The fantasy genre, moron. What the OP was obviously referring to when he suggested Tolkien was 'genre fiction.' To apply the same label to Beowulf is anachronistic at best.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>fantasy didn't exist before Tolkien
This is what Tolkiengays actually believe lol
I had to put it down, really fricking boring imo. A bunch of stupid world building about hobbits and shit. I don’t read novels much, I read wuthering heights before this, much better.
A very important piece of modern literature, since literature itself ended with American imperialism over Europe.
Perhaps the last great work of European culture.
You should not read it as a genre item, but make up your mind about it once you have finished it.
If anything it's beautifully and evocatively written.
>A very important piece of modern literature, since literature itself ended with American imperialism over Europe. >Perhaps the last great work of European culture. >You should not read it as a genre item, but make up your mind about it once you have finished it. >If anything it's beautifully and evocatively written.
Feels weird to see another anon mirror my thoughts so well.
It's surprisingly good and well written, especially compared to the tidal wave of YA fantasyslop which came in its wake. It is best appreciated by children, but it's not children's literature. I read it first when I was 9, most recently at 46, and while the 5th reading can be er be as good as the 1st, it holds up.
>the movies bro
It's not to everyone's taste, it's probably the nerdiest book ever written because it's all just a footnote to Tolkien's monolithic linguistic autism, but it's better than the capeshitcore movie franchise.
Hey, the movies are really good, not just for bringing the sprit of the books to life, but the music and the personality the actors were able to portray onto the characters enhances the story.
Like the lyrics and chorus to many of the songs is literally sung in the languages of Middle-Earth. Its exceptional.
>le ebin dwarf tossing scene
The movies are very competently done filmslop, could have been a lot worse but are fundamentally about shoehorning Tolkien into a capeshit movie form. I liked them at first but this was 90% nostalgia for the source material. The books are a lot richer, require and reward more patience.
I sound like a huge autistic about this but Hobbit and LOTR were the first novels I ever read, I was 9 or 10, and I would think about them all day at school then read until I fell asleep and then dream about them. If you are old enough to post on this website you won't have the same reaction, but I've reread them to my own kids and it holds up (but they prefer H*rry P*tter).
Tolkien only wrote LOTR as an outlet for his linguistic endeavors.
He invented nothing new except the elven languages, which are interesting.
As I was reading it, I began asking myself why I wasn’t reading the actual fables which Tolkien shoplifted from. Then I felt ashamed for reading what was basically a children’s book worshiped by neckbeards who don’t bother to read much else
as somebody who has read the mabinogion and the ulster cycle and the kalevala and all the bullshit that he based it on, you're moronic
the only two stories written before the 15th century worth a damn are Beowulf and The Iliad. Everything else is only interesting as a historical and cultural document. And I find them interesting, but nowhere near the literary qualities of LotR. Although allegedly the kalevala is beautiful in the original Finnish, which Tolkien would have read it in, and essentially cannot be translated.
I only managed to get to the hobbits fricking around in Rivendell before I gave it up. Didn't even get to the council part; I just stopped caring because it was so goddamn unreadable. The book, at least up to that point, was drier than the fricking Sahara desert.
People say this but I found the exposition to be fairly controlled. It's not so much that Tolkien infodump about the Shire but that people think the shire is boring, which is a shame because it's peak cozy.
It's mostly boring with some strong dramatic peaks, but it's interesting to look back on if you understand the medieval and pagan ideas he's toying with.
Probably the last great story to come from western civilization before its downfall. It's an interesting compromise between high literature, whose effects it often captures and carries to great heights, and something more provincial and adjacent to the fairy-stories of childhood. Tolkien created a grand world full of beauty and sadness, you are blessed if you are able to enjoy it, and if not, well it's also an excellent barometer for bugmen and other forms of bourgeoise dementia.
I follow the Lord of the Rings subreddits exclusively for the whole 'The Lord of the Rings is catholic work' thing. Every week or so, you'll get an athiest that will have an absolute emotional breakdown when he discovers this fact and you'll just get a huge thread with him raging for hours and usually arguing with ever single reply. It might be a little bit of schadenfreude but I honestly cannot get enough of it.
An absolute fantastic read, it’s gotten better every time I’ve read it. The movies don’t even come close to the nobility of the books. Read the Silmarillion to appreciate it even more. Anyone saying it’s boring or bad is a psued and probably not a reader whatsoever, do not take them seriously.
Maybe I managed to read the whole of the Fellowship of the Ring since the style was fresh and I trudged through with every TolkieBlack person preaching "read it for the world bro". One of the descriptions of the elven landmarks even got me a bit emotional.
But I don't know if it's me, the writing becoming increasingly repetitive or different tastes over time, but Two Towers is such a fricking drag it's crazy. I can't get past the chapter where they finally reach Isengard, it's drier than sticking a spoon of plain cinamon in your mouth.
I like this interpretation. I can't remember if it was at Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields, but there's a powerful description of the soldiers as they're preparing for the coming battle, and it struck me that Tolkien was describing exactly what he and his comrades had experienced in the trenches, and he inserted it so casually I almost didn't realise what he was doing. Of course, I don't believe it's the only inspiration to the writing of it, but it's an understated influence. And it's an interesting comparison to other WWI stories like Maria Remarque's moralising and Junger's passive realism.
>very boring until it reaches Rivendell and begins to pick up a little bit after The Council of Elrond >starts to get really good once the 2 main characters encounter Gollum, and when Rohan is introduced >best build up, rollercoaster of a ride, climax in Return of the King, immediately shits the bed with Scourging of the Shire
I'd honestly just re-read The Hobbit and nothing else from Tolkien and would be happy. That was the only lightning in a bottle he actually caught, that and watching the movies which MOG MOG MOOOOG the ever-living shit out of the books.
If you're more of a reader however, just read the actual stories it was inspired by like Beowulf and the like.
Correct me if I am wrong
but i feel like most people who love the series enjoyed it first at a young age.
A lot of work also borrow so heavily from it that even though it is an original work, it feels like you have read it before.
Certainly true for me. I doubt you can recapture the experience as an adult, or even as a child whose already read modern YA fantasy literature. It's still enjoyable, the story and characters and world are still compelling even after being ripped off for most of a century, but at the time, at that age, for me, it was a peak experience.
The last piece of classical literature before commercialized mass production of entertainment truly got into gear.
In short, the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end. Not sure which.
Absolutely. It's not overtly Christian like Narnia (which is also good regardless of your beliefs), it's a strange mix of surface paganism with Christian currents underneath, but more than any of that it's a very good story. It's not a breezy read like modern YA books, there's no snappy Aaron Sorkin dialogue or irony or pop culture references, and this filters certain people hard. To read it as a child is a transformative experience, as an adult it's still good.
I’d say give it a try, worst case you go a couple of chapters and drop it. Like some other anons posted on here, The Hobbit is peak comfy. I’ve honestly reread that a dozen times and would 100% recommend that first if you’re completely unfamiliar with Tolkien.
>constantly wonder if anyone on lit actually reads >see this thread >realize 90% of posters are morons
I'm not sure what to do with this knowledge. Do I stop coming here?
The posters here are genuinely braindead with a massive chip on the shoulder. I've noticed Tolkien seems to generate this irrational sort of seething from certain people. I'm not sure what causes it, but it has a virulence that I think betrays something more than just a casual dislike of his work. Im suspecting this thread is full of moronic pinkos
I know he was a devout catholic and I do respect it despite not being religious at all myself, but it's even stranger to me because you can really read the entire trilogy as purely invented fiction and find it to be wonderful all the same. It seems to me that Tolkien work has noble, aristocratic sensibilities which your garden variety shitlib yokel finds repugnant for reasons they don't have the capacity to describe. Such an overtly earnest and loving portrait of the medieval European soul is of course a blasphemy to such people.
Overrated genre fiction
>casually seething
Curious, considering the 'genre' in question didn't exist before Tolkien
Beowulf existed long before Tolkein
The fantasy genre, moron. What the OP was obviously referring to when he suggested Tolkien was 'genre fiction.' To apply the same label to Beowulf is anachronistic at best.
>fantasy didn't exist before Tolkien
This is what Tolkiengays actually believe lol
I had to put it down, really fricking boring imo. A bunch of stupid world building about hobbits and shit. I don’t read novels much, I read wuthering heights before this, much better.
>I don’t read novels much
It shows.
>I read wuthering heights before this, much better.
It really fricking shows.
How does Wuthering Heights even compare? Is that the only other boom you’ve read?
It’s just the fiction I was reading before lotr, save for some plays. It is just more interesting.
A very important piece of modern literature, since literature itself ended with American imperialism over Europe.
Perhaps the last great work of European culture.
You should not read it as a genre item, but make up your mind about it once you have finished it.
If anything it's beautifully and evocatively written.
>A very important piece of modern literature, since literature itself ended with American imperialism over Europe.
>Perhaps the last great work of European culture.
>You should not read it as a genre item, but make up your mind about it once you have finished it.
>If anything it's beautifully and evocatively written.
Feels weird to see another anon mirror my thoughts so well.
It's surprisingly good and well written, especially compared to the tidal wave of YA fantasyslop which came in its wake. It is best appreciated by children, but it's not children's literature. I read it first when I was 9, most recently at 46, and while the 5th reading can be er be as good as the 1st, it holds up.
The Hobbit might be better.
Well said. The Hobbit is definitely more children oriented in writing style, but still enjoyable and I agree it might be better.
Boredom. Watch the films instead they’re actually ok. Tree fu Tom or whatever wasn’t very memorable anyway.
>the movies bro
It's not to everyone's taste, it's probably the nerdiest book ever written because it's all just a footnote to Tolkien's monolithic linguistic autism, but it's better than the capeshitcore movie franchise.
Hey, the movies are really good, not just for bringing the sprit of the books to life, but the music and the personality the actors were able to portray onto the characters enhances the story.
Like the lyrics and chorus to many of the songs is literally sung in the languages of Middle-Earth. Its exceptional.
>le ebin dwarf tossing scene
The movies are very competently done filmslop, could have been a lot worse but are fundamentally about shoehorning Tolkien into a capeshit movie form. I liked them at first but this was 90% nostalgia for the source material. The books are a lot richer, require and reward more patience.
I sound like a huge autistic about this but Hobbit and LOTR were the first novels I ever read, I was 9 or 10, and I would think about them all day at school then read until I fell asleep and then dream about them. If you are old enough to post on this website you won't have the same reaction, but I've reread them to my own kids and it holds up (but they prefer H*rry P*tter).
the movies are moronic woke capeshit, you might as well watch Marvel movie #3932, the books on the other hand is fantasy par excellence
Don't fricking disrespect Tom Bombadil. He's a real one.
I've realized I respect Tolkien more for his linguistic and world building shit he pulls off rather than as an actual writer
in top hats
Hiking, eating, and singing
Comfyness
Tolkien only wrote LOTR as an outlet for his linguistic endeavors.
He invented nothing new except the elven languages, which are interesting.
As I was reading it, I began asking myself why I wasn’t reading the actual fables which Tolkien shoplifted from. Then I felt ashamed for reading what was basically a children’s book worshiped by neckbeards who don’t bother to read much else
as somebody who has read the mabinogion and the ulster cycle and the kalevala and all the bullshit that he based it on, you're moronic
the only two stories written before the 15th century worth a damn are Beowulf and The Iliad. Everything else is only interesting as a historical and cultural document. And I find them interesting, but nowhere near the literary qualities of LotR. Although allegedly the kalevala is beautiful in the original Finnish, which Tolkien would have read it in, and essentially cannot be translated.
>he doesn't get the epics
literally no soul
the people who really didn't get them were the medieval scholars who compiled the versions that we read today
real sloppy work
Powerful post.
>the only two stories written before the 15th century worth a damn are Beowulf and The Iliad
this cannot be a real post on IQfy
sounds like /b/ is more your speed
You had to be there.
I got 100 pages into FOTR before deciding I didn't need a sleep aid. I thought the movies were fun.
I only managed to get to the hobbits fricking around in Rivendell before I gave it up. Didn't even get to the council part; I just stopped caring because it was so goddamn unreadable. The book, at least up to that point, was drier than the fricking Sahara desert.
People say this but I found the exposition to be fairly controlled. It's not so much that Tolkien infodump about the Shire but that people think the shire is boring, which is a shame because it's peak cozy.
Dudes holding hands on an overly long hike. Occasional song numbers.
LOTR sounds a lot like my weekends
Fun
Hope.
Comfy overload
I got filtered by this years ago. It's fricking boring. I want to read it all, but I always hesitate.
It's mostly boring with some strong dramatic peaks, but it's interesting to look back on if you understand the medieval and pagan ideas he's toying with.
Probably the last great story to come from western civilization before its downfall. It's an interesting compromise between high literature, whose effects it often captures and carries to great heights, and something more provincial and adjacent to the fairy-stories of childhood. Tolkien created a grand world full of beauty and sadness, you are blessed if you are able to enjoy it, and if not, well it's also an excellent barometer for bugmen and other forms of bourgeoise dementia.
I follow the Lord of the Rings subreddits exclusively for the whole 'The Lord of the Rings is catholic work' thing. Every week or so, you'll get an athiest that will have an absolute emotional breakdown when he discovers this fact and you'll just get a huge thread with him raging for hours and usually arguing with ever single reply. It might be a little bit of schadenfreude but I honestly cannot get enough of it.
An absolute fantastic read, it’s gotten better every time I’ve read it. The movies don’t even come close to the nobility of the books. Read the Silmarillion to appreciate it even more. Anyone saying it’s boring or bad is a psued and probably not a reader whatsoever, do not take them seriously.
GRRMgays should be euthanized.
yep... good to see IQfy getting filtered by tom bombadil as usual
Maybe I managed to read the whole of the Fellowship of the Ring since the style was fresh and I trudged through with every TolkieBlack person preaching "read it for the world bro". One of the descriptions of the elven landmarks even got me a bit emotional.
But I don't know if it's me, the writing becoming increasingly repetitive or different tastes over time, but Two Towers is such a fricking drag it's crazy. I can't get past the chapter where they finally reach Isengard, it's drier than sticking a spoon of plain cinamon in your mouth.
A war story written by a world war veteran with a symbolic critic to materialism.
Also please skip the introduction of the first book unless you want to fall asleep (It's only good in a re-read)
I like this interpretation. I can't remember if it was at Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields, but there's a powerful description of the soldiers as they're preparing for the coming battle, and it struck me that Tolkien was describing exactly what he and his comrades had experienced in the trenches, and he inserted it so casually I almost didn't realise what he was doing. Of course, I don't believe it's the only inspiration to the writing of it, but it's an understated influence. And it's an interesting comparison to other WWI stories like Maria Remarque's moralising and Junger's passive realism.
>very boring until it reaches Rivendell and begins to pick up a little bit after The Council of Elrond
>starts to get really good once the 2 main characters encounter Gollum, and when Rohan is introduced
>best build up, rollercoaster of a ride, climax in Return of the King, immediately shits the bed with Scourging of the Shire
I'd honestly just re-read The Hobbit and nothing else from Tolkien and would be happy. That was the only lightning in a bottle he actually caught, that and watching the movies which MOG MOG MOOOOG the ever-living shit out of the books.
If you're more of a reader however, just read the actual stories it was inspired by like Beowulf and the like.
The journey to Rivendell is the best part of the trilogy.
Correct me if I am wrong
but i feel like most people who love the series enjoyed it first at a young age.
A lot of work also borrow so heavily from it that even though it is an original work, it feels like you have read it before.
Certainly true for me. I doubt you can recapture the experience as an adult, or even as a child whose already read modern YA fantasy literature. It's still enjoyable, the story and characters and world are still compelling even after being ripped off for most of a century, but at the time, at that age, for me, it was a peak experience.
The last piece of classical literature before commercialized mass production of entertainment truly got into gear.
In short, the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end. Not sure which.
Can i enjoy It if i'm an atheist?
Absolutely. It's not overtly Christian like Narnia (which is also good regardless of your beliefs), it's a strange mix of surface paganism with Christian currents underneath, but more than any of that it's a very good story. It's not a breezy read like modern YA books, there's no snappy Aaron Sorkin dialogue or irony or pop culture references, and this filters certain people hard. To read it as a child is a transformative experience, as an adult it's still good.
Is it good reading LotR at 31?
I’d say give it a try, worst case you go a couple of chapters and drop it. Like some other anons posted on here, The Hobbit is peak comfy. I’ve honestly reread that a dozen times and would 100% recommend that first if you’re completely unfamiliar with Tolkien.
-
>constantly wonder if anyone on lit actually reads
>see this thread
>realize 90% of posters are morons
I'm not sure what to do with this knowledge. Do I stop coming here?
The posters here are genuinely braindead with a massive chip on the shoulder. I've noticed Tolkien seems to generate this irrational sort of seething from certain people. I'm not sure what causes it, but it has a virulence that I think betrays something more than just a casual dislike of his work. Im suspecting this thread is full of moronic pinkos
>irrational sort of seething
>I'm not sure what causes it
It's the usual
I know he was a devout catholic and I do respect it despite not being religious at all myself, but it's even stranger to me because you can really read the entire trilogy as purely invented fiction and find it to be wonderful all the same. It seems to me that Tolkien work has noble, aristocratic sensibilities which your garden variety shitlib yokel finds repugnant for reasons they don't have the capacity to describe. Such an overtly earnest and loving portrait of the medieval European soul is of course a blasphemy to such people.
a deeply Catholic book that created new mythology for the English people
Hobbits doing stuff