h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK, I really, really want to know why Lord of the Rings is so popular. This is a serious question and not meant as offence. You see, I have tried reading the book many times, and each time I'm forced to give up because it's so damned BORING! Nothing ever happens, people just travel from place to place and the reader is subjected to descriptions of every single blade of grass between villages. I remember that in the first book there were about four or five genuine incidents, and that was it. Also, as far as I can see there's very little characterisation either, particularly amongst the Hobbits. About the only character with his own distinct personality is Gandalf.

Anyway - that's my question...what's so good about Lord of the Rings?
Now I'll just settle back and wait for the torrents of abuse.

Well, I read The Lord of the rings because my brother, who is *very*
bright was always ragging me about the fact that I hadn't started reading the encyclopaedia at age three (...well, sort of ), so I decided to read TLOTR. If truth must be told, I *love* the hobbit, but like you found the following three full of aim, but no method. I think Tolkien maybe just liked the sound of his own voice (look of his pen?) and decided to write as long a book as he possibly could. Or maybe it was the success of the hobbit.

So don't feel too bad

EP

It's okay, there's no law that says you *have* to enjoy LotR just because a lot of other people do, or because you like the Hobbit. Truth is, many people who like the Hobbit don't enjoy LotR, and many people who enjoy LotR don't enjoy the Silmarilion. Tolkien wrote LotR basically because people wanted him to. He was more concerned with writing the Silmarilion, which is essentially the 'back story' if you like - it tells of the creation of the world, of the coming of elves, etc. Whilst the Hobbit originated as a story for his children, both other major works were motivated more by his linguistic/philological pursuits than anything else, and he combined his love of developing the language with the demands from readers to know more about Middle Earth. The ring, which is so central to the plot, wasn't even a major element when he first started writing LotR. What I'm saying is that one reason that LotR can be seen as 'boring', or long-winded, or pretentious, is that if you approach it as just an adventure book, or just a bit of light-hearted fun like the Hobbit, then you won't get the most out of it. Not everyone finds the same thing to hook them in - for some it's the glimpses of ancient times, for some it's the style, for some it's the very epic nature, for some it's the delightful smaller characters who pass through the story (as the company passes through them), for some it's middle Earth itself that captivates so thoroughly. Quite a few others, though, miss all of these things completely, and don't enjoy them. That's okay, read something like Terry Pratchetts Discworld series instead - completely different style, but I enjoy them both. Every author has different aims - unlike some, I don't consider Tolkiens style more "intellectual" than Pratchetts (for example), nor vice versa. It's just a matter of purpose, not literary merit. Happy Reading

Mmm hahahahaha...I'm sorry but being that my name is twist on the land of Imladris (aka rivendell) it's quite apparent where my opinion falls in all of this.

Ok. Plain and simple. Here's is my explanation and a bit of reason with it.

Hmm...I think i tried to read the Hobbit about three times before i finally sat down and got to the nitty gritty. When i finally did...I just fell in love. I read the rest of the books, including the Silmarillion and Unifinished Tales shortly after.

The reason i love it...upon reading and re reading there are many connections that come more clearly into focus. I find it so enjoyable, so childlike are these discoveries to me at times.

It truly is very enjoyable if you can "get in" to it. Fall into middle earth.

"Not all those who wander are lost..."

~Imal

But then again...

HAve to agree with Imaldris. LotR is my all time fave book. But I suppose to the new reader the begining of The Fellwoship of the ring might seem a bit childish and drawn out. Not to everyones tastes I suppose but if you look at much fantasy fiction now, LotR is a mere pamphlet in comparison to them.
Reasons I like it. The history and hints of things past and magical, its part of an amazing real fictional world that is just so beautiful yet so perilously close to destruction. In my opinion, Tolkein is one of the few Fantasy authors who ever got the dark and evil side right. When I first read LotR when I was about 12 I had nightmares about the Nazgul and Gollum. The evil guys are genuinely really evil and the final victory over them is so overwhelmingly brilliant because of that. Stephen Donaldson is another author who is good at this but he takes it evn further and his books can be really quite depressing. Other authors don't even get close. David Eddings - ack! - painful. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time whilst being pretty brilliant has a problem IMHO in that the evil guys are just pathetically rubbish and you eend up quite liking them. You caould never imagine liking Sauronor the Nazgul in LotR.
BTW I've read LotR and the Silmarillion about twelve times each so I'm probably a bit biased

When you approach the LOTR from a wary distence, you have to think about who wrote it.

Tolkein was fascinated by two things:

The english language (he was chair of English at Oxford and contributed to the OED)

Mythology.

In the UK we have no set historical mythology, so Tolkein, as an exercise really, went about a 20 year mission to invent one. The result was a whole pile of stories and notes; some that worked, some that didn't. As a result he wrote Lord of the Rings. (His son Christopher later edited and commented the other stories as the Silmarillion and subsequent releases.)

But this was a man who loved the language and the powerful descriptive qualities it allows. English is the biggest language in the world, having a vocabulary 3 and a half times the size of any other language.

Try LOTR again, but this time, read those long descriptions and wallow in the world that Tolkein lays out afore you. His is not a simple adventure, it is a full mythology with everything accounted for, and everything opened up for you to explore.

Are you really saying that Tolkein's books work as a kind of unofficial mythology of Britain? I'm not convinced that it is really possible for one man to set out to 'create' an entire mythology in this way, or even that the enterprise is desirable. I remember reading an introduction by Tolkein to one of his own works (probably LOTR), in which he took great pains to point out that his writing was *not* intended as allegory, and that in fact there was no form of writing he disliked more. He didn't actually say what he *was* trying to achieve with it, though, unfortunately. I suspect he was just setting out to create a pleasant story that people would enjoy reading, and not much more than that...

Also, as someone with a literary background, I'm a little dubious about your claims for Tolkein's mastery of the English language. I think that much of Lord of the Rings is actually - as I think a previous writer was trying to suggest - rather overwritten, heavily dependent on flowery description and sentimental exaggeration. But then, having said that, I have to admit I never really saw the attraction of his work at all. I think it's pseudo-literature for people who, to coin a phrase, 'don't know much about it but know what they like'.

(Prepare for a roasting, Lear... )

*I* won't roast you, just a light flame-grilling perhaps... On the mythology point - Tolkien was very enamoured of Old Norse mythology, the Finnish epic "Kalevala" and such things, and he found that English offered no real parallels other than "Beowulf". When he was pointing out that the work wasn't an allegory, he was talking about the point that had been made that the entire series was an allegory of WWII - Sauron=Hitler, etc...next point - Tolkien was an acknowledged authority on the history of the English language, tracing the roots back as far as he could, and was especially fond of Old Mercian, a 'dialect' of English that was overrun by the more influential West-Saxon. Whether you happen to like his usage of English, as evidenced by his particular style, is another matter entirely...

An acknowledged *authority* on the English language, yes of course. Not necessarily an acknowledged *master* of it, though. I'm not denigrating Tolkein's immense learning - don't get me wrong. But, just as an historian of ideas is not necessarily a great philosopher, there's no necessary connection between knowledge of literature and literary ability...

Very true, but the question of literary ability is very much a subjective one - not only insofar as what you happen to like, but which particular categories you choose to be the most important in deciding any authors literary merit. I was just clearing up a few facts, I'm not about to argue against anyones particular opinions about what they do and don't like...

Well, not quite the roasting I expected when I started this thread last night

I'm glad I've finally met people who agree with me that LOTR is boring. No mention has been made yet of the characterisation issue I raised, though. As I read LOTR I try to guess who's saying what before I read who actually did say it, and I just can't. Personalities are sorely lacking...

Well I haven't read it for years, and it is on my list of things to re-read.

Remember when it was written - during the war when there was a fight for the very survival of England and Englishness (both much clearer concepts then than now). And it was one of the first fantasys for adults, wonderful clear escapism during the war. (Yes, "Lilith" and "The Worm Oroborous" were published first, and if you think Tolkein is boring you will definitley hate "Oroborous").

My gripe with most fantasy is that the evil characters are so very clearly evil. IRL bad people usually beleive that they are good. The more charismatic and powerful they are, the more firmly they beleive that they are good. Think missionaries, think crusaders, think nazis, think Judas. They all thought that they were doing the right thing.

So yes - on balance I agree with you about the characterisation.

Try the Wizard of Earthsea (Ursula K LeGuin) for something a tad more developed on good and evil. And I am reading The Dark Materials trilogy (Philip Pullman) at the moment, which looks as if it will produce baddies with some interesting motivations.

On 'evil' characters - fair enough, Sauron is by and large "pure" evil; there is another aspect to his character which is explored a bit more in the Silmarillion, but in LotR Sauron is just evil...but what of Saruman? Saruman is of the same order, the Maia, as Gandalf though of a higher rank. Saruman isn't evil, just deluded; he truely believes that the world would be a better place if he had the ring and was able to rule in Saurons place. Tolkien makes it very clear that there is only the most slender of differences between Saruman and Gandalf. And what of Boromir? He is the quintessential "good man swayed by power" - he too believes that he can make things right, if only he could have the ring and put it to good use. Then there's Gollum - neither good nor evil, and Gollum is the crux upon which the story rests. I won't deny that there is a strong moral line drawn in the sand - but Tolkien very often draws attention to the fact that that line is very, very subjective indeed.

'don't know much about it but know what they like'. quoth Lear!


Unfortunately I think you'll find that most people who are actual fans of JRR Tolkien do know quite a lot about it. I think that statement can be backed by quite a few of the posts in here.

It did make the top ten in the millenium list for books...
It may actually be number 1.
50 million elvis fans can't be wrong.
eh...

As fantasy worlds go, I would say there are those of us who like detailed...(almost to a neurotic point.) depscriptions, and there are those of us who like more simplistic ones. I dig both.

I for one, don't think he was overboard. A huge part of his life work was Middle Earth and the Silmarils. That is quite a respectable "life work" if you ask me. It's another thing to keep in mind while reading it. It's hard to believe that one man's hand created it. (for me atleast )

~Imal

One ring to bring them all...

When I said 'don't know much about it' I meant 'don't know much about literature'. Obviously, Tolkein enthusiasts tend to know their chosen subject pretty well - Middle Earth comprises a virtual reality that it's probably very easy to escape into and get completely lost in. But there's a difference between an enjoyable hobby and serious scholarship.

To develop the point further, I disagree with Cthulhu's suggestion that evaluation of literary value is inevitably subjective. Yes, there is a subjective element in art which tends to be more pronounced than in the sciences. But there is an informal 'canon' of 'great' writing which has evolved over the years, and works are added to or subtracted from this in an ongoing process, according to consensus arrived at through debate. In other words, evaluating literary quality is, at heart, a *rational* process which involves in-depth knowledge and understanding, and which - like any other specialised activity - is best carried out by people who know what they are doing.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that people can't read whatever they like, and enjoy whatever they like. We all enjoy being entertained, and we all need a little bit of escapism in our lives. Just don't confuse twee sentimentalism with great literature, that's all.

(Still waiting for that roasting... )

Lear said:

"Yes, there is a subjective element in art which tends to be more pronounced than in the sciences. But there is an informal 'canon' of 'great' writing which has evolved over the years, and works are added to or subtracted from this in an ongoing process, according to consensus arrived at through debate. In other words, evaluating literary quality is, at heart, a *rational* process which involves in-depth knowledge and understanding, and which - like any other specialised activity - is best carried out by people who know what they are doing."

Crap. There is not a single person in this world who has the right to say what's good or bad. I say that LOTR is rubbish, but that doesn't mean it is. Equally, if Arthur C Clarke says that a book by, say, Isaac Asimov is rubbish, does that make it so?

subjective subjective subjective.

The Lord of the Rings is ALREADY included in the informal 'canon" of 'great writing'. And i fear that it will be included atleast for the next few hundred years (hopefully we'll be plowed thru for a galactic superhighway by then) , as there is not an overwhelming supply of brilliance in the modern world of literature these days to replace it or make such a brilliant work fade.
With that subjectivity goes down the toilet, SO get used to it, Lord of the Rings is already the inevitable base of fantasy and is plagiarized quite intensely by most of our favorite fantasy authors.

Does majority rule on this? As HUW said, not one person in this world has the right to judge what's good or bad. Does a populace...hah a consensus even have that right? I don't think so.

~imal

All I can say is anyone who thinks Lord of the Rings is in the canon of great literature hasn't studied a great deal of literature...

actully almost every single revew of a fantasy book compers it to tolken I mean every fantisy book I have has things like "the Best since Tolken" or "this is a work to rivel the lord of the rings" peopl have alreddy decidded that it is one of the definative fantasy books and it will stay there...just bewcayuse people like me think it is patheticaly boring has got nothing todo with it...

Well said. I also put it to you, Lear, that your last post is STILL your opinion and carries no weight whatsoever with anyone who has their own mind.

Look, I didn't start this thread to cause an argument, I just wanted to know why LOTR is considered to be a great work. Can we all just stay on topic please?