# Tolkien vs. Dickens



## reem (Mar 7, 2003)

i'm currently reading both FOTR and Little Dorrit by Dickens. 
what i have noticed is that Tolkien tends to over do it when describing the landscape and the weather. while Dickens, on the other hand, creates perfect harmony. he never over does anything!
i am a very faithful fan to tolkien ofcourse, but i have to admit, that after reading the books for the fourth time, his style in over-discbribing is driving me bonkers!! 
so who so you think is best when it comes to writting styles and discriptions??
reem


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 7, 2003)

I personally never feel like Tolkien is "over describing." If you want "over-describing," try reading "The Return of the Native."


----------



## FoolOfATook (Mar 7, 2003)

There's no question in my mind that Dickens is a better writer than Tolkien, just as Shakespeare is better than Dickens.


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 7, 2003)

So is Thomas Hardy (whom I find more readable and more to my political liking than Dickens).
I wish Thomas Hardy could have written the LOTRs and we would REALLY have a masterpiece! 
Oh well. thank goodness for diversity.


----------



## reem (Mar 8, 2003)

...i wouldn't really say that shakespeare was a better writer than Deckens...because not only does dickens make much more interesting and well woven plots, but also deeper and more believable characters.
shakespeare (when u understand what he's saying!) sometimes ends a very good play sloppily...which pretty much ruins everything. like in 'as you like it'. that was a sloppy ending, u have to admit. 
i haven't read anything by Hardy yet, but i have one book that i will start as soon as its time comes. only then can i comment on his writting skills.
but tolkien does over- describe things. he keeps going on and on and on and i just can't keep concentrating when he does that. i have to keep rereading it and force myself to concentrate. but that only happens when he starts talking about how the river turns and what colour the rocks were and how many trees you could see....etc!
reem


----------



## Mindy_O_Lluin (Mar 8, 2003)

I find those things totally entralling and it connects me to the story more as if I were there with them. I love scoping out and imagining the landscape, the hiking and climbing, following the fazes of the moon, and the dates and how many miles, or furlongs, or leagues they have gone. I have a book of maps I got as a gift called "Journeys of Frodo" which has detailed maps with topography, and it plots the paths they took and exact dates they hiked each day and where they slept. It so fun to follow along with. It makes Middle-earth real.

[edit] - By the way, why did Tolkien use miles? Wouldn't he have used Kilometers? Did they change that for the American editions?


----------



## Turgon (Mar 8, 2003)

Miles are still very much in use in England - regardless of many attempts to convert us to the metric system. Some things are too deeply engrained into the psyche to change. I think the metre and centimetre are the only real metric measurements we use in everyday life.

I have to say that I prefer Hardy to Dickens too - Two on a Tower being one of my favourite books. Tolkien's descriptive passages are one of the great charms of his work, and Middle-earth itself is one of Tolkien's greatest characters.


----------



## Rangerdave (Mar 8, 2003)

I applaud those of you who have read Thomas Hardy. I recomend Jude the Obscure to anyone who want to attend a university.

However I have mixed feelings about Charles Dickens. I though Hard Times was a masterpiece, but I simply detest Oliver Twist. Lets face it, all that simpering little prat did throughout the course of the book is faint at the slightest hint of danger.


But to compare Dickens to Tolkien is difficult and grossly unfair to both. Tolkien was primarely a linguist/philologist who wrote novels to be read as a whole. Conversely, Dickens was a journalist who wrote articles and serials, to be read one chapter at a time.

Most of what are considered "Classics", were originally serials that appeared not as novels but as weekly installments in newspapers and pulp magazines.

Just a thought.
RD


----------



## FoolOfATook (Mar 8, 2003)

> However I have mixed feelings about Charles Dickens. I though Hard Times was a masterpiece, but I simply detest Oliver Twist. Lets face it, all that simpering little prat did throughout the course of the book is faint at the slightest hint of danger.



Yeah, but Fagin and Bill Sikes are both great villains, as long as one looks past the anti-semitic parts of Fagin's construction. Also, I'd argue that Great Expectations is as good as any other novel in the English language.


----------



## reem (Mar 10, 2003)

i already read Jude the Obscure and found it very good...if rather depressing! 
but why, Rangerdave, do you think that comparing Tolkien and Dickens as unfair? they are both great writers of their time and are well accomplished. they write in different fields, true, but we aren't comparing the material... rather, the 'style' in which they wrote. if anything, Tolkien should be the one to use a more intriguing style...and he usually does, until he starts describing every molicule on the way!
but you have to ageree that dickens (even if u detest some of his characters) is the better writer when it comes to the correct proportions of discription. by correct i mean that it doesn't bored most people into sleep...which, i'm sorry to say, is what happens with me. only few have the gift of everlasting patience!!
reem


----------



## spirit (Mar 10, 2003)

i dont really like reading dickens. some of shakespear is good. i like tolkein cause its eaisier to follow once u have seen the movie(s). most of the movies for shakespear ad dickens is boring and a kinda old fashoined for me


----------



## reem (Mar 13, 2003)

well it all depends on what kind of books you like rading. i. for one, can't tolerate detective novels and the like. my friend can't stand any form of fantasy, while another's reading list includes only sci-fi books!
so it's not so much about the contents of the book, it's rather the way in which the contents are presented. so when i complain about tolkien and compliment dickens, i'm not saying that tolkien writes boring stories...may i be stricken dead if i ever do! but i'm saying that tolkien tends to give too many details when it comes to the discriptiond of the road. that's my problem. dieckens, on the other hand, doesn't have this problem ( i see this as a problem, but others don't).
reem


----------



## jallan (Mar 15, 2003)

The complaint that Tolkien overdoes descriptive passages is an old one.

Obviously he does, _for some people_.

But since others disagree, obviously Tolkien does not overdo descriptive passages _for some people_.

Descriptive passages in books, particularly descriptions of scenery, have a rather dubious reputation for being skipped by many readers, regardless of authorship.

But Tolkien indicated that he saw scenery vividly, but not usually the physical details of appearances, clothing or architecture. 

I do think you can compare Tolkien and Dickens, but not objctively say who is better, as they are so very different.

Dickens love stylistic cariacture and grotesqueness for example, while Tolkien mostly avoids it.

Gollum is an exception, but Gollum is not in Dickens' style. Though I can imagine _A Christmas Carol_ rewritten with Scrooge speaking in Gollumese:


> Christmas! We hates it, my preciousss! And the nassty Cratssschit. He steals a day from us, he does.


I can't quite imagine what an heroic fantasy about Elves by Charles Dickens might be like.


----------



## Beleg (Mar 16, 2003)

> If you want "over- describing," try reading "The Return of the Native



Precisely. In the Return of the Native, the Beginning is very slow and sluggish, some might say that he is trying to create feel of the story, a more realistic background, but it gets boring after a while. Countless pages of monotone topography do make a little uneasy.
However we have to admit that it creates a more clear picture of landscape in our mind and helps us to understand the storiesw better. But not if its overdone. 
That's why i like Mayor of Casterbridge and Tess better then Return of the Natives.
Anyway, i never felt that Tolkien overdoses us with the georgraphy/topography. infact it helps us to understand the culture, society and living conditions in a better way. Don't you think that such a detailed outline of Shire helps us to understand the jolly, old hobbits more easily and the Description of Gondolin aloways mesmerizes me, i am always awed by its charisma for i think it as a real building in my mind and that is only because of the escewssive description on Tolkien's part which he does to make the object more clearer in minds eye. 


Charles Dickens, well he is also a great novelist but i simply hate Oliver Twist. Great Expectation is a novel which i have been reading from early childhood and i could remember fantasizing myself as Pip in various guises and dreaming.


----------



## faila (Mar 17, 2003)

every single one of dickens books have the same plot........ and they suck horribly. The books are boring. See tolkien does describe the landscape in much detail, but his detail is exactly what he wants. Dickens tries to descibe and it just bores the mess out of you. Im completely emmersed in tolkiens works because of his descriptiveness, but dickens books i havent been able to finish.................... Great expectations I had to read and it was horrible, I couldnt finish it, thank the internet and foot notes that I didnt fail. I also tried to read the one about the civil war and it was horrible. I wish i could go back in time and kill himbefore he wrote those books.


----------



## spirit (Mar 18, 2003)

ANYONE HERE LIKE ANNE RICE????


----------



## Beleg (Mar 18, 2003)

I am reading Interview with a Vampire. I can and will only read her Vampire series.


----------



## spirit (Mar 18, 2003)

read queen of the damned
it by her. 3rd book in the series. It is actualyy funnier than Interview With the Vampire


----------



## jallan (Mar 18, 2003)

When someone finds something either boring or interesting, it is a subjective reaction, not an ultimate truth, and says as much about the person as about the subject.

But Dicken&#8217s works were astoundingly popular best sellers in his days and are still easily available in bookstores and libraries, therefore obviously read by many with enjoyment.

Ergo, his works are factually not boring to many.

Also, factually, his books certainly do not have the same plot, though _some_ have similar plots. Nor did he write any book about any “civil war”.

Faila may be thinking of _A Tale of Two Cities_ which is partly about the French Revolution.

One might even compare the beginning of _The Tale of Two Cities_ to _The Lord of the Rings_ with the first expository chapter comparable to Tolkien’s Prologue, Mr. Lorry to Gandalf, Lucie Manette to Frodo, and Miss Pross to Sam.

Each story starts with a sudden revelation about the past.

Of course, you can’t continue comparing matters very closely in this vein.


----------



## reem (Mar 21, 2003)

hear hear! i agree with all that jallan just said!
reem


----------

