Bored of the Rings

By the way, although I do not currently have a girlfriend, I never played Dungeons and Dragons,  would never have been "sixth form" (even had I been in British schools), and was never considered a "nerd" (though I was always admittedly "weird"...).

Peace.

I suppose that means that Milton's "Paradise Lost" - with its angels, demons, Satan, etc., and its "good against evil" context - can't possibly rank as "literature" either, much less a "masterpiece" of it...

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.

Certif1ed wrote: 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.

I've disagreed with just about everyone else on the forum at some point, so I suppose sooner or later I'd have to disagree with Cert.

I appreciate Tolkien's style the same way I appreciate Lovecraft's style, or Mervyn Peake's; call it a reactionary stance, or affectation, or whatever you please. Writers have the option of assuming a voice that suits their material, and an 'economic' or journalistically influenced style would have done little justice to Tolkien's vision. He does get a little repetitive, though- but remember that it was begun in serial form and perhaps he needed to remind readers of certain things. Maybe he didn't completely have the writing chops to pull it off flawlessly, but his prose succeeds in supporting the archaic and intricate elements of both the narrative and the larger world around the events of the story.

It's a totally different beast from Ulysses, or Finnegans Wake; they have incredible external demands on the reader which make them perfect as an example of 'high art' (though for many people I suspect that it's easier to agree that Joyce writes great literature than actually read his works and decide for themselves). With Tolkien, you don't need to bring anything else to the works (although a dictionary would be nice, and an acquaintance with older British idioms would have made my first few readings a little easier).

But then again I love Yes as well. 'Overblown nonsense' may not necessarily be something I object to...good thing I found prog. 

Manunkind wrote: maani wrote: I suppose that means that Milton's "Paradise Lost" - with its angels, demons, Satan, etc., and its "good against evil" context - can't possibly rank as "literature" either, much less a "masterpiece" of it... Well, this is just the thing that people like T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound said of "Paradise Lost." It just goes to show that even professional poets who read enough books to fill the moon with, can be way out of touch.

If I go to my grave defending just one point of view,it will be that "Paradise Lost" is one of the most over-rated pieces of literature ever,and Eliot and Pound were absolutely right in their condemnation of it. If you get right down to it it contains nothing but religious ravings without value to anyone but people suffering from the same religious dementia that possessed Milton. And the older I get the more I tend to the view, held by a growing number of people actually,that the authors one just HAS to read constitute a very small group indeed. Someone once listed only five,actually. Shakespeare and Ibsen were two of them,but I can't recall the other three,but Milton was not one of them. The crustier and grumpier I get as middleage slowly fastens it's claw around my throat,the more I believe it's true.

Perhaps the most important aspect of a work of literature is not the airtight quality of the work, but the amount and duration of the effect it has on human thought and expression. Shakespeare and The Bible must top the list in almost any estimation, but Milton and Dante have to rank in the upper circles (LOL) as well. One can barely go a day without encountering some of the language or imagery that these works have passed down to us...whatever our estimation of their literary merits.

Tolkien ranks a little farther down the list, but maybe not as far as some would argue he deserves.  I would argue that his work has deeply and endurably touched a comparable number of lives as Ibsen, though the latter is obviously much more of a genius in his depiction of the extremes of human emotion and relations.