Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Avatar 720 wrote:
I still don't see why I am wrong. What if I do read it all and still don't like it? Will that still be wrong? 'Guessed wrongly' is far from correct, as it assumes that I will like it if I read it, an assumption that is completely baseless.

No, if you read it , and still didn't like it that'd be different than not reading it and saying it's bad. Ah well.


As to the Lord of the Rings debate, I hav e to say that the problem with pacing and (what seemed like to me) blatant violation of the Law of Conservation of Detail is indeed a personal problem. Another reader could find the very same things I find objectionable part of the book's charm and appeal.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I didn't know that. Is it thought he did that to protect himself from some of the concepts in it?

I think the argument is that he'd moved past writing more hopeful, Southern slice of life stuff. He'd just finished, or was about to finish In Cold Blood, the first true crime novel, about the senseless slaughter of a family in a Southern town. Following it up with such a positive novel might have hurt his artistic credibility.

It is very, very speculative, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:Guessed wrongly? I didn't know you knew my thought patterns or even my mind at all. Or did you simply reach the conclusion that I am 'wrong' because it is a classic?

No, you're wrong because the stated reason you gave, that it's about a girl growing up, is wrong. The novel is about a whole lot of things, racism, justice, fairness, humility...

I am struggling to see how you know that I am obviously wrong; people don't like LotR, another classic, are they simply wrong too?

It depends on why they say they didn't like it. If they criticise the plodding nature of the text, or if they say that high fantasy just doesn't appeal to them then they'd have sensible reasons for disliking the book. If they said they didn't like how the book created this race of hobbits to be utterly inferior to other races in all ways and destined to fail, then they'd be wrong.

There can be good reasons to dislike works that are widely regarded as classics. I really don't like Dickens, because I don't like his wordy style, even though he's widely regarded as one of the greats.

The problem is that your reason was not a sensible criticism of the text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:I still don't see why I am wrong. What if I do read it all and still don't like it? Will that still be wrong? 'Guessed wrongly' is far from correct, as it assumes that I will like it if I read it, an assumption that is completely baseless.

Somewhat fittingly given the nature of this argument, I'd recommend you go back and read what I wrote. The wrong guess you made was in guessing what the novel was about, you said you guessed it was about a girl growing up, and it isn't limited to that at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sebster
LoTR doesn't have pacing problems.
The modern reader has problems with the book's pacing.

It was criticised on publication for it's pacing problem, among other things. It's hardly a problem with modern audiences (books are typically getting longer, not shorter, especially in fantasy where bloat is a chronic problem).

You can love the novel but that doesn't mean you have to exempt it from any and all possible criticisms. One plain and obvious criticism is that LotR was written with a focus on a range of things other than telling a story, and this means that the pacing of the story is erratic. There's whole chapters where nothing in the story moves forward at all, as Tolkein describes a side encounter like Tom Bombadil, or delves into description of some location.

Large parts of the novel are impenetrable to the first time or casual reader, as references are made to the greater history of Middle Earth, and these references often carry considerable meaning.

It is a difficult novel to read because of these things. It is still more than worth the effort, and Middle Earth is undoubtably one of the great creations, but that doesn't mean we should pretend it's a perfectly written novel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote: ..you appear to be arguing here that knowledge of a thing or a subject is needed to form a valid opinion on them...


.... shome mishtake shurely ?

I really, really wish I'd thought of that reply. Awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:Well, i'm bored of arguing now, so i'll just come clean:

I haven't read any of it.
I haven't formed an opinion of it for that reason.
I felt like seeing whether or not I could argue my way out of my position.

Don't hurt me

Please don't do that again. Thanks

Some of you may hate me for this but "Catcher in the Rye" was by far my least favorite book I had to read during High School. It's just basically one long rant for 200 or 300 something pages where the guy criticizes everybody but himself and it annoyed the hell out of me. I'm pessimistic enough as it is so I don't like reading about another pessimist lol.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:Some of you may hate me for this but "Catcher in the Rye" was by far my least favorite book I had to read during High School. It's just basically one long rant for 200 or 300 something pages where the guy criticizes everybody but himself and it annoyed the hell out of me. I'm pessimistic enough as it is so I don't like reading about another pessimist lol.

Maybe you shouldn't read Fight Club.

Redemption Corps.

It made my eyes bleed and my brain twist in knots in anguish.

God it sucked. Maybe Its just me but it just plain out blows.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:Some of you may hate me for this but "Catcher in the Rye" was by far my least favorite book I had to read during High School. It's just basically one long rant for 200 or 300 something pages where the guy criticizes everybody but himself and it annoyed the hell out of me. I'm pessimistic enough as it is so I don't like reading about another pessimist lol.

Would it make a difference if I told you that the narrator was intentionally written to be mistaken in most of his beliefs throughout the book?

I am not trying to exempt it from criticism at all.
Am just trying to take the work on its own merits rather than taking a subjective stance.

I can understand why some readers would find it dull tbh and for you it may be the worst book ever read. But that still doesn't make it a bad book.

Of all the books ever written there has to be a great deal many far far worst.
I never once said that the book was perfect nor indeed it was my favourite book. Read it once and will never read it again. All I was doing was making a very reasonable assumption about why a modern audience might have more difficulty reading LoTR.
How was my criticism unreasonable? That is a ridiculous statement. You claim that the length of books is increasing. Size has nothing to do with pacing.

Don't ask me how I know

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Size has nothing to do with pacing.

I hardly understood anything else you posted but I agree with you on this.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I am not trying to exempt it from criticism at all.
Am just trying to take the work on its own merits rather than taking a subjective stance.

Fair enough.

I can understand why some readers would find it dull tbh and for you it may be the worst book ever read. But that still doesn't make it a bad book.

Ah, that might be the source of our confusion. I never said it was the worst book I'd ever read. Some other folk did, and while I don't think it's even close to being one of the worst book ever written (quite the opposite, for all its faults it is still magnificent) I just wanted to pointed out that in terms of technical skill there are serious problems. These problems are the result of a focus on other things, in particular world building, but they exist none the less.

I never once said that the book was perfect nor indeed it was my favourite book. Read it once and will never read it again. All I was doing was making a very reasonable assumption about why a modern audience might have more difficulty reading LoTR.
How was my criticism unreasonable? That is a ridiculous statement. You claim that the length of books is increasing. Size has nothing to do with pacing.

Size has a lot to do with pacing, unless we assume that any increase in size automatically corresponds to an increase in content. Given the growth in books is due more to publishers demands than anything else, it's fair to say the amount of story has remained more or less the same, and as such the padding has grown, and pacing suffered as a result.

I'll have to disagree with you there, sebster. A sizeable book doesn't always mean a lot of padding.

The two worst books I've ever read are both supposed to be classics; Lord of the Flies and Romeo and Juliet. Made to read both in school and hated each one with a passion.

Well Romeo and Juliet are meant to be complete and utter idiots, so that's always a good thing to keep in mind. It's always fun to point that out to the couple who compares their romance to Romeo and Juliet.

@Ugavine: Didn't mind Lord of the Flies. It wasn't a very good book, no, but I don't think it deserves a place in this thread.

Anyone mentionned Starship Troopers yet ?

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Ugavine: Didn't mind Lord of the Flies. It wasn't a very good book, no, but I don't think it deserves a place in this thread.

Yeah, I had to read Lord of the Flies for English as well, and I loved it. It's not exactly cheery, but it is one of the masterpieces of 20th century literature, at least in my opinion. It's really fantastic.