Greetings and salutations fellow book lovers!

I recently watched the two Lord of the Rings movies for the first time and I enjoyed them greatly. (Yeah, I know. I'm behind, aren't I?) After watching them I was inspired to read the actual books. I went to the bookstore by my house and picked up the first one, that is, the Fellowship of the Ring.

I've been trying to read it, and well, I'm having a bit of trouble. (It's 400 pages long! Wow!) I was wondering if I might get some advise from fellow erodite book lovers. Why does J. R. Tolkien have to get so descriptive about everything? Does the side of a mountain really need five (yes, five!) pages of description? I know he was trying to create a world or something, but isn't it a bit much?

I don't mean to rant, but the Harry Potter books don't flow so slowly - I'd even dare to say that they're extremely well paced, and J. K. Rowling was still able to create a vibrant, well detailed world.

Maybe J. R. Tolkien wasn't that good of an author. He was definitely great guy when it came to ideas, but it seems like he had difficulty building those ideas into enjoyable stories.

What do you guys think?

Looking forward to a great discussion,
Jad

(Post a new comment)

vanima 2003-09-25 10:11 pm UTC (link)

I'm having trouble with them as well. I tried to get into the book, and I simply can't..it's too wordy/thick for my tastes. The descriptions kind of annoy me, I lose track of the main point and eventually sort of give up. Too much detail and I lose interest. And so the book sits, gathering dust on my bookshelf. By the way, that icon is damned awesome. I've never seen an icon of Rorschach, or any watchmen before, much less animated. It's hypnotic to watch. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	theadvocate 2003-09-26 12:16 am UTC (link)
	Okay. So what are you doing in this community? If you haven't read the books, your opinion means dick here. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - vanima, 2003-09-26 12:28 am UTC

(no subject) - theadvocate, 2003-09-26 12:31 am UTC

celtic4 2003-09-25 10:14 pm UTC (link)

Well, to some people, five pages of describing a mountain IS a good story. It's all about personal preference. I hate to say it, but Rowling's world and J.R.R. Tolkien's world are quite different. Tolkien was writing in the style of the epic romances, where description was not only appreciated but necessary. Rowling, however, is writing for the sensationalized and desensitized public...people today lose interest in something if it's not all dialogue. Which is, to me, a very great shame. Part of what you have to realize is that Tolkien loved his world. That's what sets him apart from so many other authors who just write for fame or money. Tolkien knew every tree and hill and blade of grass...he's not writing about mere scenery but about old friends. For what it's worth, Tolkien's works are the most enjoyable I've ever read. Like I said, it's all about preferences--and just because I don't like an author's style does NOT make them a poor author. It makes them an author which I do not prefer. ^_^ (Reply to this) (Thread)

	oloriel 2003-09-26 01:38 am UTC (link)
	This must be the most beautiful explanation I've ever read. Do you mind if I quote you on that in the future? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - celtic4, 2003-09-26 08:12 am UTC

jollyrancher 2003-09-25 10:18 pm UTC (link)

Perhaps its the just the kind of literature you like that determines which books you enjoy more. Because for me, I am entierly enthrawled with jrr tolkien's books; yet I harbor no liking for harry potter. I suggest you start with The Hobit, if you've not already read it. Its probably more to your liking. It takes less time to sit down and absorb. I feel the reason JRR is so discriptive is because he's created, a world, per-say. If you stick with the books, you become.. entierly engrossed. If you do read all of his books I think you will find that because he is more descriptive, you find the story that much more intense. My first read through, I recall on book three I was laughing at myself for gripping the book so hard as I turned each page. In any case, the flow of his books does pick up after FOTR. So your view of JRR may be premature. Give him time yet. He's grown to be the one author I always find myself comming back to. year after year. (Reply to this)

nagas 2003-09-25 10:23 pm UTC (link)

Er, I think it really depends on what kind of a reader you are, and what types of information you want to absorb. If the Harry Potter pace and length is for you, then yes, you will have a difficult time with all three books of the LotR. I personally believe that 5 pages describing a mountain is fantastic. It really inserts one into the story, and paints an elaborate picture for one to assume. The books just aren't for some people. Why does he have to get into such detail? Because that's how it was in his head when he was creating the world of Middle Earth and the story. I don't think that clearly trying to portray what you want the reader to see is bad writing. And I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say Tolkien wasn't a good author, and couldn't create enjoyable stories...it's just a matter of the perceiver. I'd say keep reading and see if you get used to the descriptions and such. It could just be that jumping into massive detail when you've only been exposed to Harry Potter types is a big change. You could grow to like it. I wouldn't advise you read the Silmarilion. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	sunnysky 2003-09-26 12:13 am UTC (link)
	I wouldn't advise you read the Silmarilion. so very, very true. i love it, but if you can't get thru LotR... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - nagas, 2003-09-26 12:14 am UTC

(no subject) - jollyrancher, 2003-09-26 12:39 am UTC

(no subject) - nagas, 2003-09-26 12:44 am UTC

(no subject) - nagas, 2003-09-26 12:45 am UTC

(no subject) - jollyrancher, 2003-09-26 01:02 am UTC

	nienna_ 2003-09-25 10:31 pm UTC (link)
	I doubt you can truly compare the Harry Potter series to Lord of the Rings. Just because the two authors have different writing styles does not mean one is better than the other. It could just mean that you prefer one author's style over the other. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	auroraluna 2003-09-26 11:41 am UTC (link)
	Bingo! Well said. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ultimateloser 2003-09-25 10:32 pm UTC (link)
	I found them a bit difficult at first. But you eventually just get used to the style of the book, and it's not so bad. Your icon is creeping me out. :) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	skye5 2003-09-26 04:39 pm UTC (link)
	Nice icon :) I love Tori (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - ultimateloser, 2003-09-26 08:19 pm UTC

virginhuntress 2003-09-25 11:07 pm UTC (link)

I'm passionately in love with Tolkien and his books, but he can be a bit lengthy. The thing is, Tolkien took years to write these books, and the places he writes all represent places he knew in real life. The thing is, though, you can skim that part without losing the total effect of the book. Make sure to read the parts where speaking is going on, and where people's histories are involved. Oh, and as for Rowling and Harry Potter, she uses a lot of Tolkien's ideas (i'm not trying to insult, seriously) and makes them easier for people to read. All I can say is that you should definitely read the books, and enjoy them...the end gets me every time...! (Reply to this)

	undesiredangel 2003-09-25 11:11 pm UTC (link)
	It's nice of you to point out another author's writing abilities, when "erodite" is spelled "erudite." And it's J.R.R. Tolkien. And this isn't an attack on your opinion. Just commentary that nobody's perfect. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	empress544 2003-09-26 12:02 pm UTC (link)
	And it's J.R.R. Tolkien. lol, i was about to say that ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tenthousandlies 2003-09-25 11:18 pm UTC (link)
	Its weird, but for me, reading Tolkien is enjoyable and easy, whereas reading Rowling is a pain in the ass. Maybe its too simplified and "kiddy" to my taste. But then again, I love authors that go into detail and describe everything vividly. (i.e. Anne Rice) (Reply to this) (Thread)

kingnat 2003-09-26 01:16 am UTC (link)

You see, for me, whilst I agree with you that I enjoy Tolkiens works much more than others simply because he does not simplify (that's not to say I don't like the simpler more narrative/dialogue focused books, because that's not the case) I'd have to disagree with you on Anne Rice. I think she covers lack of narrative with description, and seems to have a strange obsession with all vampires being gay (I'm sorry, but not every vampire is going to be a repressed queen!) That said, matters of opinion. (Just my personal opinion is that she sucks - oh, bad pun) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - tenthousandlies, 2003-09-26 02:02 am UTC

(no subject) - folk, 2003-09-26 03:37 am UTC

(no subject) - oloriel, 2003-09-26 05:05 am UTC

(no subject) - kokibi, 2003-09-26 06:31 am UTC

(no subject) - oloriel, 2003-09-26 06:51 am UTC

(no subject) - kokibi, 2003-09-26 07:57 am UTC

(no subject) - oloriel, 2003-09-27 03:07 pm UTC

(no subject) - folk, 2003-09-26 03:32 pm UTC

leggyslove 2003-09-25 11:19 pm UTC (link)

To have LOTR compaired to Harry Potter makes me a bit annoyed. Tolkien and Rowling have such different writing styles that I think you cannot really compare the two. Remember that JK geared her books to all ages, and Tolkien wasn't thinking about that. He wanted to go in depth and create the world to its fullest extent. It is hard to get into Tolkien at first. I read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings when I was 14 and it took me almost a year to finish. It is not an easy read. But I have gotten used to it so much that I can read all the books in less than 2 weeks. (less if I had more time. lol) I do know what you're saying, and it will get easier. By the 3rd time reading LOTR I finally got everything and it became much clearer. Lord of the Rings was voted best book of the Century (and I think mellenium, but I'm not totally sure with that), so that just says how great an author JRR was. Thanks for your opinion. :) I quite like discussions like these. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	vanima 2003-09-26 12:36 am UTC (link)
	See, it's comments like yours that inspire me to keep trying to finish. I'm having alot of trouble concentrating sometimes, but I don't really want to give up on the book. I'm determined to finish it, even if it takes me a while. ^_^ (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - adinasauce, 2003-09-27 03:24 am UTC

theadvocate 2003-09-26 12:14 am UTC (link)

If you don't like it, stick to TV and video games, you ansy fucking pansy. J.R.R Tolkien (holy shit, two R's? that's madness! And to think you could have checked the BOOK YOU OWN TO MAKE SURE OF THE AUTHOR'S NAME) makes that greedy Potter wench look like the dude who writes the menus at Denny's. Maybe Tolkien is not the problem. Maybe (definetely, I mean), YOU are the problem. By "well paced" I assume you mean "completely fucking nonsensical". The fact is, millions of people, through generations have loved the Lord of the Rings and John Tolkien's sub-creation Middle Earth. You think your bullshit opinion trumps all this? I sincerely fucking doubt it. Like I said, the problem is with you, not Tolkien. "Dur, he was like, a great guy, but he can't write!" Bullshit. He can't write? Wrong. You can't read. (Reply to this) (Thread)

oloriel 2003-09-26 01:35 am UTC (link)

But now you're being unfair against J.K. Rowling. While I feel that you just CAN'T compare Middle-earth and Hogwarts and therefore get very annoyed when people start to wage wars about what is better, I love them both. But - they - are - different. Deal with it. Everyone. Also, I suppose I'm a bit sensitive there, but is it necessary to get so insulting? I understand completely that you disagree (for so do I), but if the mere fact that you disagree is already a reason to throw swearwords around, are you really any better? "I don't like it, so I think he's a bad writer." "I don't like THAT, so fuck you." Hmmm. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - theadvocate, 2003-09-26 01:46 am UTC

(no subject) - oloriel, 2003-09-26 01:56 am UTC

(no subject) - theadvocate, 2003-09-26 03:03 pm UTC

(no subject) - iraqtheparty, 2003-09-26 07:01 pm UTC

(no subject) - oloriel, 2003-09-27 03:13 pm UTC

(no subject) - soultoad, 2003-09-26 11:09 am UTC

(no subject) - theadvocate, 2003-09-26 03:04 pm UTC

(no subject) - etoilepb, 2003-09-26 04:41 am UTC

(no subject) - theadvocate, 2003-09-26 03:05 pm UTC

(no subject) - sickgirrl, 2003-09-27 12:29 am UTC

sunnysky 2003-09-26 12:25 am UTC (link)

just to warn you, this was totally a horrible place to say that Tolkien was a bad author. you're going to get thousands of replies. i do know what you're going thru. definately start with the Hobbbit though, and trust me, when you really get going, you'll love it. remember, Tolkien's world is completely new; JKR used the landscape of england, so there isn't necessarily the same amount of detail needed. plus, you've seen the movies, so you don't really need to know what Rivendell looked like by reading it, you learned it by seeing it. thanks to amazing painstaking detail, Rivendell in the movie is beautiful. but imagine trying to create a whole world with words...it takes a lot. i love harry potter; don't worry - but comparing the two really isn't fair (and many LotR fans will tar and feather you for doing it) JKR isn't writing to the same audience. plus, OotP is much more advanced reading than SS. just imagine what's going to happen in book seven! tolkien wanted to create a new history - could you really do that in a young adult novel? if you ever try to read Alexander Dumas, (of Three Musketeer Fame), you'll think that Tolkien is a god send. here's my last piece of wisdom - FotR is by far the most difficult book. once you start TTT, however, you'll find yourself reading much faster. it me over two months to read FotR. i read TTT in two days. i read a good portion of RotK in 5 hours (straight!). just give it time. ps...Tolkien is *not* my favorite author. far from it, actually. but if it wasn't for Tolkien, fantasy would not be where it is today. the story and the world he created is what's beautiful - but that doesn't mean its easy to read. ^_^ (Reply to this)

	Hello tupaikecil 2003-09-26 12:53 am UTC (link)
	I really had a nice reading your discussion here. Comparing Tolkien with Rowling is useless, for they have different readers, style, and mission. :) (Reply to this)

kingnat 2003-09-26 01:32 am UTC (link)

Okay first things first; Please do not flame someone for holding different opinions! eg. I personally feel that Anne Rice is one of the worst authors ever to grace our fair planet, but that doesn't mean I'm going to flame those who enjoy her gay vampire porn work Secondly; Personally I like his wordiness. It's worth sticking to if you're having trouble, and a consideration might be to try and get hold of the books in their six book format. (It makes them seem so much less daunting) Good luck with your reading though, and I hope they grow on you. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	oloriel 2003-09-26 01:37 am UTC (link)
	*hugs kingnat and hopes he won't get angry* Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Exactly what needed to be said and I couldn't. *ducks* (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - kingnat, 2003-09-26 02:01 am UTC

(no subject) - oloriel, 2003-09-26 05:07 am UTC

(no subject) - kingnat, 2003-09-26 01:47 am UTC

(no subject) - swear_jar, 2003-09-26 01:49 am UTC

(no subject) - kingnat, 2003-09-26 01:59 am UTC

(no subject) - swear_jar, 2003-09-26 02:05 am UTC

	swear_jar 2003-09-26 01:34 am UTC (link)
	Hello pr0nking haven't I seen you being mocked over at fandom wank for trolling? Nice one ::salutes::. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kraftpistole 2003-09-26 12:47 pm UTC (link)
	You know... I was wondering the same thing myself. "Looking forward to a great discussion," this person writes, then disappears throughout the entirety of its 60+ replies. Or maybe the well thought out, intelligent replies that take more than a milisecond to read simply frightened him away. ;-) (Reply to this) (Parent)

vashachu 2003-09-26 03:47 am UTC (link)

As mentioned before, Rawlings and Tolkien are two very different writers. HP are books written for a child/preteen audience. I love HP! You don't have to be a kid to enjoy those books. However, style wise, Tolkien wrote LOTR and geared it toward his Hobbit audience, who had all grown up. Therefore, it is going to be more adult in nature and in description. And as for description, that was simply his style. Dickens was a very descriptive author too. That speaks to some people, but not all. I applaud you for trying to get through a book that perhaps isn't something you would normally pick up. It will make you a more well-rounded reader as well as expose you to some awesome literature. Good luck. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	irian 2003-09-26 06:24 am UTC (link)
	Er, don't you mean Rowling? hehe. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - vashachu, 2003-09-27 08:54 am UTC

	etoilepb 2003-09-26 04:36 am UTC (link)
	You have a Rorschach icon. Whee! And, er, as for the topic: I think FOTR is a horrid drag, but TTT and ROTK, as books, more than make up for it. Also, JK Rowling writes primarily for children. Tolkien wrote for his peers, who were people like C.S. Lewis (adults), and for his languages. Very, VERY different goals. (Reply to this)

	gemmintheruff 2003-09-26 05:17 am UTC (link)
	I love your icon! (Reply to this)

ilanalynn 2003-09-26 05:53 am UTC (link)

Everyone has said basically the same things I'm going to say, but I can't resist commenting anyway. I was raised on Tolkien, so I never had a problem with it being too slow or too wordy or what not. But I can see where people would think that it is. It can take some time and patience to get through it, especially the first part of Fellowship of the Ring. As for Tolkien not being such a great author... I am going to have to disagree with you there. He's one of my favourites. But like (almost) everyone else has said, that's really a matter of personal preference. There's nothing wrong if you can't get into the books. I think that's part of why the movies were made... to bring the story to people who weren't able to get through the books. While it's definitely preferable to read the books, I think, at least you're getting the gist of the story through the movies. But might I suggest an audio book? There are several available, and if you don't want to pay the $50 or so at the bookstore I'm sure you can borrow them from the library. For me, I had listened to the story so many times that by the time I read it myself, it was no trouble. :) (Reply to this)

stellar_dust 2003-09-26 06:51 am UTC (link)

This is so strange .. everyone's saying they think Fellowship is the hardest. It's always been my favorite. Maybe because it's ALL about the hobbits, and I love hobbits .. but also, it seems to me that the language gets a bit tougher and, well, more pretentiously biblical in TTT and ROTK. "And, Lo, did the King of Gondor return at last to the blessed city of his fathers. And there was great rejoicing, for all that was prophesied had come to pass, and the Dark Power was no more. And lo, a beam of light did shine through the clouds upon the White Tree within the courtyard, and the Lords of Gondor looked upon it and were well pleased." (paraphrase) Anyone agree with me? (Don't let that discourage you from reading them, though!) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ilanalynn 2003-09-26 07:55 am UTC (link)
	*shrugs* Personally, I like that sort of language. I use it myself sometimes, but usually for amusement purposes... like here and here. But that's just me. ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - stellar_dust, 2003-09-26 08:14 am UTC

banger7 2003-09-26 08:58 am UTC (link)

Comparing Harry Potter to the Lord of the Rings is like comparing a stick of gum to a seven-course dinner. A stick of gum tastes pretty good, but after awhile it loses its flavor. A seven-course meal is much more rich and much more satisfying. I've read Lord of the Rings several times over the past 17 years, and will probably read it several times more. I've read the first 4 Harry Potter books, I'm not rushing out to get number 5, and I doubt I'll be re-reading any of them. (Reply to this)

mystico_tala 2003-09-26 09:16 am UTC (link)

Man, that Advocate dude is really a jerk isn't he? lol. Well, J.K. Rowling isn't nearly as detailed as Tolkien, she was writing a kids book, something that was there specifically for a storyline and nothing more, Tolkien created a world. I'm not going to go into anything lengthy, because people have already put everything beautifully, so here is goes. The Fellowship movie follows pretty close to the books in most aspects. And although I enjoyed Fellowship emmensely, I've heard about a lot of people that had trouble getting through it, so, If you want, you can always start on TTT, which in many peoples opinion is a little quicker pased. Don't let idiots like advocate keep you from reading the books OR posting here! Fellowship has a lot of explaining to do with cultures and characters and races, so the books afterwards may be more enjoyable for you since it's all already established. haha, yea, and I agree with the rest of them....don't read The Silmarillion! lol, hope I helped at all. (Reply to this) (Thread)

auroraluna 2003-09-26 11:45 am UTC (link)

I'm not trying to be rude, but the Harry Potter series is not really intended for children. The storyline is too complicated and involved for children to follow, understand and appreciate. Tolkien and Rowling have two totally different writing styles, and no, Rowling isn't as into details as Tolkien, but her stories aren't for storyline and nothing more. Once again, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just mentioning it. Also, you've made a great point -- Tolkien did create an entirely new world. There's a lot of hard work, deep thought and detail that has to go into that. That's why it takes five pages to write about the side of a mountain -- this isn't any mountain that exists in the world as we know it. His task, to make this world believable, requires a hell of a lot of detail. He's done a wonderful job at it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

empress544 2003-09-26 12:11 pm UTC (link)

The two authors you mentioned have completely different styles, and they aren't for everyone, but that doesn't give you the right to say that Tolkien is a bad author. One thing i've noticed is that while Rowling may have a lot of character development, Tolkien doesn't as much. But tolkien wasn't trying to write a children's story. LOTR is an epic. It focuses on the story and plot much more than just the characters. Notice its called "The lord of the rings" and not "The Hobbit II" or "Sam's Journey" or something. What lotr really is about is the ring, and if you think of the ring as a character there is plenty of development there. And i think in a lot of ways he wasn't just creating a story but describing a world. Personally, i love epics, so I love Tolkien, just as i love beowulf and star wars. But LOTR is my favorite because the plot is fantastic and the world is so expansive. To me LOTR is like the most realistic fantasy work, in terms of behavior and romance (ie its very miniscule, on the sidelines, and not a major part of the plot though it does carry significant influence). (Reply to this)

	spriteremix 2003-09-26 12:38 pm UTC (link)
	J.R.R. TOLKIEN IS THE BEST OF THE BEST! And I really hope you dont get mugged or get the shnot beat out of you for posting that. (Reply to this)

Literature v Pulp betra 2003-09-26 01:22 pm UTC (link)

Pardon me while I pounce atop my soapbox to add the opinion of an English Major. For starters, I think you have made a terrible mistake in watching the movies FIRST. As with all great literature, the translation to a movie format is going to be a slaughter. Even the old black and white movie version of GRAPES OF WRATH (which is very faithful) cannot hope to impart the feelings that John Steinbeck's detailed descriptions invoked. And when I say detailed, I mean who else is going to write a paragraph about how a glob of spittle in the dust becomes a hard pebble? Anyway, the point is, that Tolkien was the first author to truly create a new world, fill it with races and beings, and set it all against a backdrop of war and struggle. He took his cue from epic works - and if you have ever read an EPIC you know that it is chock full of the most detailed of descriptions about every little thing. It is history, and so the details must be remembered. Tolkien's work is a world in itself, and the LoTR is really historical in its presentation. If you cannot stomach this kind of traditional story telling, then I agree you should start with The Hobbit, which has a slightly gentler use of language and a more evident sense of humor. But PLEASE do not compare LoTR to any Harry Potter book. It is truly insulting. (I am offended by the entire existance of those works, simply because the main character seems to be a rip off of Timothy Hunter in The Books of Magic, but that is neither here nor there). Popular fiction is not great literature. And although I was reading Tolkien when I was 10, I think that is unusual and Tolkien was writing for an older audience. Harry Potter is mostly geared towards a young audience, and while entertaining, I would not lump it in with Poe, Tolkien, Dickens, Melville, Steinbeck, or Hemingway. It is not great literature, plain and simple. That doesn't mean it isn't a good read, but it is not, in and of itself, good writing. The only similarity I see between HP and LoTR is that the author has opened up the world of fantasy a little more for her young readers. Hopefully as they mature more of them will graduate from her books to the Master of the genre. Thanks for reading that long ramble! (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Literature v Pulp irian 2003-09-27 11:31 am UTC (link)

Hear, hear! I have heard people say that LotR and HP are the same using such reasoning as "both series have wizards and magic"... Lame, right? I doubt that any movie based on a book can ever capture the complete feel of the original, no matter how faithful the script is. You just cant't substitute the mental images the reader forms when he reads the book. But PLEASE do not compare LoTR to any Harry Potter book. It is truly insulting. (I am offended by the entire existance of those works, simply because the main character seems to be a rip off of Timothy Hunter in The Books of Magic, but that is neither here nor there). Yay, someone else noticed that Tim Hunter/Harry Potter similarities! But Tim can definitely make Harry eat dust any time. And no, I don't dislike Harry (I actually like the books as light reading). I'm just stating a fact. Actually, it's not just Books of Magic, Rowling's HP series also has a lot of similarities with some of Diana Wynne Jones' books. I wouldn't call Jones' writing sensationalist popular fiction, but she IS a very popular author, and she's been writing good YA books in the HP vein long before Harry supposedly walked alive and whole into Rowling's mind. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Literature v Pulp - betra, 2003-09-27 07:44 pm UTC

---