[Smurfin]

Just thought I'd post this to get some debate going, as I've increasingly become mystified by the hype surrounding JRR Tolkein. I first read LOTR trilogy when I was 13, and I think I read it 3 or 4 times in total in my younger years. The story itself is first class, and completely broke the mould for its day, spawning endless authors and stories which are inspired by his works.

I can't disagree with that, and Tolkein's influence can be seen in many works, both new and old. Indeed, without Tolkein I wonder what the face of "fantasy" fiction would even look like now.

However, that said I recently tried re-reading the trilogy and really struggled. His writing style is poor in my opinion, his pacing and plots way off the mark, and what he really needed was a really good editor.

Honestly, I find his writing style to be very unengaging - endless description, poorly executed battle scenes, and far far too many instances of scenes (entire chapters even) which do little or nothing to further the story.

Don't get me wrong...it really is a fantastic story and what an imagination! But I'd put money on it that any publishers of today would reject a similar manuscript out of hand, simply because of the reasons above.

Of course, the books were written a long time ago when writing styles were different anyway, however the fact remains that by today's standards, the writing is - in my opinion - poor.

And has anyone tried to read The Silmarrilion

Discuss.

*dons flame suit and waits for the execution squad*

[Theydon Bois]

However, that said I recently tried re-reading the trilogy and really struggled. His writing style is poor in my opinion, his pacing and plots way off the mark, and what he really needed was a really good editor.

Honestly, I find his writing style to be very unengaging - endless description, poorly executed battle scenes, and far far too many instances of scenes (entire chapters even) which do little or nothing to further the story.

Completely agree. I am one of those raised on Feist and Gemmell which have excellent character descriptions, detailed fight scenes and emotional overtones, and to read 60 pages on the Council of Elrond and walking through the swampy swamps of swampland was more than I can bear. Its well documented that Tolkien had no love for the characters and only wrote the book to create a world in which to base his love of languages, creating Elvish from this.

However, much love and gratitude goes to the man simply from the seeds of fantasy that he created. Without his early works, would we have the genre that we know and love today?

[Smurfin]

I agree completely....without Tolkein, where would the George R R Martins, Robin Hobb and Joe Abercrombies of this world be?

[BAN5HEE]

I agree with you. I love the books but if push comes to shove I would much rather watch the movie then drag myself through the book. I find myslef skipping pages when reading it.

[bosque]

Originally Posted by Smurfin

Of course, the books were written a long time ago when writing styles were different anyway, however the fact remains that by today's standards, the writing is - in my opinion - poor.

And has anyone tried to read The Silmarrilion

Discuss.

I think you're confusing the pacing of Tolkien's novel with the style. Tolkien's style is how he chooses to construct his sentences; his pacing is the measured story structure which you find slow.

However, to suggest Tolkien's writing is poor by comparison with "today's standards" implies you feel that the modern practice is superior to a classically-trained author. We'd need to hear which modern authors you feel are so much better than Tolkien - so far all you've really said is you think Tolkien is boring.

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by bosque

I think you're confusing the pacing of Tolkien's novel with the style. Tolkien's style is how he chooses to construct his sentences; his pacing is the measured story structure which you find slow.

I understand that, both the pacing and style leave alot to be desired imho, although editing is a biggie here too.

However, to suggest Tolkien's writing is poor by comparison with "today's standards" implies you feel that the modern practice is superior to a classically-trained author.

We'd need to hear which modern authors you feel are so much better than Tolkien -

Robin Hobb
George R R Martin
Scott Lynch
Joe Abercrombie

I think all of the above are better writers than Tolkein.

so far all you've really said is you think Tolkien is boring.

No I haven't. I've said his writing is meandering and unengaging, with reams of exposition, unexciting battle scenes, and complete chapters which do little or nothing to enhance the story. The story itself (LOTR obviously) I think is superb, it's just not told very well. I think Tolkeins admission that he cared not for his characters sums it up really....

[BAN5HEE]

Originally Posted by bosque

We'd need to hear which modern authors you feel are so much better than Tolkien - so far all you've really said is you think Tolkien is boring.

Steven Erikson and Geogre RR Martin in my opinion are running circles around Tolkien.

[Smurfin]

Funnily enough, I've got some Erickson books but got stuck part way through Gardens of the Moon, just seemed so grand and massive that none of the characters mattered....?

[JayLaFunk]

BEWARE,
Methinks Gollum will be paying little Smurfin a visit...

Jay

[Paul_T]

I thought I'd have to wear a flame suit for saying I preferred the LOTR movies than the book!

I read the book after seeing the first 2 movies, and thought the changes that were made to the story made it better and easier to follow (ie making the movie events chronological). Would agree that whole passages of the book are pointless with regards to the story, no wonder Tom Bombadil (sp?) was axed by Peter Jackson.

I also read the Hobbit at school and found it difficult to follow, although I doubt I'll revisit it prior to the movie version of that tale being released.

Can't comment on The Silmarrilion, although a mate of mine has "tried" to read it and his review consisted of the abbreviations ***?

[Alan CD]

I first read Lord of the Rings in 1966 and have read the books many times since. I find Tolkien’s story telling "round the camp fire" a bonus and a delight. It is different and refreshing and goes off in various directions: sometimes oblique, sometimes subtle, but all to do with Middle Earth.

Tolkien's writing is technically sound and is not bad in that sense. The storyline is good and proven with the test of time.

The down side of Tolkien's books are just that - they are bookish. The professor sitting in his study at the University writing at his desk after the lectures have finished shines through the style of writing.

Every author has his or hers writing style and they are all different - thank God.

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

I first read Lord of the Rings in 1966 and have read the books many times since. I find Tolkien’s story telling "round the camp fire" a bonus and a delight. It is different and refreshing and goes off in various directions: sometimes oblique, sometimes subtle, but all to do with Middle Earth.

Tolkien's writing is technically sound and is not bad in that sense. The storyline is good and proven with the test of time.

The down side of Tolkien's books are just that - they are bookish. The professor sitting in his study at the University writing at his desk after the lectures have finished shines through the style of writing.

Every author has his or hers writing style and they are all different - thank God.

Great post

I don't know why but starting this thread has made me wonder if I should give it another go....it's been a looong time A bit like I find certain movies or TV series Sunday afternoon viewing on a cold, rainy winter's day, this is how I used to view LOTR....

[Alan CD]

Originally Posted by Smurfin

A bit like I find certain movies or TV series Sunday afternoon viewing on a cold, rainy winter's day, this is how I used to view LOTR....

.....And you still can - LOTR is timeless.

[The Young One]

A good set of books, the silmarillion is extremely boring. They're deffinitley something you've got to read for the sake of it in your life but when you try to re-read them they do seem to get worse.
Though the movies are good. The books not as much.

[BAN5HEE]

Originally Posted by Smurfin

Funnily enough, I've got some Erickson books but got stuck part way through Gardens of the Moon, just seemed so grand and massive that none of the characters mattered....?

Just stick with it. The 1st book is a bit of a hard read as he tries to explain the history and the holds but stick with it. It just gets better and better. I would suggest reading Ian C Esslemont Knight of Knives and Return of the Crimson guard first as they predate Gardens of the moon and would make Gardens of the moon make more sense.

[baldrick]

When Tolkien wrote the LOTR he wasn't so much writing a story as creating an entire history and to a certain extent the books are a detailed account of that history.

The description and detail that he includes is quite incredible and personally I think it was because of this that the films were so good, because Tolkien gave them such specifics to work from.

The Silmarillion again isn't actually a 'story' per se but another historical report and I believe it was a post-humous piece compiled by Christopher Tolkien based on JRR's work?

The net result of this is that it certainly isn't bang, crash, wollop set piece to set piece action but I still rate it as my favourite book and I really should crack out my copies and read it again!

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by baldrick

When Tolkien wrote the LOTR he wasn't so much writing a story as creating an entire history and to a certain extent the books are a detailed account of that history.

You're right, but that's the big problem. As a fictional history book it isn't exactly gripping....

[Sonic67]

To you maybe. To me it's my favourite book. No Tolkien no fantasy franchise. It's that simple. Also I keep being reminded of 'Bad News' where they argue they are better than Led Zeppelin as they could play Stairway To Heaven at a younger age. The fact others have done fantasy since doesn't make them better.

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

The fact others have done fantasy since doesn't make them better.

Actually, it does imho, but of course I'm omitting the context of time. Tolkein was - as I've said - groundbreaking in his time, but there are countless examples of fantasty fiction done so much better.

Equally there's countless examples of fantasy done badly (Terry Goodkind anyone? ).....

[Sonic67]

Aside from anything else you can't judge an old book now in the same way as a new book. It's like saying Citizen Kane is a poor film as it's black and white, has no 5.1 surround and better films are around now with lots of CGI.

[Smurfin]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

It's like saying Citizen Kane is a poor film as it's black and white, has no 5.1 surround and better films are around now with lots of CGI.

hmmm no, none of your analogies refer to pacing, characterisation, editing, engagement, which are LOTR's main issues.

[Alan CD]

Lord of the Rings is unique and has proven pedigree taken up by generations of readers all over the world.

One can nitpick over the little foibles within the story, but that is just personal preference. Everybody has their little likes and dislikes - even the characters in the story.

One of my dislikes is the portrayal of Sam, the servant to Frodo. Tolkien writes him up like a faithful dog rather than a person in his own right. Only towards the end is he portrayed as a character. But that is modern thinking about how things were in the 1930s and 1940s (as seen through the eyes of an old professor).

[pringtef]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

.......... The professor sitting in his study at the University writing at his desk after the lectures have finished shines through the style of writing.

Spot on. Tolkien was one of a group of writers, most of them academics, who frequently met to discuss and share their writings, including CS Lewis and Charles Willams.

So it's not difficult for the work to seem more of an academic piece that a flowing story. Tolkien was most certainly not a bad writer though.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Smurfin

hmmm no, none of your analogies refer to pacing, characterisation, editing, engagement, which are LOTR's main issues.

Which in my opinion, and a lot of others is fine:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml

In April 2003 the BBC's Big Read began the search for the nation's best-loved novel, and we asked you to nominate your favourite books.

Below and on the next page are all the results from number 1 to 100 in numerical order!

1. The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3317081.stm

JRR Tolkien's epic fantasy trilogy, the Lord of the Rings, has won the BBC's Big Read contest to find the UK's most popular novel.

[darth kevinho]

I read LOTR about a year before the first movie came out and admit I struggled through them. The pacing was very slow and the songs really got on my nerves I started skipping past them after a while. There is no doubt that LOTR is an amazing story and one which basically created the modern fantasy genre but it is a story I will always prefer on film rather than text.

[Alan CD]

Reading LOTR for the first time is difficult, especially if you are used to the modern literature style. The second reading (maybe a couple of years later) is easier.

It's like any historical novel (Dickens, Marriott, Bronte etc), one has to adapt to the old composition and meaning of those loooooong words!

Alan

[Decadence]

All I can say is "thank goodness they made the films". The LOTR books are a complete pain to read through...I would go as far as saying they are boring.

Some walking...eating some bread...more walking...more bread eating...a two page song which I have no idea how the tune goes...more bread...more walking...another song, this time FOUR pages long...GOD DAMN IT, GET TO THE POINT TOLKEIN!

[Alan CD]

Your Avatar looks interesting Decadence - who is it?

[sunnybacon]

I first read the LOTR books when I was 8, as you can probably imagine I didn't understand much of it back then but I enjoyed it
I'm re-reading them now, and I have to say that I really do enjoy reading them. One thing that has struck me, is the similarity between Tolkien's characters, settings etc. and those of Paolini's "Eragon", which I read recently. It is almost as if Paolini has literally taken chunks of ideas from LOTR and used them in his writing (e.g. the dwarves and elves' characteristics)

[Sonic67]

Something struck me when I read LOTR for the third time. The first two reads were prior to me joining the forces. The third time afterwards. It struck me that the Hobbits early on were like civvies or raw recruits. Blundering along, starting fires etc. Later in the book they are like seasoned combat vets. They routinely wear armour, carry their kit in a pack and are professional soldiers. We also see the orcs having their own beliefs and values.

Tolkien didn't just write books, he created a living world in which we have only seen slices of its history. There is maps, languages, notes on pronunciation, and appendices on what happened next.

His influence has been massive. Publishers regularly get authors turning up with books, maps, spreadsheets, graphs, and whatever for their own worlds they have created. No other fantasy author has generated such interest. You can still buy Tolkien calendars, bestiaries, and books debating if the world can be described as religious or not. When I was a kid the big computer game was The Hobbit and the big thing on Jackanory was the reading of The Hobbit over ten afternoons.

LOTR has been done by films twice, and The Hobbit is set to be done again. Christopher Lee appeared in it as he is a huge fan of the book and Peter Jackson made the film because of his love for it.

Can you name another author who is so big? I’d say possibly Rowling though she has largely ripped off Tolkien and other authors, and Terry Pratchet who spoofed the whole genre.

Other than that I don’t think any other fantasy author has become mainstream.