Bored of the Rings

iI don't believe TLOTR is a great piece of literature, but Tolkien was more than just a fantasy book writter, he concieved an alternative mythology, created societies, even languages, the guy was very intelligent, and a  good writter but not an icon of literature, leave that to Shakespeare, Cervantes, Borges, Cortazar etc.

I never read his books or as Valarius said doubt I will ever, the movies are good, but haven't seen the DVD's more than once because I don't want to get bored, I'm saving them for the time my nephew or my own kids (still don't have one) grow and can enjoy the movies as I did.

Iván

Hibou:

Thanks - you took the words right out of my mouth.  It never ceases to amaze me how many people will argue about a book they never read, a movie they never saw, music they never listened to, or a subject they know little or nothing about.

Peace.

You’ve never read Tolkien’s books yet you think LOTR isn’t a good piece of literature? Hmm… It’s like saying you hate lobster because you’ve never tried it.

Necver talked about hating Hibou, just looking at the movies you know it's not at the level of Hamlet The War and the Peace or Don Quijote de la Mancha, it's a very complex fantasy work that required a whole life of effort, but it's obvious even comparing the movies with any Hamlet or Don Quijote movie version that LOTR is not a literature masterpiece.

Even when my experience with LOTR comes from the movies and from descriptive analysis of Tolkien works, it's clear for me that a fight between elfs, humans, hobbits, dwarfs and other species against evil will never be considered a masterpiece of literature.

Even when complex background is just another good vs evil fight.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Necver talked about hating Hibou, just looking at the movies you know it's not at the level of Hamlet The War and the Peace or Don Quijote de la Mancha, it's a very complex fantasy work that required a whole life of effort, but it's obvious even comparing the movies with any Hamlet or Don Quijote movie version that LOTR is not a literature masterpiece.   Even when my experience with LOTR comes from the movies and from descriptive analysis of Tolkien works, it's clear for me that a fight between elfs, humans, hobbits, dwarfs and other species against evil will never be considered a masterpiece of literature.   Even when complex background is just another good vs evil fight.

You see? This is where it all ends: Tolkien can never be considered good literature because it's fantasy. People who dismiss Tolkien usually do so on three basis:

a) It is a sometimes boring: It's absolutly true that the first part of the book (until the Council) wanders quite a bit, as it's been proved the author didn't know where he was  heading. This is an objective fact.

b) It is sometimes difficult to read. But, come on: I've read Don Quixote (in my language: it's not the same when translated) and it's not preciselly that easy. And on the fantasy front, Gonzalo Torrente Ballester 'La Saga Fuga de J.B.' is almost impossible, and it's reagarded as a great piece of literature (not by me, of course)

C) The most important: I deals with fantasy creatures and places. It seems there are people who just can't handle that. So this book is worthless because it's not, in their minds, serious. That is bullsh*t. 'La Celestina' is one of the best spanish realist books and I simple can't stand it. And I don't go saying it's sh*t. It's a great book of a theme and style I just don't like.

So it all ends on the same place as always: PLEASE: IT'S NOT THE SAME WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE.

Example:I absolutly hate Robert Fripp, but it's clearly a great and very influential musician.

By the way: I don't see Verne of Asimov above Tolkien in any way. They are just different.

ivan_2068 wrote: You’ve never read Tolkien’s books yet you think LOTR isn’t a good piece of literature? Hmm… It’s like saying you hate lobster because you’ve never tried it.   Necver talked about hating Hibou, just looking at the movies you know it's not at the level of Hamlet The War and the Peace or Don Quijote de la Mancha, it's a very complex fantasy work that required a whole life of effort, but it's obvious even comparing the movies with any Hamlet or Don Quijote movie version that LOTR is not a literature masterpiece.   Even when my experience with LOTR comes from the movies and from descriptive analysis of Tolkien works, it's clear for me that a fight between elfs, humans, hobbits, dwarfs and other species against evil will never be considered a masterpiece of literature.   Even when complex background is just another good vs evil fight.   Iván

This post does you little credit Ivan and you should rethink it.
It smacks of intellectual snobbery and makes some ridiculous assumptions.
Again:

1. You have not read these books so passing critical comment is just plain daft.
2. Since when has the subject matter dictated whether a novel is a great piece of literature?

Reed Lover wrote: Tolkien's literature is perfectly acceptable as a piece of Literature-in the academic sense of the word. LOTR,which to be honest I find a very difficult read these days,is of it's time (ie stylistically dated) but the subject matter bears no relation to its merits as a piece of art. One cannot presume that,purely because one might devour the works of, say,Nietsche,that one is better read or more cerebral.To be an expert in any field one needs a broad experience of all the different forms of literature not just one's that make you appear intellectual.A serious Literature student will take pleasure in the works of Dickens,Austen Shakespeare, Hemingway, Homer,Plato and Joyce.No one in their right mind would just read,say Plato and exclude all else. If one where to announce to friends that one was reading the Iliad they might be suitably impressed but announce LOTR as one's latest book and there would be hoots of derision.This is ludicrous and ignorant.

...talking about intellectual snobbery...

I find Tolkein's style disengaging, repetitive and irritating and feel that the entire trilogy could have been cut down to a single book with ease by using a more economic style.

I don't think it's particularly amazing... but then I've never tried to read it all the way through more than once, so I'll withhold my judgement until that day I manage to finish reading it a couple more times and gain a better understanding.

Neither am I a literature student, although I do have a mild interest. I read "Ulysses" twice; Once to say that I had and the second time to see if I could understand any of it the second time... I preferred "Portrait of an Artist" and "Dubliners", as I did not have to have an extensive knowledge of Classical literature in order to get either. "Finnegan's Wake" I never finished.

For now, the 3 LOTR books are like the Yes albums I own; Overlong, overblown, full of fantastical nonsense, generally poorly delivered - although with some interesting bits - but largely with pretty covers that pad my collection out nicely.

In French , this trilogy is called LE SEIGNEUR DES ANNEAUX but people who are sick of the overexposition ( I am one of them) of this "correct-but-no-more"  book refer to it as LE SAIGNEUR DES ANUS. This translate in The Anus Bleeder.

I read this book at the end of the 70's era and start of the 80's over a 18 month era . Loved the first book, thought the second one good but read diagonally the third as I was sort of bored and this endless string of happenings were concerning me less and less as each page turned. I enjoyed it but never came back to it and do not understand why so many people speak of it as a second bible , worship everything from it . I think that Tolkien developped a little too much some of his radical political ideas (some are close to extreme right) into the story . I could not help but laugh at all those Metal bands (starting with Molly Hatchet) using the Heroic-Fantasy covers as inspiration for music.

Again in French CONAN THE BARBARIAN is refered as CONNARD LE BARBANT (Dickhead the Boring) instead of CONAN LE BARBARE by people sick this nerdiness ( D&D role playing included) .

There is no offence meant by my post but the thread was asking for an opinion so here is mine. There are no wrong opinions in this matter.

Certif1ed wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Tolkien's literature is perfectly acceptable as a piece of Literature-in the academic sense of the word. LOTR,which to be honest I find a very difficult read these days,is of it's time (ie stylistically dated) but the subject matter bears no relation to its merits as a piece of art. One cannot presume that,purely because one might devour the works of, say,Nietsche,that one is better read or more cerebral.To be an expert in any field one needs a broad experience of all the different forms of literature not just one's that make you appear intellectual.A serious Literature student will take pleasure in the works of Dickens,Austen Shakespeare, Hemingway, Homer,Plato and Joyce.No one in their right mind would just read,say Plato and exclude all else. If one where to announce to friends that one was reading the Iliad they might be suitably impressed but announce LOTR as one's latest book and there would be hoots of derision.This is ludicrous and ignorant. ...talking about intellectual snobbery...

I didnt mean that.What I meant was that certain individuals will boldy state that they read Nietsche as if that somehow makes them more savvy.
I find Joyce boring (as do many who had to read it for a Literature course) because I had to study him and dissect his "genius!.

mirco wrote: Reed Lover wrote: I didnt mean that.What I meant was that certain individuals will boldy state that they read Nietsche as if that somehow makes them more savvy. I find Joyce boring (as do many who had to read it for a Literature course) because I had to study him and dissect his "genius!. About Joyce: I read Portrait of the artist as a young man, but sadly I have to say that enjoyed more Dylan Thomas's portrait of the artist as a young dog. An read Niestsche too, and didn't make me savyer at all... I'm hopelless.

we're all hopeless-that's why we are here!