Is Lord Of The Rings Really That Great

Did they really alter Aragorn, or show him in situations that weren't touched upon in the book? I mean, I'm me. I'm always me. I'm me when my friends are around to observe me and I'm also me when they're not.
I was skeptical about the increased emphasis on Arwen, but her getting more play didn't hurt the story IMO. I think you're just being picky. I mean, isn't it a waste of your ticket money to let 10 minutes of movie ruin the whole thing?
 
I'll make the reply short and sweet-Yes it is that great and, in fact, better.

Robert Jordan cannot be compared with Tolkien. Tolkien is the god of fantasy. Jordan is a mortal.
 
Gotta say I agree with the people talking about the amazing COMPLETENESS of Tolkien's world. Nothing short of phenomenal, really. Great story too!
 
Excalibur, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I'll say though that if what you say is true I can put down the fantasy deity's book easily if called to dinner but I am at pains to do the same with the mortal's.
 
I don't get this, why is everybody talking 'bout LOTR all the time? It's not that good, it just happened to be the first.
 
Yes it is that great.

And mordread, you can't accuse LOTR of 'not being new or anything' - everything that came after it is not new.
 
I don't really think that Tolkien particually wrote fantasy; he was a professor who set out to deliberately create an enitre mythology. Admittedly much of his writing is fairly dense and over-worded at times, but he creates a world so real that now, fifty years or more on, the stereotypes he broadened or created are now considered the absolute standard.

LOTR may or may not be a particually good story, but the world he creates is the most important piece of fantasy ever created.
 
Regardless of the matter of goodness about Tolkien's

I can't agree with the title "the first thing" which is after LOTR.

There are nothing new under the sun.

Every work made by human being has a part of originality and part of imitation.

The real importance is on the matter of worth as a work. When you meet a work, there is no reason of seeking after specific starter by it's appearance. You would better find what the author want to say, well, if it is.

LOTR, As a start of fantasy.
Wholly no, cause the world of imagination might have been started with human history.

LOTR, As a fresh and good fantasy.
Yes, it is.
 
Nevertheless, mrboost, you must admit that it often takes a very special person to come up with a new way of looking at things. Any artist in the 12 century could have painted in a post-modernistic style, or done a bunch of sketches in anime style. The was nothing, technological or otherwise, holding them back, except the fact that they never through to do. So some credit must be attached to pioneers; anyone could have written LOTR, but Tolkien was the one who actually did.
 
fresh and good fantasy.
Click to expand...

Define "fresh" and "good", if you like.

Homer was fantasy also. Wasn't he "fresh" and "good"? Wasn't the Epic of Gilbamesh "fresh" and "good"?

What exactly do you mean?


[This message has been edited by Bardos (edited February 10, 2002).]
 
Bond-
Really now i wasn't personally attacking you or something. I was just airing my own view, which is that Tolkien is the best and Jordan is mediocre. You are entitled to having your own opinion [which is completely wrong btw....lol].
I may hate what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it.
 
I agree that tolkein wasthe first major writer of modern fantasy, i dont think anyone could dispute this, but it wasn't an original idea, think of all the ancient myths and legends, basically fantasy. That said LOTR is beyond great, it is the book to which all authors would love their work to be compared favourably. He creates fantastic characters, a wide vairety so that we can all find our own kind of hero from them, his world is developed with details to the point where it seems totally real and absorbing, yet he does not go to excess so you are still interested and wanting to know more. The way he introduces ideas, such as ancient legends (beren etc) but does not fully explain them, the way certain places are talked about but not visited or expounded upon all adds to the believibility of his world. I could talk all day about the things that makes me love tolkien and this is what makes LOTR the phenomenom it is.
 
yes it is that great, its absolutely fab, everyone is entitled to thier own opinions but i have to disagree with anyone who does not think that lotrs it great.
You say its nothing new, no it isnt, it was written during the first world war, the reason that it no longer anything new is because Tolkien paved the way a set an example that a lot of fantasy writers follow. Unless the books youve been reading were written before lotrs, then the reason it seems to be nothing new to is because they followed his example.
*sigh* now ive got all that out........ whew . ...... ow, my head hurts :(
good contreversial thread, keep it up!
 
Is Lord Of The Rings Really That Great?

No.

This book put me to sleep, it took me several attempts over several years to get past the first 60 pages (It's making me yawn just thinking about it) and I have to say it really wasn't worth it. However I dug deep and managed to get to the end of The Two Towers and even read the first half of the first chapter of The Return of The King but that was enough for me.

Stretch....Yawn.....Awwh......I'd better go and get some sleep now!
 
yes.

was shakespeare a great playwright? yes. were his plays completely original? no. have subsequent writers also produced great plays? yes. have those plays been more suited to their own times and thus more appreciated by audiences in those times? yes. did shakespeare revitalize the genre he worked in? yes.
am i comparing shakespeare to tolkien? no :)

grammercy
 
I think the reason many modern fantasy readers are unable to appreciate Tolkien fully is because what they are looking for is crowd-pleasing pulp escapist fantasy, not literature.

The comparison of Jordan to Tolkien, setting them up as being on-a-par competitors illustrates this very well. They simple do not compare. Jordan is all american brashness, escapism and power fantasy- fun for the disenfranchised, but hardly great art. Tolkien's work is quite simply a marker book, one of the most loved of the last century.

They aren't even in the same zip code.
 
also, they are decades apart!

LOTR was written as a literary work, not something catering to a specific subcategory of readers.

words like pulp and mass-market have a negative ring to them - i think tolkiens greatness lies in appealing both to literary and mass-market tastes

of course there is a lot wrong with what tolkien wrote, but i dont think any of todays writers will be as discussed fifty years later as much as tolkien will be even a century after first being published.
 
Originally posted by Ouroboros

I think the reason many modern fantasy readers are unable to appreciate Tolkien fully is because what they are looking for is crowd-pleasing pulp escapist fantasy, not literature
Click to expand...

And I think you're quite rude.

I don't think Jorden is very good either.

I think the reason many modern fantasy readers don't appreciate Tolkien fully is because it's not very good! Because they want to be entertained and not bored to death.

I think a lot of people read LOTR and never read fantasy again because of it.

I think a lot people who read fantasy feel obliged to read LOTR.

I think a lot of people only read Tolkien because they want to belong to an elitist group who look down on anything that isn't at least half a century old or uses fifty words when five would do.

I also think it's a terrible shame most modern fantasy writers are compared with Tolkien. I honestly don't think I've read anything else as mind numbingly bad as The Lord Of The Rings. (Although the Shanara books came close.)
 
Originally posted by Lucky Joe

And I think you're quite rude.
Click to expand...

It was my opinion, not a challenge, Joe. :D

I think a lot of people read LOTR and never read fantasy again because of it.
Click to expand...

Given that the LOTR consistently tops polls of favourite literature in mainstream magazines and papers I think it's safe to say that it has switched more people onto the genre than off.

I think a lot people who read fantasy feel obliged to read LOTR.
Click to expand...

Clearly LOTR is a seminal fantasy work and if you're a serious fan of the genre then yes you should attempt to read it and make up your own mind. It's not an obligation- just... well, frankly I'd have to wonder why someone interested in fantasy hadn't at some point read the book which is largely not only the most loved book in fantasy but arguably one of the most popular works ever written in the english language.

I think a lot of people only read Tolkien because they want to belong to an elitist group who look down on anything that isn't at least half a century old or uses fifty words when five would do.
Click to expand...

If people only read the book because they wanted to appear educated and urbane then they'd probably go and read genuine history and philosophy, not LOTR, I'd imagine.
 
Just to add my (usually useless) two cents worth...

Personally, LOTR bored me rigid the 3 times I tried to read it.

HOWEVER, I fully appreciate the fact that I KNOW it is a LEGEND, and that people worship it and praise it highly - and rightly so.

It's just that, in the 3 sittings I've tried to read it in I have never got past page 250.

I can't do it.

It doesn't grab me.

But I can easily see why it does rank as a great.

I just wish my mind could grasp it, sieze it, and devour it.

but I can't.

It IS great.

But I can't read it.

Solaar
thinks he makes sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.

Latest posts

Back
Top