTR.

It's simply up to the individual what they do and don't like, but I don't understand the great wealth of love there is for LOTR. I read it out of standard practice and found that I didn't hold the same views as the consensus and I feel that most probably watched the film before they read the books. The Hobbit is a more interesting tale, although I am not really that fond of any of Tolkien's writing.


----------



## Patrick

Leyline said:


> OMG U Hav to2lee blue mi mynd! I've never heard of Joseph Campbell before, only having been reading and studying literature, mythology, folktales and the intersections between those subjects for LONGER THAN YOU'VE BEEN ALIVE. :roll:
> 
> Tolkein is overwritten, stylistically clumsy, ridiculously obsessed with linguistic experiment and one of the most poorly paced novels ever written. It's amusing you yank out yet another clumsy pile of cliche -- STAR WARS -- as some sort of 'gotcha'. Pulling the hero's journey out your ass like it proves something only makes you look like a tool. There are well done trips and not so well done.
> 
> Now, go away and write a thousand times: "I will not pretend everyone must love my nerdgasm material."



Actually, to be fair, Star Wars is far mre compelling than LOTR in the sense that it actually combines elements of tragedy. The whole storyline with Vader and Luke is classic Greek tragedy although the quality is highlighted as somewhat less when compared with a master like Sophocles.

All that said, I haven't read the Star Wars books and I wouldn't want to. :lol:

I just can't stand the triviality of the whole thing. I want to see real engagement with the characters not endless drivel about the histories of all the houses of men. Knowing the endless histories of these disparate houses is not even all that germane to the story. Even the most stringent fanboys and fangirls can see it.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa

It's not really the unltimate triumph of good.  And there are several characters who are not black and white.  Let's also remember that Frodo himself ultimately fails to complete the quest on his own.


----------



## DavidGil

I read The Hobbit when I was younger and finished it. Did actually enjoy it. Didn't like Lord of the Rings though and I managed to make it up to the start of The Two Towers before putting it down.

For me, it is as mentioned. A lot of it is too based around good and evil. My question would be: since when are people/characters black or white? They're often shades of grey. But actually, this wasn't my problem with the book. My problem was the fact that there was too much description and too many names thrown out. The Tom Bombadil scene wasn't exactly interesting either. 

That said, I can admire everything that went into the book. Tolkien spent a hell of a lot time working on the language and on the world. I'd never slam it for that. If anything, I'd say the book/books are more about the world than the actual story in my opinion. In fact, despite disliking the book as a story, I do think people should have a copy of it. Then again, I'm the sort that likes to buy books to look at the language etc. used even if I don't read them in their entirety. I find that reading a variety of different books helps us become better writers. That doesn't just include books of different genres, but it also includes reading books that are stylistically different whether the style is good or bad. As for Lord of the Rings, it is a classic whether it's liked or not and for that reason, it should at least be given a try.

(Did enjoy the movies by the way.)


----------



## MEShammas

Leyline said:


> OMG U Hav to2lee blue mi mynd! I've never heard of Joseph Campbell before, only having been reading and studying literature, mythology, folktales and the intersections between those subjects for LONGER THAN YOU'VE BEEN ALIVE. :roll:
> 
> Tolkein is overwritten, stylistically clumsy, ridiculously obsessed with linguistic experiment and one of the most poorly paced novels ever written. It's amusing you yank out yet another clumsy pile of cliche -- STAR WARS -- as some sort of 'gotcha'. Pulling the hero's journey out your ass like it proves something only makes you look like a tool. There are well done trips and not so well done.
> 
> Now, go away and write a thousand times: "I will not pretend everyone must love my nerdgasm material."



Hmm, my respect for you just plummeted exponentially.

I didn't say everyone must love the book. Your argument is extremely immature and unfitting of any adult. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have captured the human imagination for a reason. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is a "useless pile of cliche." Some people have huge egos.


----------



## MEShammas

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> The fact the convention for a hero's journey is adhered to in LOTR is not an argument for the quality of the work itself. I don't see any reason why such a basic example of character development should asuage my very valid arguments.
> 
> I have not once mentioned cliche. I can point to a great many pieces of literature that do all the things you mention and in a great deal more depth than LOTR.
> 
> It's simply up to the individual what they do and don't like, but I don't understand the great wealth of love there is for LOTR. I read it out of standard practice and found that I didn't hold the same views as the consensus and I feel that most probably watched the film before they read the books. The Hobbit is a more interesting tale, although I am not really that fond of any of Tolkien's writing.



Cheers on actually making valid points in a mature manner, unlike the other dude.

We must agree to disagree on this one, I guess. The fact that people share so many different viewpoints on things in life is actually something to be valued though, so it is all good and well with me.




On another note, one of my favorite classic books is 1984.


----------



## Leyline

First of all, I could give a shit less if you respect me or not. You began your snot-nosed little huffery with one of the worst insults you can dish out to a writer:



> All you haters *have no clue what makes for a good story*.



So, you deserved worse than what I said. YOU are the one with a huge ego, puffing and puling when someone dares to insult your fanboyish Theory Of What Must Be Respected.


----------



## Leyline

Helicio said:


> Cheers on actually making valid points in a mature manner, unlike the other dude.
> 
> We must agree to disagree on this one, I guess. The fact that people share so many different viewpoints on things in life is actually something to be valued though, so it is all good and well with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, one of my favorite classic books is 1984.



What a pile of back-pedaling garbage. If you respected other viewpoints you wouldn't have charged into this thread insulting and _egotistically_ thinking that no one had ever heard of Joseph Campbell or The Hero's Journey.


----------



## MEShammas

God, you are the master of spin aren't you? You say I have the ego, when it is you who insults people right and left directly. I never even implied other people haven't heard of the Hero's Journey. 

Go take a smoke and chill, will you? Nothing's wrong with debate; what is wrong is insulting someone because of their views like you do.

When I said "You don't have a clue what makes a good story" I was speaking generally and not thinking, so yes I take that back. But in everything else, you really have been a huge prick.


----------



## Leyline

Once again -- YOU started the insults because people didn't agree with YOU. Don't try and turn it around. You insulted posters on this forum because they disagreed with you. Plain and simple. Then you had the nerve to childishly drag it into other topics like a whiny third grader who talks behind someone elses back when his wittle feewin's getsed hurted.


----------



## Patrick

I think it's worth saying at this point, while I am all for debate, one does have to take into consideration the fact people just like different things. LOTR is worth reading for the fact it has some decent language and there can be no doubt Tolkien built a very well-scaled world for the action to take place in.

It's useful for anybody attemtping to write in the fantasy genre to have read Tolkien because, even if unfairly, any work you produce will be compared to him, unless you're doing something very "niche". It's good to know what you're agreeing with or disagreeing with. :thumbr:


----------



## Leyline

I have read Tolkien. Not only _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord Of The Rings_, but _The Simarillion_, _Unfinished Tales_ and quite a few book length literary studies of his work. And one rather detailed biography of Tolkien himself. I've also studied the works of his contemporaries like Lewis, as well as other middle period fantasist and _their_ work such as Mervyn Peake, William Hope Hodgson, Frank Belknap Long, James Branch Cabell, etc. I've spend two decades plus studying literary fantasy. I think I'm entitled to an opinion.


----------



## Patrick

Leyline said:


> I have read Tolkien. Not only _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord Of The Rings_, but _The Simarillion_, _Unfinished Tales_ and quite a few book length literary studies of his work. And one rather detailed biography of Tolkien himself. I've also studied the works of his contemporaries like Lewis, as well as other middle period fantasist and _their_ work such as Mervyn Peake, William Hope Hodgson, Frank Belknap Long, James Branch Cabell, etc. I've spend two decades plus studying literary fantasy. I think I'm entitled to an opinion.




Yes, of course. I think anybody who has read the book is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## BoredMormon

Lord of the Rings is often put up on a pedestal as being the ultimate fantasy. I personally found it long and dificult to read. But whenever anyone sees you reading fantasy they always ask 'have you read lord of the rings'.

I remember skipping over pages of poetry about Ellasadil and the other historical figures. It was interesting to read later when I read the Simarillions. But it really added nothing to the story. He was mostly showing off.

I felt the movie was much better then the books. Sure it skipped out lots. But those were the parts that really didn't need to be in there. Like Tom Bombadil. I'm sure if Tolkien had a modern wordproccesser he would have canned that whole section. No publisher would acept it today at any rate.


----------



## moderan

Helicio said:


> I never even implied other people haven't heard of the Hero's Journey.



Sure you did. And in no uncertain terms. Notice the bolded section:


Helicio said:


> It follows the Hero's Journey outlined by Joseph Campbell, and *before posting again I suggest you look at that*. Star Wars, the Odyssey, and other great stories follow that same pattern.



That implies that whoever you were replying to obviously did not have that "arcane" knowledge.



Helicio said:


> All you haters have no clue what makes for a good story. Tolkien's vision is one of the best stories in the history of the human race.



This statement implies that you have special acumen that makes you understand the books, their audience, and their effect upon humanity as a whole better than anyone else.
Hence, by extension, your statements as a whole exhibit a hubris unbecoming to one who poses as a humble soul.
Leyline, though not exactly tactfully, exhibited, and continues to exhibit, that he does indeed have considerable knowledge of the subject. You continue to exhibit that you have a lot to learn.
The story of LOTR is pretty pedestrian. The world, however, is not. Tolkien drew from his studies as a linguist and amateur historian/mythologist and constructed one of the most lasting and powerful visions in the history of literature. There's little doubt that his work will continue on through the years, if we humans are fortunate enough to remain.
Works based on Campbell's "Hero's Journey" trope are a dime a dozen. They're known as "quest" books. Some are better, some are worse. Works in pale imitation of Tolkien are a nickel a dozen. Most of them don't have the mythological and/or linguistic underpinnings of Tolkien's work and are just banged out to make a buck.


----------



## Dr. Malone

> I remember skipping over pages of poetry about Ellasadil and the other historical figures. It was interesting to read later when I read the Simarillions. But it really added nothing to the story. He was mostly showing off.



Me too.  I can't stand that shit.

I've never been a fantasy fan, and when I tried to read LotR as a child (after The Hobbit, which I at least finished) I didn't like them at all and never got past the second book.  I re-read Hobbit and the trilogy in high school and enjoyed it enough.  Good story.  Fun enough to read.  That's about the best I can say.  I have Similliron or whatever it's called but never got past the first chapter.


----------



## Tiamat

For as much as I love fantasy books, I'm not a fan of LOTR.  The movies are amazing (feel free to disagree as you like), but the books leave something to be desired.  I've read The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings twice, and now that I have the movies to enjoy, I doubt very much that I'll ever read them again.  As far as I'm concerned, the story, the characters, and the amazing detail in the setting is wonderful, but the writing just doesn't do what it's supposed to--I'm fully aware that I'm reading, rather than being in the world.

*That aside, I like to think that the members of this forum are mature enough to keep their insults directed at the thoughts presented, and not at the people who present them.  Kindly stop proving me wrong about this.*


----------



## MEShammas

Yes, Tiamat, you are right.

Leyline you keep twisting what I said around. Anyway, let's agree to disagree. A book isn't worth all this argument and it seems all the LotR lovers dissipated after the first page or so of this thread.

Peace out, man.


----------



## Beja-Beja

I honestly can't read through five pages of the books or sit through five minutes of the films. I've tried over and over and I just can't stomach it.


----------



## Katastrof

Read them once. 

Meh.


----------



## joifulartist84

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". :lol:


----------



## Robosquad

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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## Dayshayde

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.


----------



## MEShammas

VinrAlfakyn said:


> 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.


----------



## Jenwales

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.


----------



## garza

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.


----------



## jj1027

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.


----------



## davhopkins

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!


----------



## jj1027

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.


----------



## caelum

jj1027 said:


> 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.


----------



## Slugfly

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.


----------

