Is it me or is it Tolkien?

[Arthur Sting]

Now to start this out let me say that I saw the movies of LotR before I could even read that well. So I didn't have any choice in the matter.

I love the movies, I watched them so many times, and I always love watching them. But whenever I sit down to read the books of the Lord of the Rings, I get too bogged down in how Tolkien writes the story! I just get bored. I feel like I have to force myself to read the book. So eventialy I put it down and read somthing else ---probably some of David Eddings' books (p.s. BIG FAN)

In the example above this could lead to the idea that Tolkien is bad writer. But on the other hand, I saw a boy a few weeks ago, only about 9 or 10 years old reading The Return of the King!

My guess is that with some people the books just click, and hit that sweet spot. But what is it me or Tolkien???

[dustinzgirl]

Its you. LOL! No, but really there are books that other people loved that I just couldn't sit through. I read the LOTR books a billion years ago and I loved them as a kid and reading them to my kids. But a lot of other books that other people liked I found boring and well, lame, but I liked the movies.

[Arthur Sting]

It was the long desriptions of the terrain and vistas that annoyed me.

[j. d. worthington]

In answer to your query: a bit of both!

Just from the little you've given, I'd say the most likely thing is that Tolkien is a writer of an older fashion than you're comfortable with (at least at this stage, though that can change); his approach is much more leisurely and thoughtful, less of the fast-paced writing we've seen develop since the growth of cinema and (especially) television.

Having grown up reading writers such as Poe, Hawthorne, Bierce, M. R. James, etc. (along with a lot of the sf writers of the 1940s-1970s) I never had such a problem with Tolkien, because I was used to such an approach. It has its definite advantages, giving a depth and texture to the work that the more fast-paced writing seldom achieves; but for those used to the post-Hemingway approach to writing, it can seem very slow and stodgy....

[Hilarious Joke]

I agree with you Sting. The reason for me is that the best things about LOTR was its brilliant, against-all-odds plot, its great characters, and the detailed reality of its world; all of which one can get from the movies. For great writing, I don't turn to Tolkien, I turn to Robin Hobb, GRRM, and Cecilia Dart-Thornton. But of course, its a matter of opinion, I find your view j.d. as quite interesting - perhaps I am just a young modern reader not used to Tolkien and pre-Tolkien era writing.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

The reason for me is that the best things about LOTR was its brilliant, against-all-odds plot, its great characters, and the detailed reality of its world; all of which one can get from the movies.

Sorry, HJ, I must disagree slightly there...what you actually get from the movies is the plot, the characters and the world-picture filtered by how Peter Jackson envisioned them, and what would make a great film - and that's not the same as reading the book at all, IMHO.

[Hilarious Joke]

True. I can appreciate how someone like you, Pyan, can read the books over forty times because the detail in the history and geography and culture of Middle-Earth is immense and fascinating. I guess what I'm saying is that everything I enjoyed in the books (which I read before the movies) was in the movies (which is why they are my favourite films ever), and so a reread of Tolkien (which I tried) was not very interesting for me.

And yet I'm happy to sit and listen to someone talk about Middle-Earth for ages, all of its intricacies and history and such. Strange!

[pyan]

I'm not knocking the films, mind you...they're as close as anyone is ever going to get to realising the Ring, I think, and overall I think PJ did a fantastic job.
But to me, it's like watching the edited highlights of a football match...you get all the exciting bits, neatly edited into a twenty-minutes slot, but in their own way, the other seventy minutes were just as important to the game - but they're not shown.

[Hilarious Joke]

Heh heh, except its more like 100 hours of possible film edited down to 9. Which is plenty for me . Nevertheless, I get your point.

[TheEndIsNigh]

Surely its simple. You've watched the film so many times, where the pace is quite fast and furious. Now when you read the books things get bogged down in the description and details. Lest we forget a picture tells a thousand words and where describing the landscape in the book may take 3-4 pages it just flashes by in the film.
I never read a book of the film I've seen. I enjoy the H. Potter films yet, as a result, I have never had the slightest inclination to read the books.

I suggest you read "Bored of the Rings."

Its a much better way to get behind the true nature of the characters. It can be a little 'accademic' though it's by far the most authoritive work on the whole LOR saga. Plus it's a lot shorter.

[Hilarious Joke]

Lol. Doesn't it get old after a few pages?

[Iorek444]

I think it's sometimes a matter of how much time you have (and not just literally), strange as that sounds. What I mean is, you have to be prepared to just sit down for a while and get absorbed in the style, taking it slowly and envisioning what is described. If your mind is in a "hurry" (which is quite often for most people I think, even when we have some free time we're all worried about everything we need to get done), it becomes sort of like "Hurry it up Tolkien, I don't have all day!"

That's how it usually works for me, anyways. I love Tolkien (including the Silmarillion if I'm feeling patient), but I definitely have to be in the right state of mind or I can't enjoy it very much.

[The Procrastinator]

Interesting point, Iorek - maybe if one is a patient reader, one gets right into stuff like Tolkien - absorbing, slow-moving in parts, detailed, nuanced stuff - whereas if one is an impatient reader, one needs action action action and now. Yet another way to divide the world into two groups??

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by TheEndIsNigh

I suggest you read "Bored of the Rings."

Its a much better way to get behind the true nature of the characters. It can be a little 'accademic' though it's by far the most authoritive work on the whole LOR saga. Plus it's a lot shorter.

Ummm... "academic"? "authoritative"? say what????

Iorek: I agree with P.B. -- that's a very good point, and most likely has a fair amount to do with the falling-off of well-constructed, densely-textured prose (overall) as well....

[Marky Lazer]

The charm in LOTR to me lies in the slow-paced (endless) descriptions of landscapes, really. Not even taking his stories into consideration, Tolkien created such a detailed world that even if the story itself was rubbish, I would probably have enjoyed it...