Is Lord Of The Rings Really That Great

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

Literature is useless for entertainment unless it is GOOD READING. Tolkien is a good read, so is Jordan. LOTR is particualry memorable, but I like WOT better (and there are so many more books to enjoy besides), IMO. That's where I stand.
 
strong emotions running around..
i was one of the few lucky people who read LOTR, and harry potter too , without reading about them before, hearing anything about them or being influenced in any way by other peoples opinions of the books.

along with pratchett, pullman and various standalone classics, these were my introduction to the fantasy genre...before i joined this site and started writing fantasy as well.

i thought LOTR was great, and its as simple as that. ultimately what position i take in the debate just boils down to my stupid opinion. after that its easy to find arguments in favour or against...

again, i read jordan, gaiman and mieville after joining this forum, but was always slightly disappointed...

ultimately, as a reader, you have to ignore other peoples opinions and jsut see whether you like the book...
 
As LOTR is classed as literature it gets away with a lot of things modern fantasy does not. The only thing it really has going for it is the flowery prose as teh story is full of gaps and unanswered threads, the world building is basic at best and the characters are about as one dimensional as they come. The basic plot of the story has been generally been done a thousand times over since the dawn of the stroy.

As Literature it is great, as fantasy it leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Ouroboros; looking back that last post of mine came off a bit harsh didn't it?:o Sorry about that.

However I'm standing by my guns and sticking with the belief that LOTR really isn't that good (and look at this I'll even add the required IMHO to prove I'm a good sport)

There is clearly no doubt in anybody's mind (even mine) that LOTR is considered a classic. However as you yourself (Ouroboros) pointed out just because something is popular or a crowd pleaser that in itself shouldn't consitutue it's status as a classic and unfortunately I think that definitely has a lot to do with it in LOTR's case.

As for it topping polls in magazines and so on, it has one thing in its favour that modern fantasy novels don't, in that it's been around for so long and it is very famous so at some stage a lot of people (including those who wouldn't normally touch fantasy with a barge pole or don't even consider themselves to be avid readers) have gotten around to reading it. In fifty years time or so as many people might have read anyone of a number of what we today consider modern fantasy authors.

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 anybody who likes fantasy should take a look at LOTR for themselves and see what they think. But how many people start a book find they can't get into it put it aside and try again and again and again with any other book than LOTR? and how many do it with LOTR? Normally I don't give books a second chance, I gave LOTR about ten second chances and skimming through this thread it looks like a few other people here did too.

"arguably one of the most popular works ever written in the english language" very arguably, again its got time on its side, let's give it another fifty years and see if it still stands up against other work in what is still (again imho and correct me if I'm wrong) a fairly young genre. Personally I don't think it stands up against half the work in the genre now but that's just my opinion.

And I should probably stop now,

Cheers and keep smiling. If you disagree with me that's fine I'm full of Sh*t anyway.
 
Last edited:
As for it topping polls in magazines and so on, it has one thing in its favour that modern fantasy novels doesn't, in that it's been around for so long and it is very famous so at some stage a lot of people (including those who wouldn't normally touch fantasy with a barge poll or don't even consider themselves to be avid readers) have gotten around to reading it.

As much as I am a Tolkien fanatic, and unshamedly so... I have to agree with that point. I have many friend who ould never dream of reading a fantasy book, but have read LOTR. They think that is the genre.. we know it is not. Even though I hold the view that Tolkien is the greatest, I realise the genre is so soo much more than one author... it would be a boring world if that was so.
 
well the point might be true but why should it detract from the greatness of the book? its just another fact about it. and theres a REASON its still famous...
 
Originally posted by manticore
well the point might be true but why should it detract from the greatness of the book? its just another fact about it. and theres a REASON its still famous...

Absolutely... It IS a great book IMHO. The very fact it appeals to non-fantasy readers must say a lot.
 
Let's be honest hear though, it has always garnered an interest and fantasy fans, and non-fantasy fans alike, but I'd say about 90% are being drawn in from the movie.
 
Unfortunatley you're probably right. But that isn't a bad thing if it gets more people into fantasy.
 
I agree Mamb, however I just wish that other better books (And there ARE lots of them) were held up as examples of good fantasy to draw people in.

I know a lot of you disagree with me but I just find it hard to believe that anybody would be attracted to more of the same if they read Tolkien. I'm personally really pleased I didn't try and read it first as I would probably have never returned to fantasy ever ever again.
 
mamb....sachin rules ALL!!!!!!!

lucky joe maybe you should start a poll on whether these books you feel are better are that great or not _ im sure they can be so without taking anything away from lotr!
 
LOTR imho is by far one of the best fantasy novels ever written. I was around 14 when I first read The Hobbit it use to hate reading and had never read a novel cover to cover. Untill a wise english teacher put that gem in my hand, since then I have been lost to the fantasy realm and reading in general. I tried to read LOTR right after I read Hoobit and I could not tackle the book I still needed a fair bit of maturity I didn't pose at the time. At about 18 I tried once again but as withh most teenagers I found myself looking for action and great heroes over the depth of chracter or the the depth of the fantasy world. Few years back I once again dusted of LOTR and gave it another go. It seems the books was right for me at that stage. I found myself drawn to the concept of Good and Evil from Tolkiens view point it was amazing most of the books I had read up till that time had defined these concepts as black and white. Tolkien showed me there was alot more to it. Well to end of for me LOTR is one the best books I have read but I had to wait before I could actulaly apreciate it. As far as the movie annd book comparison goes I find the movie lacking alot of what the book had but that is mainly due to fact when you read the book you draw you images and I kinda like these images better. The movie is good as far as movies go but the book is incredible.
 
what I have to say has probably been said half a dozen times before on this thread and elsewhere. but I can't let that stop me. I have to say it anyway.

I find that LotR is, indeed, that great. I've been reading and loving it since I was about 12, and every time I read it I find a new beauty and a new symbol and a new level generally. the depth of history shines through in every page; the pathos, even in times of joy, accents the whole with a "deep undercurrent of sadness", sometimes clearly visible and sometimes only implied, which makes the story real. as C. S. Lewis put it, "here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron."

I think one of the main attractions to the story, for me, at least, is the parallel between his mythology and this world's history. There are so many symbols, so many thousands of fragments of allegory waiting to be found and interpreted, that I am always finding more. I know that Tolkein did not intend the stories to be an actual allegory. As he put it, "I think that many confuse ‘applicability' with allegory"; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." But I also know that he was a devoted Christian--he helped bring C. S. Lewis from atheism to Faith--and that his stories reflect this.

as far as the movie is concerned: I definitely think that the books are far superior. In The Two Towers, for instance, the director added in several scene which, in my opinion, don't work. Treebeard, in the movie, didn't seem to know that his trees were being destroyed by Saruman; and yet he is called the "shepherd of the forest". And I personally feel that Faramir's character works better as a "good guy"--I liked the development that went on in the contrast between him and his brother. As it is, he starts out as a sort of semi-good guy who succumbs to the lust for the Ring--as weak as his brother, apparently, if not weaker--only to strangely change his ways later in the movie. It just doesn't add up.

anyway, that's my point of view on these stories. As to comparing them to other fantasy, I am not acquainted with any other fantasy, so I cannot judge; but to be frank, I can't imagine anything so beautiful or so good. :) that is, however, my own humble opinion.

Luv
me
 
Originally posted by kegasaurus
the world building is basic at best and the characters are about as one dimensional as they come.

I can see where some of these criticisms come from.
Yes, Tolkien's characters can be a bit flat, but that's because they were written as ARCHETYPES. Anyone know that word?

BUT, How can you POSSIBLY say that his world-building is basic at best????? World-building was a concept pretty much invented completely by Tolkien. Read his essay, "On Faerie Stories", where he talks all about his nifty concept of "secondary world building". It's all there, look it up.

Any other Fantasy, no matter how detailed they make the world (i.e. Robert Jordan, and others) STILL can't come close to it. And that's because, as has been noted before, his world had a history of thousands of years, based on VERY well thought out myths and legends and histories that he had written YEARS before he ever even CONCEIVED of hobbits.

This is the one area of Tolkien that I don't think can ever be criticized, and so I will go so far as to say that I think you are.......wrong! (gasp)

:)
 
Last edited:
I agree the characters are one-dimensional by today's standards, but the way he writes them and by virtue of their actions they come off as some of the best characters ever.
 
OK: YES. IT IS THAT GREAT.

And no, I'm not saying that because it is so famous and so many people like it, that I've been duped into pseudo-loving it. It is that great.

Originally posted by Lucky Joe

There is clearly no doubt in anybody's mind (even mine) that LOTR is considered a classic. However as you yourself (Ouroboros) pointed out just because something is popular or a crowd pleaser that in itself shouldn't consitutue it's status as a classic and unfortunately I think that definitely has a lot to do with it in LOTR's case.

As for it topping polls in magazines and so on, it has one thing in its favour that modern fantasy novels don't, in that it's been around for so long and it is very famous so at some stage a lot of people (including those who wouldn't normally touch fantasy with a barge pole or don't even consider themselves to be avid readers) have gotten around to reading it. In fifty years time or so as many people might have read anyone of a number of what we today consider modern fantasy authors.

That's sort of ridiculous, no? Fortunately, I think this has very little do to with LOTR being regarded as a classic. Imagine the conditions under which this book was published. There was no giant advertising campaigns, no Fantasy/Sci-fi mags or websites to review it, there was no fuzz whatsoever. And yet, lo and behold, it is now the bestselling novel of all time, bestselling book of all time next to the bible.

How do you think it became so famous? Because Tolkien was an advertising genius? Certainly not. Because people all over the english-speaking world suddenly all came under the same delusion that this book was good, and subsequently, all others felt compelled to agree to this as to not look stupid? I really don't see how this argument holds water.

And if you read Tolkiens biography, you'll notice a story about some reading society in England (don't remember the name, but obviously with literary credence), which was having a poll to find out what their intellectual and cultivated members thought was the greatest piece of fictional literature of all time. But instead of any of the "expected" works like Don Quijote, Ulysses etc., LOTR won. They weren't satisfied with this, as they thought the outcome unfavourable for their reputation, so they took the poll again. And again, LOTR won. And when it won for the third time, they had no choice but to make the results public.

Interesting, don't you think, that not only the general public, but also the "elite" of book readers find this "mediocre book" to be the best work of fiction ever published?




I think anybody who likes fantasy should take a look at LOTR for themselves and see what they think. But how many people start a book find they can't get into it put it aside and try again and again and again with any other book than LOTR? and how many do it with LOTR? Normally I don't give books a second chance, I gave LOTR about ten second chances and skimming through this thread it looks like a few other people here did too.

Well, what can I say? I never had anything grip me so thoroughly and profoundly. You'll find plenty of people, I'm sure, willing to swear upon their hearts and souls how much better music Korn or Papa Roach makes than J.S.Bach. I know what I think, though.


"arguably one of the most popular works ever written in the english language" very arguably, again its got time on its side, let's give it another fifty years and see if it still stands up against other work in what is still (again imho and correct me if I'm wrong) a fairly young genre. Personally I don't think it stands up against half the work in the genre now but that's just my opinion.

Yes, let's do that. You know, let's do the same with the Beatles (yes, I know, enough with the music analogies already!). Let's see in fifty years who people like best; them, or the much better and much more popular N'Sync. Yeah, let's do that.


And I should probably stop now,

Cheers and keep smiling. If you disagree with me that's fine I'm full of Sh*t anyway.

Nothing further, your honour:p.

And to some others here: until you learn how to spell the guy's name right, it comes off as kind off ridiculous to come down on his writing abilities.

T O L K I E N

Greetings
Artaxiad
 
Hi Loras Tryll,

I'm just offering my opinions, I'm really pleased that you enjoyed LOTR, as I've said before it would be a really dull world if we all liked the same thing, however if you're looking for converts forget it.

And if you read Tolkiens biography

I intend to, just as soon as I start suffering from insomnia, it should clear it right up! :o

:D

It's all relative really, if everybody else in the world thought something you liked was crap would that make you change your mind or would you stand by your opinion?
 
Lucky Joe: I'm not looking for converts, I'm looking for you realizing that your dislike of LOTR comes down to your apparent lack of taste in this aspect, not flaws within the work itself.

Greetings
Artaxiad
 
Lorcas Tyrell; you're obviously very passionate about Tolkien's work and that really is great, however don't think that because other people don't like that work or think it's over rated that they are attacking you personally they're not, (At least I'm not anyway :D)

Having said that, I never said LOTR's was flawed, I might have said it was boring, the worst book I've ever read and slightly less entertaining than watching paint dry however that doesn't mean it's flawed, just that it's not the kind of thing I enjoy.

As for saying I have a lack of taste, that's just silly. Who is to say one persons taste is right and anothers wrong, the whole point of taste is that it's a very personal thing that we decide for ourselves.

:D Keep Smiling
Lucky Joe
 

Sponsors


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


Your ad here.
Back
Top