I've just finished reading "The Hobbit"...

[Perpetual Man]

I'd just like to add something a little oddity I found with The Silmarillion, which I read years ago, and found it hard going, almost to the point of giving up. But I didn't, but to say I enjoyed it would have been a lie.

I was talking with another Tolkien reader a few months later and happened to mention how hard it had been and she told me that it worked better read aloud, and lent me a CD (or more likely a cassette tape) of Tolkien himself reading the Tale of Beren and Luthien.

It absolutely blew me away, I could hardly believe it was something I had read myself. Since then I've 'read' Unfinished Tales and a lot of the other published stuff - but read it to myself out loud, and I've loved it...

Go figure, eh?

[Young stormlord]

Originally Posted by The Procrastinator

PS Heh, I've tried but I can't let it pass. Sorry, but its your comment about Tolkien being a linguist but not really a writer. Not true I'm afraid (google his bio, see what kinds of work he did), and rather amusing considering the success and widespread appeal of even the Hobbit (originally published in the 1930's). How many writers would kill to have the impact of this "non-real writer"?

It's the hooks like that one that make threads live through the fire of boredom . Involving people on personal level, remember?

Actually, I agree with all those things you all mentioned and wrote intensively about. See last paragraph of my original post.
As I said before, the problem is in me. I've read Pterry and GRRM before Tolkien, so my expectations were a lot different. After reading (and enjoying) complete inversion of every trope (Discworld) mentioned and played straight in the book (LOTR), original work does not hold as much magic as it could/should have. When you see one master of words play with the tropes another word master made famous... before seeing the works of that other, famous master... Let's just say it doesn't work too well and end it there, okay?

ETA: Something I forgot to put in my original "about The Hobbit" post... Singing parts. Good god, singing parts! I've felt as if dwarves share one Hive Mind and elves share another. Mind that makes them sing in unison songs invented on the spot. Mind that does not sleep. If you are elf or a dwarf, no matter what you do at the moment, no matter if you are shoeing a horse or reading a book, if you hear one of your people sing you'll immediately know the song and have no choice but to join in. And your people would be considered "Merry people, spending their time in song."

Mind you, I do realise we can put it all to Bilbo's "artistic licence" as Boaz had so eloquently put it, but damn... It was really putting me off during the course of the book.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Man

I was talking with another Tolkien reader a few months later and happened to mention how hard it had been and she told me that it worked better read aloud, and lent me a CD (or more likely a cassette tape) of Tolkien himself reading the Tale of Beren and Luthien.

This might be it, Perp, but it's Christopher Tolkien reading, not JRRT himself.

Audio Editions of Tolkien

I haven't got that one, but I do have this:

J.R.R. Tolkien: An Audio Portrait. 2001

which has various interviews with the man himself, and an extract from the 1981 BBC LotR, starring such luminaries as Ian Holm, Michael Hordern, John Le Mesurier and Bill Nighy.

[j. d. worthington]

I think that does have a fair amount to do with it, myself. Most modern readers forget how much writing, throughout history, has been tied to oral speech, and literary writing to rhetoric. The best writers have been those who had that in mind, and carefully chose their words and modulated the rhythm of their writing to enhance certain impressions, moods, and the like. Tolkien was intensely aware of this, as can be seen from both a reading of the fiction itself and from his essays. As a result, I'd say his writing is richer, more complex, nuanced, and frankly profounder than that of Martin (or the vast majority of modern writers, for the matter of that).

Most modern writers (and this is especially true of Martin, who has worked in the medium in various capacities) are more influenced by the visual media, especially film and television, than the written medium, particularly the literary tradition. Where they have been most influenced by writing, the strongest influence (though not the only one) is in the popular literature, from the pulps on. While these certainly have their undeniable strengths, they seldom stand comparison with a seasoned experience of literature as a whole. They almost inevitably come out feeling flat and tame in comparison to what great literature has to offer. These are often very good spinners of yarns, but their appeal is often more immedate, rather than deliberate, deep, or lasting -- more particularly, as noted, the more one reads of literature in the wider sense.

Tolkien certainly has his flaws (I tend to see at least some grounds for some of the complaints leveled against him by Moorcock and Mieville, for instance), but I still would have to take the stand that he is much the better writer overall when compared to Martin. What Martin offers is more to the contemporary taste, but I have serious doubts that this is, in itself, a long-term recommendation. Not to knock Martin; as I say, he is a fine teller of tales, and certainly has a strong dramatic sense. But his strengths (as well as that of a fair number of other current writers in this or other genres) are not, I think, destined to give him nearly as strong a place in posterity as Tolkien is, by this point, almost assured of holding -- and that last is not because of his codification (not originating) of many of the common tropes of the fantasy genre.

[Perpetual Man]

Your probably right Pyan, it's such a long time ago that my memory hurts just thinking about it. It seems to make sense that it wouldn't have been Tolkien senior doing the reading from The Silmarillion. I had some of him reading bits from The Hobbit and LOTR, but I've no idea where the cassettes are now...

[Clansman]

To jump on this bandwagon (the oral tradition of Tolkien), I am a case in point. I read The Silmarillion first, then The Hobbit, LOTR, etc. and so on. Recently, I read The Hobbit aloud to my children, which is, I believe, the way that JRRT himself intended it to be enjoyed. It is a perfect way to present the story, as the punctuation supports breathing, intonation and the cadence of oral tradition.

My kids loved it, hanging on my every word, and it had the opposite effect that I intended (I wanted them to get sleepy, but they got excited instead). I adopted different voices very early on in the story (deep, Oxford English for Gandalf, a high tenor Victorian middle-class for Bilbo, and Scottish brogues of varying tones for the dwarves). The singing was fun, as was the verse, and I completely agree with PM, that Tolkien's prose is at its best when read aloud. One must remember, that the "era" (for lack of a better term) of which Tolkien is writing was an almost entirely oral tradition (think of Aragorn's recitation of Tinuviel to the hobbits at Weathertop). His style simply increases the depth of his creation.

I am currently reading my kids The Fellowship of the Ring. It has just begun to grip them (we just finished "A Knife in the Dark").

Apparently, Martin Shaw (Judge John Deed, etc.) has done The Silmarillion audio book with great success. I will pick it up as soon as I finally get my IPhone.

[Boaz]

pyan, I once heard an interview with Professor Tolkien. Either his accent (or mine) is so heavy, my hearing is terrible, or else my experience is extemely limited, but I only understood about one word in five. I was devastated that my hero spoke a separate language from me.

Clanny, Martin Shaw's version is stupendous! I recommend it for any travel over an hour.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Boaz

pyan, I once heard an interview with Professor Tolkien. Either his accent (or mine) is so heavy, my hearing is terrible, or else my experience is extemely limited, but I only understood about one word in five. I was devastated that my hero spoke a separate language from me.

Clanny, Martin Shaw's version is stupendous! I recommend it for any travel over an hour.

Odd. I used to have recordings of Prof. Tolkien reading/singing (read: chanting) selections from LotR, and while he certainly had an accent, I didn't find it at all difficult; quite the opposite, in fact... I found his delivery and enunciation often quite musical. (This was especially true of his rendition of "Namárië" and the chant of the Rohirrim.)

As for reading The Silmarillion... many, many years ago, when my mother was suffering with cataracts, I made casettes of me reading The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings and sent them to her. (I'd have read them to her in person, but we lived in different parts of the state.) Even today, when it comes to The Silmarillion, I tend to read that one aloud when just reading it for myself. The music of the language, the cadences, differing tones, etc., all greatly enhance the power of the tale itself. Which is fitting, as these are indeed supposed, in many ways, to represent the translation of oral tales recorded for posterity; tales which were part of a dying age....

[Boaz]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Odd. I used to have recordings of Prof. Tolkien reading/singing (read: chanting) selections from LotR, and while he certainly had an accent, I didn't find it at all difficult; quite the opposite, in fact... I found his delivery and enunciation often quite musical.

Soooo it is just me. Excellent.

I also have read Tolkien's works aloud, but for different reasons. Long before the films were planned, I began to prepare voices for all the characters so I could read to my unborn nieces and nephews and (still as of yet) unborn children and grandchildren. Anyway, it's intriguing how certain phrases and passages, that never impressed me as important, seemed to leap off the page.

I also have one caveat for those purchasing audio versions... Make sure it's the actual book and not a radio or stage adaptation. I made this mistake the first time I bought The Lord of the Rings on cd... and I still rue it.

[The Imp]

Originally Posted by Boaz

Soooo it is just me. Excellent.

I also have read Tolkien's works aloud, but for different reasons. Long before the films were planned, I began to prepare voices for all the characters so I could read to my unborn nieces and nephews and (still as of yet) unborn children and grandchildren. Anyway, it's intriguing how certain phrases and passages, that never impressed me as important, seemed to leap off the page.

I also have one caveat for those purchasing audio versions... Make sure it's the actual book and not a radio or stage adaptation. I made this mistake the first time I bought The Lord of the Rings on cd... and I still rue it.

I almost made that mistake as well Boaz. Fortunately, I had bought it at a local border's and noticed my mistake before i broke the seal on the shrinkwrap. i was able to return it.

I own the audio versions of the Hobbit and LOTR. Rob inglis narrates them and does a wonderful job. Almost at the level of Roy Dotrice's ASOIAF. WWW.recordedbooks.com appears to be the url, and their phone number is800.638.1304. I just checked Amazon, and they appear to no longer sell the set that i have.

[Eulalia]

Well, the only leather and gilt volume that I have on my bookshelf is JRRT. (and in my youth I invented a script and a rudimentary language, inspired by him) I don't think I will get such a special edition for GRRM, but I wil probably reread it more and the Storm of Swords is in two halves.

JRRT is great to read aloud. I haven't heard Dotrice, yet. But, I was reading a book on writing poetry at the same time as rereading ASOIAF. He pays a LOT of attention to the sounds and combinations of words. I was admiring his word choices.

Also, GRRM has done a lot of scriptwriting. It is plain that he can "hear" characters expertly and has wonderful dialogue. He is fabulous at conveying character with their speech.

[Young stormlord]

Well, all those are good things, of course, but are just problems to me. *sour smile*


I have learned how to read on songs of my people, epic poetry, some of the songs going around for more than 200 years before getting written down in 19th century, so you can be sure that when it comes to epic, I KNOW epic! I can appreciate symbolism of fantastic elements (for example, hero’s wife burning the wings of his winged horse to betray him; hero’s sword hands losing strength when he cuts through his enemies and realises that he’s all alone on the battlefield, that he’s brothers and cousins have died there and only their horses remain, riderless) . I can appreciate oral tradition, because, historically speaking, very small part of general population knew how to read and write.... But there’s my problem with it.

When I’m reading a book, I’m reading a book. I’m not singing a two hundred pages long epic (which I did once), I’m not reading it to anyone else but me (or even reading it aloud), I’m not listening to anyone reading it to me. No, I’m reading a book.
Line on the page, eyes, brain.
There’s no throat or tongue involved (at least not after I was about eight or nine) and there certainly aren’t any ears. It’s not a movie, it’s not a theatre, it’s not a reading/song on mp3. It’s a book. And you (or at least me ) expect certain things from the book, things other mediums do not have. Things Hobbit and Silmarilion almost completely lacked and LOTR had very little of, just a few handfuls.

Somehow, I’ve found epicness sorely lacking in Hobbit, and sort of epicness oversaturation in Silmarilion.
In “The Hobbit”, good guys find two (supposedly) badass swords. Swords are given badass sounding names, and we are told that thousands and thousands of Orcs were slain by each sword and that the swords themselves were worn by many elven heroes (no names given for one of them). And I know I should be in awe on that information and party certainly is, yet I am not. I feel as if certain convention of epicness wasn’t respected, wasn’t completely followed to its natural conclusion.
Why? ‘Cause I don’t know what makes those swords awesome. Do they have magical gems in their hilts? Were they made from thunderbolt iron? Do they have magic runs/painted eyes on their blades? What do those runes do in battle, except for looking cool? Were those swords made by Aratemly, son of ancient dwarf King Glodan, who also made Galadriel’s battle armour, Lohiel’s sword and helm and also iron chains from which Great Horn of Minas Tyrith hangs? Hell, that description alone would have made them badass and epic. Too bad it doesn’t show up in the books, though. :-|.

I also like word plays, written puns even, and partial medium of Pratchett ( to wit: “He could think in italics and such people need watching out, for they can do just about anything.” or “It was gilt by association.”), I like the books not taking ‘themselves’ seriously...
And when I read a book that IS taking itself seriously, I actually expect it to show something for it... or at least turns around at the end and say “Ah, all of this was just a joke all along.” When it doesn’t, I feel vaguely disappointed.

As I said before, I think I know epic when I see it. When the writer/singer describes hero as:
“He has a sword with eyes on the blade, blade that never sleeps or misses, no enemy can stand it or sneak behind him, he is not afraid of anyone but gods themselves.” that’s sort of epic.
Especially when you add that he has a flying horse that can jump/fly over walls of HIS city and castle, all of it said in sing-song ‘bardish’ voice... Well, it’s definitely right in the middle of epic expectations. And, when he takes a quarter of enemy army even without aforementioned sword... well, then we have a proverbial fantasy hero.

The Hobbit lacks it. Silmarilion goes to the other side, passes epicness horizon and never stops going. I won’t write much about it, I’ll just say its all epic and myth, with a little story in between. As it should be, since it IS mythology book about creation of world and start of evil.

I personally think it is medium evolution, just the same as with film. First movies were simple, of people driving bicycles, jumping up and down, trains getting into station, etc. For someone who had never seen one in their whole life, they produced a sense of wonder and awe. Then that sense of wonder passed and you needed a (simple) story in the movie, a reason to watch it. Then the sound came and the colour afterwards, giving more tools to tell the (now more complicated) story. Then came special effects and they were used to advance the story further. Finally, CGI animation came along and then 3D animation and Hollywood studios forgot about the story and are still trying to ride awe and wonder 3D creates (for now).

I know this might sound harsh to most people on this thread, but Hobbit (and LOTR and Silmarilion) was like a black and white soundless movie (and sixties colour movie, and forties western, respectively) to me. And I can’t shake a feeling that most people here are not objective (btw, I know I’m not, for the reasons explained in this and my previous posts), for one simple reason: it was the first fantasy book you’ve ever read.
You went to the movie theatre for the first time, saw the black and white train getting into station and it produced real feelings, real wonder and awe (or maybe saw original King Kong, as an example. It makes no differences, since the comparison still stands.) And then comes me that has seen metaphorical “Blown with the wind” as his first movie and “Terminator 2” as his second... and belittles your first experience, without knowing what he does wrong.
Or maybe tarnishes your childhood memories, I don’t know. I just know that no offence was meant or intended on my part and that this turns out to be very interesting discussion. Discussion about what could be considered classics and are certainly different tastes.


Sorry for another enormous post, by the way.