Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent. People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three

No one is going to throw things at you. Reading is a very individual experience. Not everyone is going to or has to like the same stuff any more than they have to like the same clothes or food. Your tastes in literature are just different. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally felt that every Harry Potter book (after Azkaban) could be cut in half and it would have made a far better reading experience. But to some people that would be blasphemy. I got sick of JK "The Exposition" Rowling pulling the Scooby-Doo revelation of the "Old Man Jenkins du jour" mystery at the end of every book. She took chapters and chapters to do it - sometimes hundreds of pages - and she's so addicted to exposition that she invented entire plot devices just so she could do more of them (Pensieve, I'm lookin' at you). But to some readers that was good stuff. Me - I skimmed right past it. If Tolkien's descriptions of terrain, histories, and such bog you down then just skim 'em.

Sometimes I feel bad that some folks don't get the same soul-rush I get from LOTR's language though. But there it is. You either appreciate that aspect of a text or you don't. To some people JRR's perfect craftsmanship, literary power, and brightness of theme/setting have no value - just as Rowling's redundant expositions mean nothing to me.

When I walked out of my first showing of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I was pretty jazzed. I felt the movie (while having flaws) still managed to capture the essence of the story which was loyalty, honor, and sacrifice in the face of temptation and darkness. I heard some gal talking to her friend walking out of the movie saying how boring it was, how stupid parts were, and how the whole thing dragged out way longer than it should. Two different people with totally different opinions about the same thing. One person saw value, depth, and goodness. The other was just bored. Same logic applies to the book.

Sometimes I forget how alone I am in not getting into LOTR. I actually used to read a lot of fantasy, but stopped in my mid-teens. I really just find LOTR very self-indulgent. I had the same experience with the films that I had with the books - I got halfway through the second one (of three - someone mentioned six books above?) and just thought "fuck it, this is taking far too long". We all knew he was going to get to the mountain - why write about it forever? And then I thought, well, not only do we know he's going to get to the mountain, we also know he's going to struggle with gollum and then overcome and throw the thing in the mountain. I was probably too young when I first read it (like 11 or so), but I just skipped to the end, only to find that (from distant memory) there are several chapters after he throws the ring in to tie things up. Several chapters! Ugh.

Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent.

People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three.