# Problems with non LOTR readers...



## James_SentellFOTR (Jan 18, 2021)

So, Lord Of The Rings have been my favorite novel since I was 6. I read them every year or so and my family, friends, and even acquaintances usually say the same thing... "why"?

I usually go through a lengthy explanation, and I always end it with recommending it. Then they continue to state that they do not enjoy the writing style for the book. I find that one of the most annoying comments about LOTR is that it uses "old timey english", like Shakespearean (which obviously does not).

The most popular quote as of late is Gandalf (in FOTR) stating “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” (clearly not Shakespearean...)

So what are some other common excuses for people not wanting to read this novel that you guys have heard?


----------



## Starbrow (Jan 18, 2021)

The most common excuse I have heard is that it is too long.


----------



## James_SentellFOTR (Jan 18, 2021)

Starbrow said:


> The most common excuse I have heard is that it is too long.


Yes! Very common, very annoying.


----------



## Licky Linguist (Jan 18, 2021)

Most people say they don’t have the time to. That’s not a problem, just that they’re missing out on a lot.

My classmates (from four or five years ago, when I first attempted LotR, and brought it to school), abandoned it on the first few sentences, saying the text was difficult to read. I still don’t know whether the text was too small, or the writing was difficult to understand, but the first chapter seemed one of the most easy to me (and others incredibly hard to get through, at that age).


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 19, 2021)

From what I've read, and seen reported on (quality) TV, reading of books generally has been on the decline for decades. Possibly the advent of Kindle and other e-book readers has slowed or even reversed this trend, at least in reading of book content. I don't recall any statements about this either way, but I may simply have missed them. While e-book readers certainly have some practical advantages, especially when travelling by air with those luggage weight restrictions, I still prefer a book to an e-reader (I don't own one).

One cause could well be a trend towards what might be called hyperactivity (that senseless zapping through TV channels, for example), and shortened attention spans. Something that has definitely been noted in studies on the effects of what one could call "small-screen media" (even "tiny-screen" in the case of "smart-" phones), beginning way back with TV, which also found some far more worrisome trends. Claims to the contrary by the TV and IT industries, game developers among the latter being most prominent, are quite bluntly bald-faced lies.


----------



## James_SentellFOTR (Jan 19, 2021)

Licky Linguist said:


> Most people say they don’t have the time to. That’s not a problem, just that they’re missing out on a lot.
> 
> My classmates (from four or five years ago, when I first attempted LotR, and brought it to school), abandoned it on the first few sentences, saying the text was difficult to read. I still don’t know whether the text was too small, or the writing was difficult to understand, but the first chapter seemed one of the most easy to me (and others incredibly hard to get through, at that age).





Olorgando said:


> From what I've read, and seen reported on (quality) TV, reading of books generally has been on the decline for decades.


Yes, and it's really quite depressing. I was always raised, especially by my grandparents, that books and reading are incredibly important. 

When I was 13 I got a kindle as a surprise gift... I used it for 10 minutes then gave it to my older brother (who doesnt like to read). Reading makes most things easier. Public transport, road trips, hard/lonely days. I really hope it makes a comeback...


----------



## 1stvermont (Jan 19, 2021)

James_SentellFOTR said:


> So, Lord Of The Rings have been my favorite novel since I was 6. I read them every year or so and my family, friends, and even acquaintances usually say the same thing... "why"?
> 
> I usually go through a lengthy explanation, and I always end it with recommending it. Then they continue to state that they do not enjoy the writing style for the book. I find that one of the most annoying comments about LOTR is that it uses "old timey english", like Shakespearean (which obviously does not).
> 
> ...



too long.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Jan 25, 2021)

I'll admit I find stretches of Fellowship to be a bit of a slog early on, but other than that, it's all gripping!

I'm thirty, and can say my generation has overall, the collective attention span of a pack of squirrels on crack. It's a common joke that millennials only read books when assigned them in school (which lasts till 35 now, or seems to). I remember being in high school, last couple of years, and I'd openly read Shakespeare in class because what was assigned was so dull and pedestrian. It's funny; if you were texting they'd bust you, but with what I was doing, they left me alone.


----------



## James_SentellFOTR (Jan 25, 2021)

Sir Eowyn said:


> I'll admit I find stretches of Fellowship to be a bit of a slog early on, but other than that, it's all gripping!
> 
> I'm thirty, and can say my generation has overall, the collective attention span of a pack of squirrels on crack. It's a common joke that millennials only read books when assigned them in school (which lasts till 35 now, or seems to). I remember being in high school, last couple of years, and I'd openly read Shakespeare in class because what was assigned was so dull and pedestrian. It's funny; if you were texting they'd bust you, but with what I was doing, they left me alone.


Yes! When we would have free time in classes, people would always just go on their phones. I would always have a book open, and even if I forgot one (for some reason) I'd still watch a YouTube video or something about LOTR or other books that I love.


----------



## ArnorianRanger (Jan 25, 2021)

In talking with those accustomed to such things as Harry Potter and the Peter Jackson movies, a repeated argument I have heard is that the _Lord of the Rings_ just isn't magical or exciting enough. Doubtless untrue, but the fact that Gandalf doesn't up and burn up the Orc armies with some magical blue flame or mutter dangerous spells at every predicament is just too much of a thrill-killer for many apparently, even when an attempt is made to explain_ why_ he doesn't do that.

Thanks,

ArnorianRanger


----------



## Barliman (Jan 26, 2021)

ArnorianRanger said:


> ...the fact that Gandalf doesn't up and burn up the Orc armies with some magical blue flame or mutter dangerous spells at every predicament is just too much of a thrill-killer for many apparently, even when an attempt is made to explain_ why_ he doesn't do that.


Maybe try saying he's more like Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid, if they saw that. His "purpose" is more as a guide to allow the people of the 3rd Age to overcome Sauron, rather than as a savior like Harry Potter.

I will say that both of my sons who really liked Harry Potter liked the LoTR books.

I will say that when I first read LoTR around 1968 it took me a year to get through the FOTR. LOL


----------



## Aramarien (Jan 27, 2021)

My mother was an avid reader, but refused to read LOTR because she thought it was "fairy tales", no matter how hard I tried to explain to her that there's a huge difference between fairy tales and "high fantasy". This was many, many years ago. I did convince her to read the Sil's Ainulindalë, which she thoroughly enjoyed, but she would not read LOTR.
As for other people, I usually got the response that they didn't like to read, or didn't like that genre, or that they started LOTR, but couldn't get into it. 

The funny thing is that I read The Hobbit in 8th grade because everyone else in the class had started reading it and it became a class thing to make jokes and references to the book. ( It was NOT asssigned!!) I fell in love with the book and couldn't wait to read LOTR. The first chapter of LOTR was written not long after The Hobbit was written and the tone is similar until it becomes more mature as the book goes on. It's a good transition from one book to another. 

I wonder if that first chapter of LOTR for people who did not read "The Hobbit" might seem a little light or childish? It's hard to be objective about that after all these years.


----------



## Olorgando (Jan 27, 2021)

Aramarien said:


> I wonder if that first chapter of LOTR for people who did not read "The Hobbit" might seem a little light or childish? It's hard to be objective about that after all these years.


Perhaps those by now accustomed to the hack 'n' slash action getting underway from the word go, perhaps conditioned by the "Conan" genre (I'm guessing here; I don't think I ever saw any of the Arnie films or any others entirely - this would be on TV, I certainly never saw any in the cinema; and I certainly haven't read the books) think they've picked up the wrong book. Now I've hardly read any (high) fantasy besides JRRT's works, so I have to ask: has any other book ever made something like this shift in tone from TH to The Sil and (partially) back again?


----------



## Ealdwyn (Feb 2, 2021)

Aramarien said:


> I wonder if that first chapter of LOTR for people who did not read "The Hobbit" might seem a little light or childish? It's hard to be objective about that after all these years.



It is light though, through most of book 1. I always feel that the tone doesn't get serious until Bree. Up until then, even with the Nazgul and the Barrow wights and everything else, it still feels like a Hobbit holiday.


----------



## Shadow (Feb 11, 2021)

Starbrow said:


> The most common excuse I have heard is that it is too long.


This is the most common excuse.

The length for me is a positive. I enjoy taking my time with any book, reading a bunch of chapters a day and digesting what I’ve read. If a book is good you shouldn’t want it to end.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee (May 31, 2021)

What I've encountered way too many times are these three things:
- It's too long/I don't have the time.​- the language is too complicated.​- too long-winded and dramatic.​Makes me mad, these reasons! I do think there can be no excuse to not reading the literature written by the father of fantasy.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (May 31, 2021)

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> What I've encountered way too many times are these three things:
> - It's too long/I don't have the time.​- the language is too complicated.​- too long-winded and dramatic.​Makes me mad, these reasons! I do think there can be no excuse to not reading the literature written by the father of fantasy.


Yeah, I don't know what they expect from a book... I mean, I've heard those arguments too, and the ones I heard them from aren't exactly reading Hemingway. It's not a pared-down style they're after, it seems to be one that can just be digested without having to pay much attention. Best I can answer there.

But hey, some just aren't that appreciative of books deep down... yes, even when they try to be. Ah, well.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee (Jun 1, 2021)

Sir Eowyn said:


> But hey, some just aren't that appreciative of books deep down... yes, even when they try to be. Ah, well.


I'll never understand them, though. Sadly. Or not so sadly.


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 1, 2021)

JRRT himself basically provided the answer in the "Foreword to the Second Edition":

"Some who have read the book, *or at any rate have reviewed it*, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

Now this was mainly a broadside against whining reviewers; that "or any rate have reviewed it" is true of quite a few books. Seems some people don't mind running off at the mouth (or pen or typewriter or ...) despite not knowing what they're talking about. One form of mental diarrhea.

But as to people preferring other reading (one early review predicted "the severely practical will have no use for it"), well, there's no sense arguing about personal taste. It's the matter-of-principle aversion to reading, especially books, that Sir Eowyn is probably referring to, that I find sad, and not a little troubling.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 1, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> "Some who have read the book, *OR* at any rate have reviewed it,


I particularly like the "or", implying that those who have reviewed it negatively have not necessarily read it in the frst place! 😂


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 1, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> I particularly like the "or", implying that those who have reviewed it negatively have not necessarily read it in the frst place! 😂


Some have, when pressed by others off-the-air (say in elevators), actually confessed to never having read it. 😈


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Jun 1, 2021)

Starbrow said:


> The most common excuse I have heard is that it is too long.


That's the common excuse for all novels, I can't agree with you more.


----------



## Radaghast (Jun 7, 2021)

This thread reminds me of comments made about the book by Philip Pullman, author of the _His Dark Materials _trilogy, who has seemingly taken every possible opportunity to blast the book, calling it 'thin stuff' and complaining there isn't anything sexual in the book as well as that there are 'no strong women characters'.

I think we can agree the complaints are silly or just wrong. The main problem with them is the fact that Pullman hasn't read the book since he was a teenager (he's said he's tried but was unable to get through it). So, we're supposed to respect this guy's opinion on something he hasn't read in _decades_? When I first watched the movies, I hadn't read the book in over ten years so I naively accepted at least some of what I saw as being faithful to the source. I reread the book immediately after watching RotK and was shocked at how much I misremembered and how much the films got wrong. As a fan of the work, my memory was bad after only maybe 15 years. Could you expect a detractor of the work to honestly appraise the book after a much longer period of not reading it?

So, yeah, Pullman can pull it.

A couple of links that bash Pullman for his silly, and _uninformed,_ opinion of _The Lord of the Rings_.

Yelling at the Clouds: Philip Pullman on Tolkien and Lewis

The Silver Key: Happy birthday to JRR Tolkien; jeers to Philip Pullman

A quote from the first link that made me chuckle, so I'm sharing it here:



> (Speaking of implicit stuff… does Pullman really need a blow-by-blow account to understand that Faramir and Eowyn are in a sexual relationship, or what Aragorn and Arwen do on their Wedding Night, or that Sam Gamgee bangs Rosie Cotton?).


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 7, 2021)

Interesting link, Radaghast. But I had never even heard of Philip Pullman before today. The thing is, in the well over 1,000 books we own, the ones I bought are overwhelmingly non-fiction. Practically the only exceptions are Arthur C. Clarke (the Space Odyssey and Rama quadrilogies, mainly), Paul Harding (Pen Name of Paul C. Doherty for those two book series playing in the early and late 14th century that were translated into German), and Douglas Adams ... and JRRT is in that way a huge anomaly. If I count multiples (4 versions of The Hobbit) my library must have passed 90 books by now. Oh wait, I forgot C.S. Lewis's Cosmic Trilogy, which I have in a one-volume edition.


----------



## Radaghast (Jun 7, 2021)

Interesting. I haven't done much reading of books of any kind, sadly, in recent years. Have to develop the habit again, just to get my brain moving again.

Re: Pullman, for _His Dark Materials a_ film franchise was attempted with _The Golden Compass_, starring Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman but it failed miserably. There's a HDM series on HBO but I'm not sure how popular it is.

Anyway, Pullman is outspokenly anti-Catholic, and his book series reflects that, but Nicole Kidman is Catholic and refused to do the part if it meant going against her religion.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Jun 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> Re: Pullman, for _His Dark Materials a_ film franchise was attempted with _The Golden Compass_, starring Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman but it failed miserably. There's a HDM series on HBO but I'm not sure how popular it is.


I watched it, it's not awful but there's definitely better fantasy and sci-fi out there. Haven't bothered to read the books.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> A quote from the first link that made me chuckle, so I'm sharing it here:





> (Speaking of implicit stuff… does Pullman really need a blow-by-blow account to understand that Faramir and Eowyn are in a sexual relationship, or what Aragorn and Arwen do on their Wedding Night, or that Sam Gamgee bangs Rosie Cotton?).


 
Has he not heard of fanfiction? 😂


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> Re: Pullman, for _His Dark Materials a_ film franchise was attempted with _The Golden Compass_, starring Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman but it failed miserably. There's a HDM series on HBO but I'm not sure how popular it is.


I've seen the series adaptations of the first two books, which were shown here on BBC. I enjoyed them, although they're strictly in the family viewing category. 
That said, I've never read the HDM books, so may be they weren't true adaptations.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> but it failed miserably


I don't know if I'd go so far -- the box office doubled the cost -- and it did much better outside the US than domestically. It apparently confused a lot of people who hadn't read the books, and disappointed many who had. I'd read them, and enjoyed the film for what it was. But then, I admit to not being nearly as emotionally or intellectually invested in them as I am in Tolkien.

As for the books, they're an interesting experiment in interrogating -- to use a modern critical buzzword -- traditional fantasy tropes. Among other things, of course. I'd say they do that more successfully than GRRM managed. But perhaps that's a matter of taste.

I haven't seen the series.


----------



## Radaghast (Jun 7, 2021)

I read the first book but don't remember anything except the daemons and the armored polar bears.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 7, 2021)

Ah, the Panserbjorne -- a great creation!



As a miniatures player, I really want some of those. As a matter of fact, I asked a maker, known for his whimsical figures, to sculpt some; unfortunately, he refused, because he "doesn't like polar bears".


----------



## Radaghast (Jun 7, 2021)

LOL. Strange. But you could always ask him to sculpt a brown bear and paint it white 

I've painted quite a few minis and have thought about sculpting my own but I'm not quite nearly there yet. There would likely be a lot of trial and error.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> Strange


Well, he's a bit eccentric, as he'd be the first to admit.



I now see someone else has made some armored bears, but I'll post them in the Games forum -- I think I've gone OT enough here.😁


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> A quote from the first link that made me chuckle, so I'm sharing it here:
> 
> 
> > (Speaking of implicit stuff… does Pullman really need a blow-by-blow account to understand that Faramir and Eowyn are in a sexual relationship, or what Aragorn and Arwen do on their Wedding Night, or that Sam Gamgee bangs Rosie Cotton?).


Regarding that last item, I just have to turn to Appendix C "Family Trees" _{Baggins, Took, Brandybuck, Sam}_, "The Longfather-Tree of Master Samwise".
Sam and Rose's descendants go wall-to-wall in landscape format, 13 in all (passing the Old Took by one), from Elanor the Fair in 1421 SR to Tolman (Tom) in 1442, at which time Sam was 62 and Rose 58. What does this tell us about one of their favorite hobbies?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 7, 2021)

As the "bad" side is associated with winter and sterility, the "good" side is associated with spring and fertility.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 7, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> Regarding that last item, I just have to turn to Appendix C "Family Trees" _{Baggins, Took, Brandybuck, Sam}_, "The Longfather-Tree of Master Samwise".
> Sam and Rose's descendants go wall-to-wall in landscape format, 13 in all (passing the Old Took by one), from Elanor the Fair in 1421 SR to Tolman (Tom) in 1442, at which time Sam was 62 and Rose 58. What does this tell us about one of their favorite hobbies?


As I've said before, there's not a lot else to do in the Shire of an evening.


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 7, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> As I've said before, there's not a lot else to do in the Shire of an evening.


I dunno ... they seem to have *plenty* of pubs ...


----------



## Ealdwyn (Jun 7, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> I dunno ... they seem to have *plenty* of pubs ...


But what do you do after the pubs close?


----------



## Olorgando (Jun 7, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> But what do you do after the pubs close?


Point made - for the British Isles, which had something like an 11 PM curfew for a long time. Though in my early-1990's vacation in Ireland, I noticed that there were endless possibilities of circumvention. And here in Germany, there were some few pubs that stayed open *way* after midnight - serving, IIRC, some of the people who did duty in the other pubs, many of which also stayed open well after midnight (one of which a couple of my buddies and I have fond, if somewhat dim memories of).


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee (Jun 7, 2021)

Radaghast said:


> that there are 'no strong women characters'.


Wait seriously? He says that? Like, what about Eowyn, Idril, Luthien, Arwen? Rosie Cotton - even! Eowyn literally kills the creature no man can kill. Idril leads many people through dangerous tunnels. Luthien faces off the Lord of Evil! Arwen is a homemaker (why aren't they considered strong?). Rosie openly defies Saruman in the last chapters of LotR.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Jun 7, 2021)

Look at any reader review website (e.g. Library Thing or Goodreads) and you see a wide range of star ratings for most books.
There's no accounting for taste.


----------



## Halasían (Jun 8, 2021)

James_SentellFOTR said:


> So what are some other common excuses for people not wanting to read this novel that you guys have heard?


"I dont like reading."
"I don't know how to read."


----------



## Velotor (Jul 16, 2021)

I think it`s also the lack of interest of some people.I have seen many people being mildly interested when the topic came up, but after that not caring about it at all. Though I read it in German, which tbh i think makes the english version a bit more complex + more pages, I found it quite readable and was fascinated by Tolkien`s way of writing. I have also seen some people, who have only watched the movies and haven`t felt the necessity to read the books, which is a pity, because the film is based off of the book and there are so many events and details that were left out in the movies.(Though the movies, in my opinion are quite good too  ). The statement about the length shouldn`t scare people away from lotr, because you can just divide it in three fairly-readable-large books (part |, || and |||). Maybe to some people a few passages became "boring", which I think were passages, where Tolkien describes the landscape and the feelings of the scene for some pages, which is always followed by some big event. All in all I would always recommend it and encourage people to read it, also with help if needed. But after all high-fantasy is not for everyone...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jul 16, 2021)

True enough -- though fantasy seems to be a lot more "mainstream" today than it once was.

And welcome to the forum, Velotor! Don't forget our New Members thread, if you'd like to introduce yourself, and say something about your particular interests:









New Members


Meet and greet the newest TTF members. -- [ One thread per new member only! ] --




www.thetolkienforum.com





BTW, have you also read LOTR in English? I'd be interested in hearing how you compare versions. In fact, you might like to compare notes with Olorgando, who's read both.


----------



## Miguel (Jul 16, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> True enough -- though fantasy seems to be a lot more "mainstream" today than it once was.



A quick observation: I rarely watch tv, only the news; but every time i saw my brother or my sister watching a new show on stream (don't know what they were watching) i noticed the sound scores/effects and overall mood in them were incredibly depressing. I wouldn't mention it if it was just the case of one show or two but it was every time i saw them watching something in their laptops, I find this very odd.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Jul 17, 2021)

Yes, I think he... takes him a bit at the start, a bit much even for me. I mean, 17 years after Bilbo's party, then six months leaving the Shire, etc. The writing, line by line, is great, but structurally it IS a bit flabby. However...

The first half of Return of the King, the chapters "Minas Tirith" through "The Black Gate Opens," is some of the most concise and brilliant, superbly evocative writing I have ever read in my life. Every chapter's gold, they fit together perfectly, and... whoa. As I said, it all gathers steam. It's funny to me how Fellowship, the slightest of the books, makes by far the greatest film, and Return of the King, the opposite.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee (Jul 17, 2021)

Miguel said:


> A quick observation: I rarely watch tv, only the news; but every time i saw my brother or my sister watching a new show on stream (don't know what they were watching) i noticed the sound scores/effects and overall mood in them were incredibly depressing. I wouldn't mention it if it was just the case of one show or two but it was every time i saw them watching something in their laptops, I find this very odd.


I never watch TV or the news, but my both my grandfather and the oldest of my brothers do. And - comparing them - I think it depends on how a person consumes the information they receive. My grandfather sees it as an interesting, though sometimes boring, way to receive information. He takes it in quickly (he is known to be reading the news, listening to news, and explaining news at the same time), but does not care for it, not deeply.

My brother, on the other hand, sits before the laptop endlessly. He looks up news about everything, and knows a lot about what's happening in this world. But he looks utterly depressed while doing so, as he takes it deeply.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Jul 17, 2021)

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> I never watch TV or the news, but my both my grandfather and the oldest of my brothers do. And - comparing them - I think it depends on how a person consumes the information they receive. My grandfather sees it as an interesting, though sometimes boring, way to receive information. He takes it in quickly (he is known to be reading the news, listening to news, and explaining news at the same time), but does not care for it, not deeply.
> 
> My brother, on the other hand, sits before the laptop endlessly. He looks up news about everything, and knows a lot about what's happening in this world. But he looks utterly depressed while doing so, as he takes it deeply.



Yes, hum dinger, ain't it? It would be unwise to completely bury our heads in the sand... having said that, our whole modern fetish of constantly raking and poring over what goes on, well, does us no good. Isn't natural... it makes us live all over the place, anywhere but our actual spot.

Just read a quote from D. H. Lawrence, about those who go for politics: "Trying to talk to them is like trying for human relationships with the x in an algebraic equation."


----------



## Miguel (Jul 18, 2021)

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> I never watch TV or the news, but my both my grandfather and the oldest of my brothers do. And - comparing them - I think it depends on how a person consumes the information they receive. My grandfather sees it as an interesting, though sometimes boring, way to receive information. He takes it in quickly (he is known to be reading the news, listening to news, and explaining news at the same time), but does not care for it, not deeply.
> 
> My brother, on the other hand, sits before the laptop endlessly. He looks up news about everything, and knows a lot about what's happening in this world. But he looks utterly depressed while doing so, as he takes it deeply.





Sir Eowyn said:


> Yes, hum dinger, ain't it? It would be unwise to completely bury our heads in the sand... having said that, our whole modern fetish of constantly raking and poring over what goes on, well, does us no good. Isn't natural... it makes us live all over the place, anywhere but our actual spot.
> 
> Just read a quote from D. H. Lawrence, about those who go for politics: "Trying to talk to them is like trying for human relationships with the x in an algebraic equation."



Yes. There are much more interesting things to do


----------



## tomthehobbit (Jul 20, 2021)

I can remember trying to get my ex GF to read the books. All i would get is, "im not into that wierd stuff". 
Im sure you can guess why she is an ex now...


----------



## Akhôrahil (Jul 21, 2021)

tomthehobbit said:


> I can remember trying to get my ex GF to read the books. All i would get is, "im not into that wierd stuff".
> Im sure you can guess why she is an ex now...


You mean she did not call you "My precioussssss!" ;-)


----------



## Aukwrist (Aug 27, 2021)

ArnorianRanger said:


> In talking with those accustomed to such things as Harry Potter and the Peter Jackson movies, a repeated argument I have heard is that the _Lord of the Rings_ just isn't magical or exciting enough. Doubtless untrue, but the fact that Gandalf doesn't up and burn up the Orc armies with some magical blue flame or mutter dangerous spells at every predicament is just too much of a thrill-killer for many apparently, even when an attempt is made to explain_ why_ he doesn't do that.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ArnorianRanger


It may be significant that one of the main reasons that the Phantom Menace is unloved by many admirers of the Star Wars films, is, that it has a lot of council scenes. What this amounts to is, that people want lots of action scenes. They are not interested in ideas, and clearly do not find ideas important. 

I think Westerners in particular are so used to a strongly visual culture, full of motion, sensation, and change, that reading a book that does not cater to these sensations can be difficult and unwelcome, perhaps even alien. And for younger readers, there may be a culture shock.



Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> What I've encountered way too many times are these three things:
> - It's too long/I don't have the time.​- the language is too complicated.​- too long-winded and dramatic.​Makes me mad, these reasons! I do think there can be no excuse to not reading the literature written by the father of fantasy.



If “the language is too complicated”, then almost all English literature from “Sumer is a-cumen in” to Tolkien will be a closed book to them. 

And they will never learn that LOTR is *not* a novel or an allegory.


----------



## ArnorianRanger (Aug 27, 2021)

Aukwrist said:


> It may be significant that one of the main reasons that the Phantom Menace is unloved by many admirers of the Star Wars films, is, that it has a lot of council scenes. What this amounts to is, that people want lots of action scenes. They are not interested in ideas, and clearly do not find ideas important.
> 
> I think Westerners in particular are so used to a strongly visual culture, full of motion, sensation, and change, that reading a book that does not cater to these sensations can be difficult and unwelcome, perhaps even alien. And for younger readers, there may be a culture shock.


Perhaps. I have not seen that film in probably a decade, though I do know much of the criticism that was leveled at that movie was aimed at how the story was gone about in of itself. Another film where there is a very healthy amount of dialogue is _Avengers: Endgame _(which mayn't be a fair comparison)_,_ and insofar I have heard not heard any weighty criticisms against it even though there is more talking than one might be used to in such a movie (compare to, say _Black Widow,_ _Black Panther, _or _Thor: Ragnarok_), and I suspect this is because the story was gone about much more masterfully than with any of the _Star Wars _prequel movies.

I do agree with you however; it seems so often special effects have trumped plot and the means necessary to advance the plot, which are so often conversations, which is quite sad.

Thanks,

ArnorianRanger


----------



## Aukwrist (Aug 28, 2021)

ArnorianRanger said:


> In talking with those accustomed to such things as Harry Potter and the Peter Jackson movies, a repeated argument I have heard is that the _Lord of the Rings_ just isn't magical or exciting enough. Doubtless untrue, but the fact that Gandalf doesn't up and burn up the Orc armies with some magical blue flame or mutter dangerous spells at every predicament is just too much of a thrill-killer for many apparently, even when an attempt is made to explain_ why_ he doesn't do that.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ArnorianRanger


I liked Harry Potter, when I tried it the second time. JKR is very skilful with her plotting. Something she doesn't have, or at least does not show, is Tolkien's endless facility with language. 

I think it wrongs LOTR to compare it with later tales. There are some books that break they mould they set in, and it is one of them.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 28, 2021)

When I was reading LOTR months ago someone said “still reading Harry Potter?” I rolled my eyes at the insulting and ignorant comparison.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 29, 2021)

Aukwrist said:


> I think it wrongs LOTR to compare it with later tales. There are some books that break they mould they set in, and it is one of them.


As far as quest stories go, they are among the oldest, if not the oldest writings in human history (after writing systems became more than documentation for bureaucrats). Homer's "Odyssey" (more so than the "Iliad"), and going much further back the Sumerian "Epic of Gilgamesh".
What JRRT did was to establish fantasy as a mass-market phenomenon (as C.S. Lewis wrote in a review of FoTR "like lightning from a clear sky"). And in doing this, he created a new mold. Like it or not, pretty much everything in fantasy since then cannot escape comparison with LoTR. Even with authors (say JRRM) who wanted to be as different from LoTR as they could, it is still the reference point. Perhaps, by now, no longer quite directly, but not far in the background.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Aug 29, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> What JRRT did was to establish fantasy as a mass-market phenomenon (as C.S. Lewis wrote in a review of FoTR "like lightning from a clear sky"). And in doing this, he created a new mold. Like it or not, pretty much everything in fantasy since then cannot escape comparison with LoTR. Even with authors (say JRRM) who wanted to be as different from LoTR as they could, it is still the reference point. Perhaps, by now, no longer quite directly, but not far in the background.


I'm not sure that he established fantasy as a "mass-market phenomenon", as such. There were many widely successful fantasy writers that pre-date Tolkien who did that: 19th century writers such as Lewis Carroll, Jules Verne, R.L. Stephenson were mass-market, and also contemporaries of Tolkien, such as Mervyn Peake, whose _Gormenghast_ trilogy was published around the same time as LotR. 

What Tolkien did was to revive the classical hero quest format, and to cement specific heroic quest tropes into the genre. Although earlier fantasy novels had used one or more of these tropes, LotR became a popular template - a formula, almost - for subsequent authors.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 29, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> I'm not sure that he established fantasy as a "mass-market phenomenon", as such. There were many widely successful fantasy writers that pre-date Tolkien who did that: 19th century writers such as Lewis Carroll, Jules Verne, R.L. Stephenson were mass-market, and also contemporaries of Tolkien, such as Mervyn Peake, whose _Gormenghast_ trilogy was published around the same time as LotR.


I doubt one can compare the 19th-century "mass market" - even that of the first half of the 20th century - with the post-WW II era.
Books were quite expensive in earlier times, most of them being hard-cover. Paperbacks, or perhaps more properly precursors of them, did appear in the 19th century, but printings running into tens or hundreds of thousands, let alone millions, seem to be a definite post-WW II phenomenon. Don't forget that LoTR was artificially divided into a faux "trilogy" by the cost and rationing of paper in the UK even in the mid-1950's.
And then education, and with it literacy, was certainly at a far more rudimentary stage in the 19th century; again, a watershed in both may be post-WW II.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Aug 29, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> I doubt one can compare the 19th-century "mass market" - even that of the first half of the 20th century - with the post-WW II era.
> Books were quite expensive in earlier times, most of them being hard-cover. Paperbacks, or perhaps more properly precursors of them, did appear in the 19th century, but printings running into tens or hundreds of thousands, let alone millions, seem to be a definite post-WW II phenomenon. Don't forget that LoTR was artificially divided into a faux "trilogy" by the cost and rationing of paper in the UK even in the mid-1950's.
> And then education, and with it literacy, was certainly at a far more rudimentary stage in the 19th century; again, a watershed in both may be post-WW II.


I agree with your comments about cost, literacy, etc, but whether a book has mass appeal is relative to the culture at the time, in other words it is comparative and not absolute. The authors I mentioned were immensely popular and had a huge influence. They had their works translated into multiple languages, which demonstates that (even given the higher relative cost of books) there was sufficient "mass market" appeal to make it commercially viable. The fact that authors like Jules Verne, for example, had his work adapted into stage plays and was the subject of serious literary study, demonstrates the wider cultural impact.

That's not to diminish Tolkien's influence, just that it's worth remembering that fantasy/sci-fi was very popular before TH/LotR was published. What Tolkien did was to popularise a very specific fantasy genre, and make it so popular that just about everything published since has been derivative.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 29, 2021)

Shadow said:


> When I was reading LOTR months ago someone said “still reading Harry Potter?” I rolled my eyes at the insulting and ignorant comparison.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 29, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> I agree with your comments about cost, literacy, etc, but whether a book has mass appeal is relative to the culture at the time, in other words it is comparative and not absolute. The authors I mentioned were immensely popular and had a huge influence. They had their works translated into multiple languages, which demonstrates that (even given the higher relative cost of books) there was sufficient "mass market" appeal to make it commercially viable.


Agreed. The higher costs of the hardcover books, is my guess, made them commercially viable at much lower printings - probably up to today.
One thing that in earlier times (by this I mean pre-WW II, and early postwar period too, probably) was a source of reading material for the general public were (perhaps still are) the public libraries. The NY Public Library, a *really* big one, was founded in 1895, as I just checked. While I rarely if ever borrowed books from public libraries near where I lived, I certainly spent a lot of time in my high school library, and read quite a few books borrowed from it.
So readership goes beyond those who actually buy books. But in the time before the advent of electronic cataloging, getting those kinds of statistics must have been a chore, not to say almost impossible.
The popularity and influence of the authors that you mention would have been with the readership, no question. But the only thing quantifiable was actual sales of books. And those cannot have amounted to "mass markets" - which you do enclose in double quotation marks, and rightly so. A mass in relation to the small market of (hardcover) book buyers. But before the widespread advent of paperbacks, operating on much slimmer profit margins and thus dependent on big sales, I don't see there being anything that can truly be called a *mass* market. Part of the efforts by the paperback publishers, as in any comparable "industry", is to lower costs. Which is why my mid-1980's LoTR paperbacks are quite tattered ... those of my early JRRT books that are not have simply not been read as much. Practically all of my more recent acquisitions have been hardbacks, or at least trade paperbacks.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Aug 29, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> The popularity and influence of the authors that you mention would have been with the readership, no question. But the only thing quantifiable was actual sales of books. And those cannot have amounted to "mass markets"


Good point. There would have been a big difference between popularity and book sales. 
It was common for books to be serialised in magazine or newpapers (Charles Dickens and Arthur Conan Doyle spring to mind, although these aren't fantasy writers), so they would have reached a great numbers of people without a book being sold.


----------



## anelffriend (Nov 13, 2021)

James_SentellFOTR said:


> So, Lord Of The Rings have been my favorite novel since I was 6. I read them every year or so and my family, friends, and even acquaintances usually say the same thing... "why"?
> 
> I usually go through a lengthy explanation, and I always end it with recommending it. Then they continue to state that they do not enjoy the writing style for the book. I find that one of the most annoying comments about LOTR is that it uses "old timey english", like Shakespearean (which obviously does not).
> 
> ...


Too long, too many plots, - but i honestly haven’t heard of the “Shakespearean” argument. I honestly think it could be that it’s starting to become more normal for us as a society to have shorter attention spans. I do get that not every book out there is for everyone though, and that (unfortunately to us) also includes LOTR.


----------

