Is the Lord of the Rings just a tiny bit bollocks?

[danny la rouge]

Hmmm?

I'm referring to the book here, but whatever, meh.

The book is very badly written. I've tried to read it on several occasions, and found it just too turgid to continue with. The fake language and goblinology gets in the way of the narrative, and the narrative just isn't compelling.

It is a case study in how not to write fiction. It is the obsessive witterings of an Oxford Anglo-Saxon don, and as dull as a treatise on the grammar of Beowolf.

 

[Crispy]

Have you tried sitting through all three films, one after another.

Yes. On mushrooms. Made it half way through the third one.

Anyway, the books are a chore to read, but the story's good fun and the films are great.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Reasons for liking Tolkien

 

[wtfftw]

Anyway, the books are a chore to read, but the story's good fun and the films are great.

^that.



The imax showed all three films back to back recently. Your eyes would fall out, surely?

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

so in your opinion, Celine Dion - to pluck a name from the air - isn't bollocks?

what a shit argument. The numbers game always is

True - but then the LOTR films are generally much admired by my contemporaries - people (Then) in their mid 20s, who would have wanted to kill the likes of Celine Dion in the face... It's only on here that I've read such vitriol towards the LOTR films, to be honest...

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

It was a self indulgent book but what it did was place a very strong image of how scenes were set in Tolkein's imagination. During the film there were many times when I thought that this was exactly as I remember it when I read them 20+ years previous. The one that really stood out was the scene in the mines of Morier

It's moria actually

I agree though, that was one of the highlights of the films, and in fact one of my favourite cinematic sequences ever.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Yes. On mushrooms. Made it half way through the third one.

Anyway, the books are a chore to read, but the story's good fun and the films are great.

I keep trying to do it and then Mrs RD shouts at me that it's 5am and I've got to be up in a minute and could I please come to bed.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's moria actually

There's a place called Moira in LOTR? lol

 

[Crispy]

You need an empty weekend and plenty of intoxicants.

 

[Calva dosser]

The book is very badly written. I've tried to read it on several occasions, and found it just too turgid to continue with. The fake language and goblinology gets in the way of the narrative, and the narrative just isn't compelling.

It is a case study in how not to write fiction. It is the obsessive witterings of an Oxford Anglo-Saxon don, and as dull as a treatise on the grammar of Beowolf.

Would you go as far as to say it was tendentious, bombastic and arrogant even?

 

[danny la rouge]

Would you go as far as to say it was tendentious, bombastic and arrogant even?

Yes, but perhaps I wouldn't use such tendentious, bombastic and arrogant language.

 

[david dissadent]

I read it when I was young about 11 going on 12 and it was a struggle at that age, but I fell in love with it then and still have an enormous affection for it. I could not give a flying toss how uncool it makes me. The only book Ive ever reread so many times was Dune, which is a better book in my opinion.

The films were great fun and for me, superbly realised. The little details that I kept noticing pleased me to no end.

 

[danny la rouge]

I could not give a flying toss how uncool it makes me.

And neither you should; "cool" people are cunts.

 

[muckypup]

Read and watched all three thought it awesome at the time. looking back I agree with dubversion.

 

[Santino]

The books are a little bit bollocks, but it is a great story. I think the films are brilliantly done: the action could have been made all Matrix-y, which would have dated very quickly, and I find the battles in 2 and 3 very stirring. They are a bit slow in places, but I think that was unavoidable without hacking the story to bits or making it a barely-comprehensible jumble of travelling and action sequences.

And as for the revelation that watching 12 hours of film back-to-back is boring, I can only say 'No shite, Sherlock.'

 

[Stigmata]

The books are very variable in quality, they were written over many years I believe. I've never managed to make it to the end, but I do like the films. People's perceptions of it today might be coloured by the fact that it's been imitated so many times (Sword of Shannara anyone?) that it's become clichéd.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

LOTR is a fabulous book that I'm going to re read again soon (read it approx 10 times in total but haven't read it for about 4 years. I found that I enjoyed it even more when I'd read the Silmarillion a few times as well.

 

[El Sueno]

I once watched all three movies back to back and they worked really well as one body of work, you'd be surprised. Even though the very last hour is a waste of time.

Don't think I could read all the books in one sitting though. Took me about four months to get through them if I remember rightly, but did have a lovely time.

 

[rekil]

Monarchist primitivist anti-orc propaganda.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I think it's a terrible book. It might have been a new genre at the time which must have been very exciting, I just don't think the plot runs very well. Like I say it must have seemed like an amazing work of fantasy at the time but I just don't think it has stood the test of time.

As for being bollocks, I'm fairly sure none of it is true.

 

[elevendayempire]

Books - good story, horribly written. Clunky, piss-awful prose (though granted, there was the occasional nice turn of phrase), and wtf was Tolkien trying to achieve anyway? "England has no native myths of its own, therefore I will create one." Um, that's not how it works, chum. You can't consciously create a myth.

Anyway, the films, while horribly overlong, were at least nicely shot. And Jackson added some emotional depth to the characters that simply wasn't there in Tolkien's book, because he didn't think that sort of thing was important. Classic example of his near-autistic focus on plot over the internal landscape of the characters. It's telling that Tolkien didn't really give a toss about the story, though; he was far more interested in his endless fictional history and languages. It's the sort of thing that a 15-year-old boy would do, ffs. Anyway, the best scene in the film was entirely Jackson's invention - Gollum's conversation with himself (which he didn't actually direct; IIRC it was his wife on set that day). And Christ, but the last film went on a bit, didn't it?

In conclusion: Fuck Tolkien. Except for The Hobbit, that was good.

 

[maximilian ping]

its without doubt THE story for kids to read. its a fairytale classic. its engrossing and its what the kids want

grumpy motherfuckers in their 30/40s can moan all they want about how its a bit nazi/badly written or wotever, but it doesnt have the slightest impact on the fact that little kids will love reading this book until the year dot.

 

[tarannau]

The books are tedious, anal and have a disconceting racist/downright snobby attitude throughout. Yes, I know they reflect the era, but the thinly veiled swipes are unpleasant frankly.

Vastly and unnecessarily verbose too, with the kinds of tedious bibble names that he's obviously spent far too long wanking over in seclusion. And despite all that, all the arse-clenching, smartarse detail doesn't anywhere near obscure the fact that it's a basically a clapped out, unoriginal tale about a midgets and the quest for a blinking magic ring. Go directly to Dungeonmaster Level IV

Films are a bit meh to me as well. Good spectacle, but they leave me a little cold.

 

[Groucho]

I thought the films were utter shite.

The book is seriously flawed and has a lot to answer for in terms of inferior spin offs. Now the originator of a 'genre' can't be wholly held responsible for the quality of the copycats....But Tolkein can be held responsible for taking the classical theme of the epic journey and completion of tasks, and ruining it. In my view the books are thematically simplistic, despite the painstaking detail, length and the number and simplistic variety of different creatures. The epic battle of good verses evil, the security of the parochial village life of the basically good childlike Hobbits with human vices threatened by the encrouchment of the dark unthinkingly evil hoards of darkness spouting forth from the depths of the Earth, conjured up by evil magicians zzzzzzzz

I prefer Gormenghast. For that matter I prefer His Dark Materials. Or the Iliad/Odyssey. Or Beowolf.

The Hobbit though is a great kids book, devoid of the pretensious twaddle associated with the LOTRs. It is just a nice story.

 

[tarannau]

its without doubt THE story for kids to read. its a fairytale classic. its engrossing and its what the kids want

grumpy motherfuckers in their 30/40s can moan all they want about how its a bit nazi/badly written or wotever, but it doesnt have the slightest impact on the fact that little kids will love reading this book until the year dot.

Bollocks. I tried to read LOTR as the kid after the Hobbit (not as bad) and hated it. Revisited them as a teen, still didn't like them. No child I know likes them.

Bizarrely I actually liked a fair bit of fantasy literature as a kid - even David Gemmell's stuff, but LOTR was always the overblown, pompous and divisive tome that lingered like a bad smell on the bookshelf. Tried again before the films - pish.

 

[maximilian ping]

No child I know likes them

((despairs for a lost generation))

 

[tarannau]

What, a generation that doesn't go for tedious names and thinly veiled racist allegories.

Hurrah for today's more discerning kids! But seriously, kids do love fantasy stuff in general,as did I - but LOTR's badly written, unpleasantly dated and far too wordy. The disappointment for me that as a kid was that, after expecting a rip roaring classic, I got that pompous, overblown 2d rubbish instead. There are better ways for children to get their fantasy fix these days.

 

[elevendayempire]

Vastly and unnecessarily verbose too, with the kinds of tedious bibble names that he's obviously spent far too long wanking over in seclusion.

"I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, grandson of Norman, known to some as Strider or Ranger, from the northlands, which some call 'up there'. This is my sword, Glamdring, known to some as Hrun, forged by the dwarves of the Westron, which some call..."

Oh, fuck off, do.

SG

 

[elevendayempire]

What, a generation that doesn't go for tedious names and thinly veiled racist allegories.

Hurrah for today's more discerning kids! But seriously, kids do love fantasy stuff in general,as did I - but LOTR's badly written, unpleasantly dated and far too wordy. The disappointment for me that as a kid was that, after expecting a rip roaring classic, I got that pompous, overblown 2d rubbish instead. There are better ways for children to get their fantasy fix these days.

Yes, give them His Dark Materials.

SG

 

[SpookyFrank]

i'd say twelve.

it's wank. horrible, overwritten toss. And the films? Jesus - it takes some doing to make huge, epic battles dull but they managed.

Some of the battles were quite well done but the problem I have with the films is the fact that they spawned a whole genre of unwatchable CGI-historical/fantasy-battle-movie toss like Troy and Kingdom of Heaven