>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.


lol

Oh no, the boogie man is going to get him.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement. It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control. However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity. This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse. Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.


What an incredibly bigoted, judgmental and hateful statement.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

Cool! I like a fiction with a lot of backstory that is just "there", influencing the author(s) but perhaps not actually being presented to the audience -- sort of like Tolkien's creation myth where the world/universe is "sung" into existence in the Silmarillion.

Thanks for sifting this!

>> ^kymbos:

...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...


But the book isn't about Frodo throwing the ring into the mountain. It's about the change of religions and a new mythology overtaking the old. Tolkien was a christian, but I think he was sad to see how previous ages of the world lost their power and disappeared for all time.

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.

>> ^kymbos:

Jaesus, it's just a book/film/whatever.
Read Lord of the Flies, you people - it might actually make you think.


About what? What happens if we're all mean to each other?

I think I understand why some people don't like LOTR. When I was a kid playing Dungeons and Dragons, I used to think that LOTR was a D&D rip-off! But eventually I read it. I hardly read any fantasy at all, in fact, "Game of Thrones" is the only other medieval fantasy I've ever read. But I do have a soft spot in my heart for LOTR. Actually, my friend is an amateur bookbinder and we're working on an 11" by 17" hand-printed leather and vellum copy. So yeah, I guess you could say I'm a little crazy about the subject.

Still, Tolkien had his issues like every other author. I for one can't wait for the new movie. It's obvious that Peter Jackson has given so much of his own life and culture to the movies that I find them beautiful to watch in their own right. He worked so hard making every tiny little detail. In fact, the only thing that gets tedious for me, weirdly enough, are all the battle scenes. But I love how everything looks like a Led Zeppelin cover though. And I love how the orcs and goblins all have kiwi accents. That's just hilarious.

HA! LOTF vs LOTR!

dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate)

Reading is all in the eye of the beholder, so I won't say you're WRONG but I will say you are looking at them with an incorrect expectation (were then, and still are).

DRY & BORING: Tolkien wrote the book with a 'high' style. He makes no apologies for it. He did not write the novel in such a way as to please the varying sensibilities of people. Some people today want 'grit', others want speed, or breathless action, or any one a hundred different tastes. If you read the books and want those other things, then your experience will be lacking.

HARD TO READ: Tolkien was a professor of philology, and wrote accordingly. Like Wells, Lewis, and others of his stripe - he did not pull his linguistic punches (much). As far as the names are concerned, you just have to deal with that because he was using the same time-honored literary device as was used in Beowulf where the recitation of a person's many names/titles is done with a reverence akin to reciting one's lineage and history. He doesn't do it to be redundant or repetitive. He does it for a reason - to tell you the person's story.

I've had this conversation with many. Not everyone likes Tolkien, and that's fine. But I dispute the statement that his work was boring, hard to read, or dry. JRR was a craftsman of the language the like of which simply does not exist today. That isn't idle brag. He had a skillset that has been lost to us. No one exists that can do what he did. Many try to ape his style, but they come off as pale shadows. And not only was he a master of the language in a technical sense, but he was also highly skilled at writing as well. You only get that combination once in a thousand years.

When you read - you have to look at the beauty of the language, the power of the words, and the light and depth of the setting & themes. There are passages and words in LOTR that never fail to send chills through me from top to bottom. I have not found any modern writer who comes close to that. Yes, I've read many who told excellent stories, or could write great characters, or who could generate good atmosphere, or good settings, et al. But none have used language so powerfully or with such light in such a way as to move the soul. LOTR is a work in which there is a true 'aura' beyond the typical book trance from other works. Again, if you go in looking for something else then, brother, you're just looking at it the wrong way.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ponceleon:
OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...

If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.
Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

I'll go even farther...Tolkien was a top-notch world-builder, but he was a crappy storyteller. His stories were dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate). Now, the world was so amazing that it took me nearly two decades of annual re-readings to come to this conclusion. But in the end, I see no other way to describe his work.

Jackson and Co. did a remarkable job of making it better while keeping the world mostly intact.

Tolkiens pacing was terrible

I'll dispute that. Story pacing is highly dependant on the reader's level of immersion, and Tolkien was attempting a deeply immersive story where the 'pacing' was largely irrelevant. Many people are quite jaded in this regard, and if the plot isn't moving along at a brisk pace they lose interest. That isn't necessarily the fault of the author, but a matter of a lack of tolerance/patience on the reader. No work of literature can satisfy every reader in that regard - so the end result of whether a book is properly paced is highly individualistic. You have writers on both extremes. Some move so fast that the reader feels like the story is choppy and shallow. Then you have guys like Jordan who spend so much time on so much background that the plot is almost utterly lost. I think Tolkien strikes a masterful middle-ground where he provides depth of background and detail, while not having so much that the average reader feels the plot is moving too slowly. Again, that isn't universal because everyone is different - but the fact that LOTR has endured the test of time and remained a classic proves that it is an assessment that applies to 'most' people.

and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story.

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs are chapters that some people don't get. If the hobbits had just gone straight to Bree then a lot of people would be happier. It can be argued, but Bombadil gives some background to Middle Earth that Tolkien felt was important. For him (JRR) the work was a literary exercise in establishing what he felt were 'lost' Anglo-Saxon mythology. Iarwin Ben-Adar was part of that world for him, and a part that he felt mattered. He is referenced in the Council of Elrond, and here and there in other parts of LOTR. He may fill no vital plot function, but he certainly adds to the story (not to mention background on the Northern Kingdom, and the Westernesse blades).

The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

I felt quite the opposite. I thought that the chapters of Sam & Frodo walking to Mt. Doom were rather a breakneck pace compared to what was happening. But at that point JRR is breaking down both Frodo and Sam physically and spiritually, so it can't just be a rapid "Poof! We're at Mt Doom now!" thing. It had to be a hot, blistering, difficult slog. For it to only be 2 chapters was actually pretty breif I thought. Escaping Cirith Ungol took a chapter - then two chapters were them walking and Mt. Doom itself. All in all I thought it went pretty fast.

It all depends on what folks like, really. Some people can't stand it when Tolkien takes 2 pages here and there to describe the landscape of the Woody End, or a couple pages there to talk about some bit of Rohan's history, or whatever. Some people love it. I personally felt that JK Rowling's pacing blew chunks because she spent tons of time focusing on bullcrap character junk (mostly Harry whining). But some readers just eat that stuff up, so I have to allow that my personal tastes cloud my judgement on Rowling's pacing. It's a matter of taste. What seems irrelevant to you may be pure gold to someone else.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured

Don't get me started on Jackson & Walsh. I liked the LOTR movies generally, but these two ham-hands did some pretty awful writing considering the pure perfection of the source material. One example: Aragorn's perfect speech, "We shall make such a chase as will be accounted a marvel among the three kindreds - elves, dwarves, and men. Forth, the Three Hunters!" was changed to the god-awful, "Let's hunt some orc!" I could literally go on for hours listing scripting crime after crime. Jackson/Walsh were NOT either masterful writers, or pacers. When they stuck to the story and didn't jam thier fumble-witted fingers into the pie it was great. The more they took "creative license", the worse it got.

>> ^ponceleon:

OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...


If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

Love that song.

And yes, The Hobbit is much more a kids adventure book (Tolkien had written it for his children). But as long as they don't go too much either way (not too cartoony, and not too dark) it will be just fine.

I'm liking that they put a song into the trailer and fit it to that. The scenery and armor/costuming looks amazing as I ever could have dreamed.

Things I wish were so:
- I really wish that Guillermo Del Toro would have directed this instead of Peter Jackson. I really think he could have done a better job than PJ.
- Mr. Tolkien himself gave up on trying to make a version of The Hobbit a LOTR prequel, so I hope they don't get bogged down in that too much and try to stay true to the original story.