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

jwf, I most definitely did *not* mean pretentious. This is what I meant:
Main Entry: por·ten·tous
Pronunciation: por-'ten-t&s, pOr-
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a portent
2 : eliciting amazement or wonder : PRODIGIOUS
3 a : being a grave or serious matter b : self-consciously solemn or important : POMPOUS c : ponderously excessive

Particularly the third interpretation.

Getting pedantic with me is a dangerous business...

I read a lot of phrases such as 'boring', 'slow going' and 'tedious' here. There must be something wrong with me (don't say it ). The last time I read the Lord of the Rings it took me two days. I personally find it as marvellously paced book. But then I think the difference between me and those who posted the above is that I like it and they don't.
I am glad Huw, that you do acknowledge it as a classic because as Imaldris said, it most certainly is and is widely acknowledged to be. Virtually everything in fantasy is compared to it and it was indeed number one book of the twentieth century as voted by Waterstone readers last year. Not that that is a criterion for being a classic but I dare say that those who voted didn't find it boring. If you look on my homepage there is a link to the website for the New film trilogy that is coming out over the next three years. According to a friend at work the trailer sneak preview was at one point the most downloaded file on the internet. This doesn't strike me as being the sign of a boring book. The films will be huge (assuming they're done well) just as the book is huge - although probably less so.

As to characterisation, seeing as nobody seems to want to talk about it. Frodo and Samwise are probably the only characters where there is any development of character, this is true. Even with them, there is little in the way of it really. This is because the book is written in a very archaic style, just as the real legends and myths of the earth are. Try finding good characterisation of Odysseus or Achilles in the Iliad. If you are looking to find character development in LotR then you are going to be disappointed but I don't see why that makes it a bad book. I would seriously reccomend that you *don't* read the Silmarillion as there is far less in that. That really is written in an extremely archaic style. Several of the characters are described as 'the most valiant of the children of the world' or 'the most beautiful of the children of the world' or the ' tallest of the children of Iluvatar'. The book goes hand in glove with LotR but is inconsistent within itself as Tolkein himself never finshed it. Again I consider it a work of brilliance but that is purely my own opinion.
As to character development someone else mentioned above they could read Jordan's Wheel of Time series in three days. You serious????!!!!! There are nine books of average length around 800 pages, you can read more than 2000 pages a day? Phew, I bow down to you. Anyway, I slagged it off a bit before but in fact I do *really* like it. My only criticisms are that the baddies are likeable and a bit toothless and also that character development is taken a bit too far in it. Far too much time is taken with introspection of various characters and their moods and peculiarities. It used to be a fast paced series, I read the first six in a matter of weeks but now its pace has dropped off to its detriment. Admittedly, having to wait two years between books in this never-ending series has highlighted such problems in my book.

LotR, a classic in my eyes. If you don't like it, fair enough but don't come up with pseudo-reasons why it must be crap (I'm not talking about you Huw here - you have come up with much more reasnable comments here than some). There are many books that encompass many areas of taste. I tried reading War and Peace once and found that tedious - doesn't mean it isn't a classic. Stemphen King and John Grisham don't do anything for me but they are still world wide best selling authors.

Live and let live. Peace

Orcus (a dark demon on his dark throne )

I for one enjoy the rich descripive passages and think that they constitute one of the truly marvellous things about the LoTR. It is simply great to wallow in the lengthy desriptions which Tolkien (a master wordsmith) conjures for the reader. I wish that more modern writers would aspire to this level of descriptiveness.
Perhaps the advent of cartoons, VR, fantasy movies etc have begun to condition us to expect and enjoy only the fast moving, whizz-bang stuff these days.
The action passages in LoTR may be few and far between but those that there are all very well written and exciting enough.

As for characterisation, OK, it is a little bit thin when compared to other (more modern) books but, for me, that is not at all important in stories of this type. (I also happen to love ACClarke books and he is quite well known for being pretty poor at charaterisation). Some readers demand in depth characters, some don't.

My 2 young boys loved listening to the The Hobbit and have now got me to start on the LoTR and are so far enjoying it immensely and have never been bored at all. I am so glad that they asked as I am loving the rereading, myself.

For some people, no doubt, the LoTR will be worthless rubbish but they will appreciate other kinds of story which employ different methods to engage the readers attention, I guess.

Personally, I would have thought it's the kind of book that might not work terribly well as a film (or TV series) for people that had read it and liked it, as much of the value for those people would be in the imagination.
I thought the BBC radio dramatisation did work very well, but radio is often much closer to the spirit of a book, and often uses people chosen purely for their vocal acting ability, rather than partially due to their fame or looks. (I felt similarly about the hictchhiker's guide, even though they *did* use most of the same actors on TV).

Ian Holm who was in the radio dramatisation is in the film too. I think (without checking) that he plays either Gandalf or Theoden.
I hope I'm not too much of a purist, but I am a little sceptical as to the merits of making a film but I *will* give it a chance.

Personally, I can't wait for the film, as I'm sure (if nothing else) it will be an amazing spectacle, and the likes of McKellen and Holm are usually darned good.

I *do* love LotR, but I'd never describe it as the best book ever. I read it in 4 days when I was 11. Having had to read loads of medieval literature at uni (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in particular - Tolkien's translation and interpretation of which is still the accepted authoritative version), I now... what'd be the right word... _respect_ LotR as part of an intentionally-medieval tradition of literature. If you think repeated description of people drawing swords etc is dull, read the Morte D'Arthur. This could be described as the first 'novel', as it was written in the prose vernacular for the common man, and details a fantasy setting. But it is very, very dull in the battle scenes, which last for pages and pages and detail very little other than stuff like 'Gaheris did passyng goode, and unhorsed Pellinore, and there was much marvellynge. Pellinore did passynge goode, and unhorsed Bors, and there was much marvellynge. Bors did...' etc etc etc.

Give me LotR any day.

I don't think Frodo and Sam are the only characters developped.What about Aragorn? And Gandalf. And if you read a little bit between the lines, you'll notice Galadriel was very important to Tolkien. Read her farewell song. If you read well, you'll see her own apprehension of what the West shall answer. And what about the successive temptings of the characters with the Ring. Is that not a deep sight into their personnality?

These details, of which too many people are already unaware in their reading, will be even more difficult to perceive if a film is made,and yet they're all very meaningful, and all these omissions shall lead to a miscomprehension.


chocolate anyone?

I always enjoyed the Hobbit, but could not get into LotR. In fact, I had many of the same complaints - too much description, nothing happens. Then I read it aloud to my kids. Enjoyed it thoroughly. Are there reading-aloud books and reading-silently books, or does it just have to do with the readers?

Reading aloud is the right one!!

Yehoow!!



Share your readings with everyone. Read aloud in the bus, in the tube, and on the streets!!!

hermm
sorry


Anyway my mother used to read me the Lord of the Rings, quite a time ago, and since then I fell into it...

I have to disagree with the point somebody raised about the Ring temptings being character development/insight. If memory serves, they were for the most part simply tempted to put on the Ring to escape danger - but they resisted. Is it just me or is that not a lot of characterisation?
One exception though - Gollum. I forgot about him. His character is, conversely, remarkably well developed and in my opinion a good example of the psychology of temptation and addiction.

Also, I'd like to say thank you to Orcus for adding a well-balanced argument and for finally getting the ball rolling on the characterisation issue

A few points:

1. The Lord of the Rings is considered to be a great work. In a survey of readers in Waterstones bookshop, it was voted the best book of the 20th century.

2. TLOTR was for many years my own favourite book. I would not consider it a great work of literature, but it is a very enjoyable read.

3. Although Tolkien's main interest was in legends, myths and ancient poetry, TLOTR was his attempt to write a book with a story that people would read.

4. The story is a simple one, with not too many twists in the plot, some disgusting baddies that everyone can hate, some magic, some sadness and plenty of heroism. In other words, most of the elements of a great book.

5. The story lacks any large attempt at characterisation. Most characters are fairly one-dimensional: this is the good guy, that's the cross guy and so on.

6. The slightly archaic English language used can be a pain for someone who is not well read.

7. There are no real women in TLOTR. This is a major flaw, but reflects the bachelor-style life that Tolkien himself lived, spending all his time with other "intellectuals" in Oxford.

I dont know about boring but it is frigging expensive - fifteen quid - still, it will while away the hours, and I'll let you know if it was boring sometime next month, I guess.

Reiterations, personal opinions being passed off as facts, blah blah blah...
I think this thread's died at last

To what or whom are you referring?

I was under the impression that this whole thread was based on "personal opinions being passed off as facts". Let's face it, what is literary criticism if it is not based on personal opinion? The important thing is to refrain from prejudice, by which I mean contributing or reacting to a critical argument with preconceived ideas (eg saying 'Tolkien isn't boring' without considering if it could be interpreted as the opposite).

However, I don't think that reports of this topic's death have been greatly exaggerated at all...

Huw,

It appears that it was my post that you consider to be "personal opinions passed off as facts". It is a fact that "TLOTR is considered to be a great work", which is what I said. The rest of it I never claimed was true.

If you say "the Lord of the Rings is boring", you don't have to say "I think" before it, because of course it is only your opinion. You can't prove it is boring unless you do a scientific study with lots of willing volunteers, monitoring their brain waves, yawn rate and so on.

You asked the question, why is it considered a great work. What did you expect, facts?

Ah, paranoia...
Actually, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular - there have been genuinely inane posts in this thread, though.
I was just a bit miffed that people seem to think that their opinions ARE facts. Reading between the lines, people have been saying things like "LOTR can't be boring because I say so...etc". I wanted a friendly discussion as to why LOTR is so popular - no more, no less.

Sorry if I've offended anyone, but I think there have been a lot more provocative posts than mine in this thread

Huw,

I am slow to take offence. I just thought that since only one major post had been made in the last 22 hours and that was mine, you must have been commenting on it.

Taste is a matter of opinion and it obviously shouldn't worry anyone if someone else disagrees with them on a matter of taste.

Gnomon

Huw, this comment is kindly meant. I know from my own experience that when you start a thread you feel a sense of responsibility for it - especially if you asked a question you really want the answer to - but after sheep-dogging a couple of threads of my own I decided to letting other researchers do and say what they liked was simpler, and in fact a bit more interesting. I have unsubscribed from some of my own threads as a result, which is a shame.


Well fifteen quid IS expensive for a paperback, whatever way you look at it.

IMHO

agcB

The remark about "no real woman" did it for me!!
Kill the thing Huw.
Quickly and painlessly (if that's possible).

Yes I think Gnomon articulated the 'Oxford bachelor/intellectual' bit better than I did. Mine got *****ed, and I thank him for making the point. BTW is 'sod' short for 'sodomist'?