Tolkien was a pretentious yawn loved exclusively by spotty, No Girlfreind, Dungeons and Dragons playing, sixth form nerds.     

Discuss.

Saying Tolkien wrote literature, is like claiming the Illias and the Oddessey of Homerus, are more than just simple epic poems.

Pixel Pirate wrote: I completely agree,emperor. The only people I know who rate Tolkien highly are people with quite execrable taste in literature. People who claim that LOTR is a great piece of literature do so on the basis of an ignorance of what great literature is. When I was 13 I thought the greatest music in the world was made by Kiss. And why did I think this? Because I didn't know any better. As my musical horizon widened through my teens I realised that not only did Kiss NOT make the greatest music in the world,it wasn't any good at all really. And the same with books. When I was in my early teens I thought Tolkien and fantasy in general was great literature. Then I read Dickens and realised how wrong I was. Check the bookshelves of Tolkien fans. You won't find Kafka,Hardy,Woolf or any other truly great authors,only light entertainment of the most basic fantasy and sf kind. That's why they say LOTR is a great book,not because it actually is,but because they simply don't know any better. Tolkien is the Kiss of the literary world.

So, could you tell a fantasy book wich could be considered as 'great literature'? Or is it that fantasy is not good because it's not realist (or social commentary disguised as fantasy - see 'Animal Farm' and most of the great sci-fi works)? Most of the time the intelligentsia praises a fantasy novel, it's because it's magic-realism.

I usually like to make comparisons with movies: Is it that Ken Loach is good but 'Back to the Future' is not great moviemaking? Both are strong in their genres. Is it 'Schindler's List' great filmaking and 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' worthless to be in the companion of the greats works?

tuxon wrote:

Not very good, in my opinion...

Pixel Pirate wrote: I completely agree,emperor. The only people I know who rate Tolkien highly are people with quite execrable taste in literature. People who claim that LOTR is a great piece of literature do so on the basis of an ignorance of what great literature is. When I was 13 I thought the greatest music in the world was made by Kiss. And why did I think this? Because I didn't know any better. As my musical horizon widened through my teens I realised that not only did Kiss NOT make the greatest music in the world,it wasn't any good at all really. And the same with books. When I was in my early teens I thought Tolkien and fantasy in general was great literature. Then I read Dickens and realised how wrong I was. Check the bookshelves of Tolkien fans. You won't find Kafka,Hardy,Woolf or any other truly great authors,only light entertainment of the most basic fantasy and sf kind. That's why they say LOTR is a great book,not because it actually is,but because they simply don't know any better. Tolkien is the Kiss of the literary world.

That's true, Pirate, all the good things can be recognizend in compare with something ;-) But the literature-business (as show-business, MTV, etc) does all things to promote those easy-reaching materials to trade it to masses... It's very profitable to them.

Well, if we're talking about literature, so what kinds of books our Prog-Colleagues prefer?

I try to read those books which can get the more stuff to think, to analize, to impress for myself.

Among classics I especially prefer Dante Alig'eri, William Shakespeare, Walter Scott, Morice Druone (hope I wrote right?), Dostoevsky; among 20th century autors I mostly like Jaroslav Hasek, Henry Miller, Ernest Hemminguay.

Of course, I also like to read some biographies of my favorite musicians  Plus I often read the kind of scientifical literature, mostly in psychological, historical, philosophical vein. For example, I'm a big fan of Fridrich Nitzsche.

So, could you tell a fantasy book wich could be considered as 'great literature'?

I can... Many books by Herbert Walles, Azimov, Strugatsky brothers... Could Daniel Defo or Verne be considered as fantasy authors too?

I havn`t read any Talkien, is not my cup of tea. But I understand that the making of a world with different species, geography, language and laws ain't no easy job. Maybe is not good literature, but is an outstanding work.

And my tastes in literature goes from Kafka to Kundera (I like Prague, what can I say...) and anything in between (Hemigway, Faulkner, Miller, Montanelli, Borges, Sabato and so on).

Edited, by suggestion of a good friend

emdiar wrote: Tolkien was a pretentious yawn loved exclusively by spotty, No Girlfreind, Dungeons and Dragons playing, sixth form nerds.      Discuss.

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.

I love Lord of the Rings, and I don't care how "great" a book it is. It's an epic tale which engulfs me when I read it, and that's what I want. I wouldn't say I have "quite execrable taste in literature", either; I'm certainly not at all a fan of any of the frankly indistinguishable bestsellers of today. In terms of fantasy I don't like all that much, apart from Tolkien's works and Stephen Donaldson (who I'm sure is technically a better writer, yet interests me less). Perhaps it's because I read The Hobbit when I was 5 or 6, and that's influenced my tastes over the rest of my life? In fact I still read "children's" books from time to time, and find them far more rewarding than at least some adults' books. Alice in Wonderland is an incredibly clever book, as are Swift's satires. And the Chronicles of Narnia and Black Cauldron series, while I won't claim are anything challenging or particularly subtle, still move me. Incidentally, I just picked up a book called "On Raven's Wing", or somesuch, which is based on Irish folk tales and seems quite nice.

goose wrote: I love Lord of the Rings, and I don't care how "great" a book it is. It's an epic tale which engulfs me when I read it, and that's what I want. I wouldn't say I have "quite execrable taste in literature", either; I'm certainly not at all a fan of any of the frankly indistinguishable bestsellers of today. In terms of fantasy I don't like all that much, apart from Tolkien's works and Stephen Donaldson (who I'm sure is technically a better writer, yet interests me less). Perhaps it's because I read The Hobbit when I was 5 or 6, and that's influenced my tastes over the rest of my life? In fact I still read "children's" books from time to time, and find them far more rewarding than at least some adults' books. Alice in Wonderland is an incredibly clever book, as are Swift's satires. And the Chronicles of Narnia and Black Cauldron series, while I won't claim are anything challenging or particularly subtle, still move me. Incidentally, I just picked up a book called "On Raven's Wing", or somesuch, which is based on Irish folk tales and seems quite nice.

Sorry,goose. And the rest of you. I didn't really mean it. It's just that literary discussion always brings out the insufferable intellectual snob in me,and he really is an obnoxius git I wish I could somehow be able to kill off once and for all,but it seems he's destined to reside within me for the rest of my days,my only hope is to curb his cruel barbs as much as possible. Shutting up entirely when the subject of literature comes up would be a good start!

Pixel Pirate wrote: Sorry,goose. And the rest of you. I didn't really mean it. It's just that literary discussion always brings out the insufferable intellectual snob in me,and he really is an obnoxius git I wish I could somehow be able to kill off once and for all,but it seems he's destined to reside within me for the rest of my days,my only hope is to curb his cruel barbs as much as possible. Shutting up entirely when the subject of literature comes up would be a good start!

Why would you want to do that Pixel?

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how ridiculous it is ()

Seriously though, as has been stated often on these hallowed pages,you cant have a good argument if everyone agrees!

Reed Lover wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: Sorry,goose. And the rest of you. I didn't really mean it. It's just that literary discussion always brings out the insufferable intellectual snob in me,and he really is an obnoxius git I wish I could somehow be able to kill off once and for all,but it seems he's destined to reside within me for the rest of my days,my only hope is to curb his cruel barbs as much as possible. Shutting up entirely when the subject of literature comes up would be a good start! Why would you want to do that Pixel? You are entitled to your opinion no matter how ridiculous it is () Seriously though, as has been stated often on these hallowed pages,you cant have a good argument if everyone agrees!

But I don't really like arguments,truly I don't,I just find myself drawn into them against my better judgement. I just want everyone in the world to get along with each other. And I'm not being funny! Well,not intentionally anyway.

At the risk of sounding hopelessly, self-aggrandizingly erudite, I consider myself to be among the most well-read people I know, with taste in literature that runs from the classics to sci-fi.  I read voraciously, and consume as many as five or six books a month, which I have done for well over 25 years.  I read "classic" lit, politics, religion, science, nature, lit-crit, psychology, novels, you-name-it.  There are few subjects I have not read - extensively.

I hapen not only to love Tolkien, but to consider him among the most important, creative and amazing writers of any time.  One can like or dislike the world he created or the stories he tells.  But his writing - as writing - is among the most expressive, detailed, poetic and beautiful writing in English literature.  Does he rank with Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, et al?  Obviously not.  But that does not make him any less great, or even important.

Although Jules Verne and H.G. Wells set the tone that brought us the greats of sci-fi - Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein, et al - Tolkien was also an "influence" on sci-fi, particularly Frank Herbert: I daresay we might not have the Dune series (among other classics) without Tolkien.

The very fact that Tolkien, and LOTR, have become as cherished, beloved and, yes, historically important vis-a-vis English literature, as they have is a testament to how great Tolkien was as a writer.

Peace.

Pixel Pirate wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: Sorry,goose. And the rest of you. I didn't really mean it. It's just that literary discussion always brings out the insufferable intellectual snob in me,and he really is an obnoxius git I wish I could somehow be able to kill off once and for all,but it seems he's destined to reside within me for the rest of my days,my only hope is to curb his cruel barbs as much as possible. Shutting up entirely when the subject of literature comes up would be a good start! Why would you want to do that Pixel? You are entitled to your opinion no matter how ridiculous it is () Seriously though, as has been stated often on these hallowed pages,you cant have a good argument if everyone agrees! But I don't really like arguments,truly I don't,I just find myself drawn into them against my better judgement. I just want everyone in the world to get along with each other. And I'm not being funny! Well,not intentionally anyway.

I mean argument in the sense of "debate" as oppose to row!

Tolkien was a professor of Medieval literature and an expert on old English, which he considered to be superior to the watered down language we've spoken since the Norman conquest. Personally I find the books almost unreadably boring, but I recognise that they are the product of a great and well informed imagination. I really enjoyed the films, but I've always been a bit of a pleb like that.

As for a fantasy book that could be considered as Literature (with a big capital L) - George RR Martin's A Song Of Ice And Fire is genuinely epic in scope and totally gripping, with complex and well rounded characters. Fantasy for people who don't like fantasy.

I also recommend Mervyn Peake, a contemporary and friend of Tolkien.  His Gormenghast trilogy is among the greats of that period of English literature.  His style is more poetic than Tolkien's, more "flowing."  If Tolkien's forte is in the incredibly detailed description of the world he created, Peake's forte is his characterizations: the characters in Gormenghast almost literally leap out of the page.

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.

maani wrote: 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"  Peace.

Until now........

maani wrote: I also recommend Mervyn Peake, a contemporary and friend of Tolkien...  Peake's forte is his characterizations: the characters in Gormenghast almost literally leap out of the page.

Thanks for the tip, Maani. As in music, I’m always looking for something a little different in litterature and strong characterization is something I particularly appreciate.

Merci!

P.S. I've read LOTR three times since my first encounter with Tolkien back in the 70's (I was learning how to speak English then, lol!), each time with equal pleasure and renewed wonder.

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

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.

Believe me, you can’t judge an author from movies or heresay. Those LOTR movies have nothing to do with the literature. Trust me on this. Movies can’t show you the story-telling skills of an author or convey the poetry (and I don’t mean the rhyming kind) and the magic bond that develops between author and reader as you read along.

Movies show facts and events, the ones the producer chooses to show you, with visual effects to keep the attention of millions of popcorn guzzlers and a couple of love scenes to please your younger sister.

Read the book, and then tell us about it.

Peace.

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

What happened to art that the level of artistic acceptability overshadowed the power of the works?

Literature is the art of storytelling using the written word. If Tolkien's works don't qualify for high praise by that definition, I'm looking at everything the wrong way. I've read numerous criticisms of his style and pacing and dialogue, and they are all more or less accurate. But the man skillfully related an engrossing epic tale and in the process created a powerful new mythology, in that respect trumping even Homer who used pre-existing myths as his basis.

When I hear people say "Oh, Tolkien isn't real literature", in my head it's usually with a snooty Ivy League accent like the wealthy and pretentious villain in a bad 80s college movie.  It sounds like the sort of propaganda that bitter English teachers pound into their students, and also like the sort of kneejerk artistic judgement that drives music critics to demean progressive rock.

Is it among the great works of all time? I can understand the arguments either way. Does Tolkien belong in a Survey of Western Literature? Actually, I would argue that he does...tell me one other author who successfully epitomizes both mid-20th Century British social criticism AND pre-Christian Northern European heroic mythology.

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.

Sean Trane wrote: 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.

You're right about Molly Hatchett,Sean. I can't take any band serious which has album covers like they had! And there was a particularly ludicrous American metal band in the 80's called Virgin Steele (groan!) who had lifted their entire image from the more inane part of the fantasy genre,dressing up like warriors and carrying swords like a bunch of 14 year olds. Why does fantasy appeal so much to the simpleminded? And also to some people who are not simpleminded in the slightest,I hasten to add!

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!

maani wrote:   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.

Hi Maani. I think you may have become a 6th former, had you attended a British school (unless you were so incredibly brainy that you'd finished "high school" by the age of 12 or 13, and then gone on to do 6th form studies with the 16/17yr olds. This happens very rarely and usually makes the national news. These kids are always ubbernerds!) . Without the "A level" certificates taken as a 6th former you would not have got a place in any university.

ps. I have nothing against Tolkien, actually. TLOTR is not really my cup of tea, but my real issues lie with  the affore mentioned D&D playing goons who worship it because it's the thing to do. (You may remember my post on "Catch 22".)

I like my sci-fi served with a healthy portion of tongue-in-cheekness. Give me D. Adams anyday.

Has there ever been a "What are you reading?" thread on Progarchives, anyway? I'd love to see this one turn into such a thread... 

Manunkind wrote: Has there ever been a "What are you reading?" thread on Progarchives, anyway? I'd love to see this one turn into such a thread...

What are you reading then?

I'm busy reading Karakter from Ferdinand Johan Wilhelm Christiaan Karel Emiel Bordewijk (Ferdinant Bordewijk for short), the movie won an Oscar a couple of years back.

A great tale about a boy, and his dominant father (by whom he isn't raised BTW).
It's all about caracter, and facing challenges, and how it makes one a better person.

A sadder and a wiser man
He rose the morrow morn
(S.T. Coleridge)

Ivan said: "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."

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...

Peace.

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.  

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. 

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.

Never said boring, or it's difficult to read or it's worthless.

I was forced to read La Celestina in school and Literature class in the University and still find it absolutely boring

But I accept Maani and Reed's comment, I should have not given so strong affirmations based in a movie and written works about Tolkien, just bought The Lord of the Rings Box Set (What I didn't believe I would ever do), so I can give a more fair opinion in a couple of weks.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: But I accept Maani and Reed's comment, I should have not given so strong affirmations based in a movie and written works about Tolkien, just bought The Lord of the Rings Box Set (What I didn't believe I would ever do), so I can give a more fair opinion in a couple of weks. Iván

Having to read the whole damn trilogy is a suitable penance,Ivan.

Hope it reads better in Spanish than it does in English!

James Lee wrote: 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.

I wasn't really trying to compare Tolkien with Joyce - I was just rambling as usual... The repetitiveness I really find hard to swallow is in the narrative itself. I can't recall exact passages, but you get stuff like "They looked around at the green wood in the green vale, where all around was green. The grass was green, the wood was green, the vale was green and the birds were green. A green mist hovered greenly as they waded through the deep, green grass by the green river. Did I mention everything was green...?"

OK, I'm inventing and exaggerating for illustrative purposes - and I've only read the trilogy once  - but that kind of thing made reading the story heavy going for me; it distracted rather than involved me.

My comparisons with Yes are similarly tongue-in-cheek

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.

Pixel Pirate wrote: 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.

I don't agree with you, I think that given the circumstances in which Milton wrote his epic (imprisonment, impending blindness), "Paradise Lost" is far from a piece of fanatical propaganda. I think it's more of a complaint made by someone cruelly afflicted by fate, someone who can find comfort neither in his God (the part devoted to God is bland, flat and strangely cynical) nor in His hellish adversary, with whom one can sympathise somewhat at the beginning, but who then degenerates more and more as he wallows in his hatred and desire for vengeance and thenceases being a person and becomes a snake. No loving God above and no means of successful rebellion; a very bitter work. That's my reading of it, anyway. I can't rememeber the reasons Eliot gave for his verdict on Milton, but it's just possible that Eliot (a Christian) shied away from Milton's conclusions. Still, Eliot was always a better critic than Pound, he could even find a kind word or two for the romantics whom he allegedly hated so much, whereas the latter, despite making some intellingent insights of his own, could be very murky or downright stupid. One of the things Pound found so lamenatble in Milton was the latter's "animal-like Hebraism". I rest my case.

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.

James Lee wrote: 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.

That is a good point,and one that keeps slipping my mind. Thanks for reminding me,James!

James Lee wrote: an acquaintance with older British idioms would have made my first few readings a little easier

I think it must be more British than older that is the problem; I don't think there were any phrases that I failed to understand immediately, even if I wouldn't use them myself.

goose wrote: James Lee wrote: an acquaintance with older British idioms would have made my first few readings a little easier I think it must be more British than older that is the problem; I don't think there were any phrases that I failed to understand immediately, even if I wouldn't use them myself.

I didn't know what barrows or wains were, for instance...but I was in the single digits during my first reading.