Originally posted by Beyond_the_Veil I quite agree with the fact that LOTR was, most of the time, a complete drag. It took me quite a while to finish the first book because Tolkien provided excessive details and dragged on the story for like... ever. But i quite liked it. I love fantasy and even though LOTR had far too much information for me to take in easily, i enjoyed the experience. The plot was very interesting for me. So i read on.
It wasn't just the fact that the book was so unevenly paced and badly edited that bothered me (though, the excruciatingly slow parts did nothing other than reaffirm my belief aabout Tolkien's writing abilities). It was more the fact that I felt the book wasn't very well-written to begin with - to repeat what I'd said before about LoTR: Filling pages upon pages about the green grass of Middle Earth doesn't reflect extraordinary writing capability. If anything at all, it goes on to show how lost, moralistic, and affected his work was. It's no surprise that various other modern authors are now 'copying' his plot but retelling his story in a much better way. Tolkien does seem to have a powerful imagination - but somehow, his work in LoTR came more across as an encyclopedia than anything else. And if I wanted to read an encyclopedic type of material, I would have searched for it; not gone for a novel.
But then, I am not 'into' the fantasy genre, really. I love HP to death, but I love that series more for its characters and less for the plot that surrounds them. Somehow I had never been able to warm up to the fantasy genre, and I think, if you aren't all that into it, it's somewhat more difficult to devour a fantasy book when you are an adult than it is when you are a child. Probably someone who is into the fantasy genre will find something enjoyable in that book. But as far 'novelistic' aspects are concerned, it's an absolute disaster. Strictly IMO, but I have tried to give reasons in its favor.
And if LoTR is any indication of Tolkien's overall writing, I'm not picking up another book of Tolkien again. Such bad pacing, ponderous and pretentious prose, underdeveloped characters aren't my thing.
Gollum gets the vote for being the most entertaining and intriguing element in this otherwise borefest.
Sorry, if my post comes off as offensive. I am a straight shooter actually.
I have never read any M&B stories. Believe me, i didn't... ever. Infact, love stories aren't really my thing you know. But i did read one when I was about thirteen, i guess. It was called the twilight saga. Yeah, i read it when I was thirteen. I'm still shudder to think about it again. OH GOD.
Don't even mention Twilight to me. Not just bad writing, but also vehemently sexist and misogynistic too.
I've heard too much about gone with the wind to read it. I was tempted once, but i didn't. Good thinking, i guess because i don't like protagonists who are obnoxious, whiny and/or pathetic.
Please don't. I have never met a more obnoxious, self-centric, narrow-minded, a$$-brained protagonist before. Worst of all is the fact that, throughout the course of the almost 1000 pages the book has to offer, the main character doesn't change one bit. And any book - especially one that is so utterly long and is about such an utterly flawed character - without proper character development is poor, in my opinion.