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.
If he wrote them today, they would be massacred by a modern editor, with at least 3-400 pages shaved off them, because our current cultural context is obsessed with 'quick-fix' satisfaction delivery. Look at one of the most successful modern fantasy franchises - the Harry potter books. The initial couple are almost pamphlet sized. Sadly, Rowling's editor became frightened to tell her to cut things, and as a result, she developed some similar over-detailing of irrelevant stuff to Tolkien's as the series continued.
Indeed. I wonder how many people on here have been forced to have to read through any 18th century literature? From a time before they had the good grace to invent chapters (I will never read Moll Flanders again), so there is no logical stopping point? Yet many of these books are regarded as being part of the "literary canon" and have universal praise heaped upon them, even though they're a chore to read. Simply because the powers that be say so.
In case anyone wants to question my right to hold an opinion, I have a degree in creative writing, have had sci-fi, fantasy and horror shorts published on both sides of the atlantic, and have written dissertations on subjects such as 'the development of the horror genre from stoker to king', so yeah, I think I'm as qualified as anyone else on here to have an opinion. :p
I wouldn't go saying that. Apparently a degree of that ilk is a Mickey Mouse one. Oh the humanities!
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
If he wrote them today, they would be massacred by a modern editor, with at least 3-400 pages shaved off them, because our current cultural context is obsessed with 'quick-fix' satisfaction delivery. Look at one of the most successful modern fantasy franchises - the Harry potter books. The initial couple are almost pamphlet sized. Sadly, Rowling's editor became frightened to tell her to cut things, and as a result, she developed some similar over-detailing of irrelevant stuff to Tolkien's as the series continued.
Indeed. I wonder how many people on here have been forced to have to read through any 18th century literature? From a time before they had the good grace to invent chapters (I will never read Moll Flanders again), so there is no logical stopping point? Yet many of these books are regarded as being part of the "literary canon" and have universal praise heaped upon them, even though they're a chore to read. Simply because the powers that be say so.
You claim that you have a degree in English literature?
I'm fricking 16, and I appreciate a lot of books that aren't from my era. There's a reason why they stood the test of time - they're good books, and whilst they're outdated in terms of writing, they're great. The themes in them are deeper than many of the things that are put out today. It's like us gamers - we look nerdy on the outside, but inside, we may not be so nerdy and be pretty cool dudes. Nahmean?
If he wrote them today, they would be massacred by a modern editor, with at least 3-400 pages shaved off them, because our current cultural context is obsessed with 'quick-fix' satisfaction delivery. Look at one of the most successful modern fantasy franchises - the Harry potter books. The initial couple are almost pamphlet sized. Sadly, Rowling's editor became frightened to tell her to cut things, and as a result, she developed some similar over-detailing of irrelevant stuff to Tolkien's as the series continued.
Indeed. I wonder how many people on here have been forced to have to read through any 18th century literature? From a time before they had the good grace to invent chapters (I will never read Moll Flanders again), so there is no logical stopping point? Yet many of these books are regarded as being part of the "literary canon" and have universal praise heaped upon them, even though they're a chore to read. Simply because the powers that be say so.
You claim that you have a degree in English literature?
I'm fricking 16, and I appreciate a lot of books that aren't from my era. There's a reason why they stood the test of time - they're good books, and whilst they're outdated in terms of writing, they're great. The themes in them are deeper than many of the things that are put out today. It's like us gamers - we look nerdy on the outside, but inside, we may not be so nerdy and be pretty cool dudes. Nahmean?
Never knew one of the requirements for getting my degree was liking every book I had to read? Must have been in the small print.
There is much debate on the literary canon and what must be included in it (or if something is going to be put in it something else must go). I absolutely despise 18th century literature (also Ulysses. Thanks for bringing up those bad memories up Eggs! :p) with the sole exception of Tristram Shandy, as the book is fething insane, so much so an entire page is black, as the book itself mourns for the death of a character. One does not have to like everything that is regarded as a staple of the genre simple because it is what made the genre what it is. There are numerous examples scattered throughout many types of media of subsequent works being so much better than the original (or what people regard as being the origin).
Who'd have thought we'd be having a debate on the literary canon on Dakka? Takes me back.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You are wrong on both counts. For one thing, Tolkein already had his time in the intellectual spotlight during the 70s, and was also very popular. Just like Stephen King was, back when he was on drugs in the 80s. Stephen King is still fairly popular in the mainstream, even among the few literary types who are willing to "endure" fantasy fiction, while Tolkein is only relevant because so many writers decided to copy his work or improve upon it, kind of like Lovecraft. For another, Stephen King's early literature had the kind of meat English majors love: themes, characters who wrestle with the human (or otherwise) condition, honesty, modern prose techniques, themes, pretentiousness (Oh man, The Dark Tower!). Tolkein's LotR has some thematic work, but the prose is as stilted for modern readers as Lovecraft's was, and he seems to have been just as clueless about techniques such as "Chekhov's Gun". And his characters never felt like real people or wrestled with the kinds of struggles Literary types care about (except for Samwise, who was awesome).
Tolkein did not "have his spotlight" in the 70s. My dad says that when he went to university in the 70s to study English, his professor asked for a show of hands who liked The Lord of The Rings. When many of the people in the room put their hands up, he said "for god's sake, why?".
And stephen king is absolute trash. If you think he is good, in any way, you and I are going to have serious difficulties. You may as well print an American flag on every single page and bind it with the hide of a bald eagle.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If you stripped Tolkein's work of his name and it's place in history as the first high fantasy to steal Europe's myths and make it into print in a nonserialized manner, and read it next to Wolfe, Varley, Martin, Sanderson, Lieber, Le Guin, Hobb, Cook or even King, it would come off as tedious, underdevelopped (plot, characters, interest) and "too PG", i.e., dishonest.
You named loads of people no one has ever heard of and insisted they're all better than him. It's hard to not see you as a hipster. "Oh you think NOFX are good? Mate they stole it *all* from scumbag, Fartswallop and the blue blue boys".
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
He was never the best. He was just (one of) the first.
In your head, maybe. I don't know what sort of alternate world you inhabit where no one likes the Lord of the Rings.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
EDIT: I just want to point out that both authors echo their inspirations. Tolkein loved languages and old folklore and literature, and it shows. Stephen King studied more modern literature and taught English, and it shows. They both had different aims for their work, and they were very successful (although Tolkein's big success did not come nearly as quickly).
Tolkein loved languages and old folklore? Cheers for that revelation. Not like I know anything about him or his work, or my dad is both a rabid Tolkein fan and an academic in ancient European folklore who's constantly telling me about some obscure Nordic poem that the name "Gandalf" comes from.
But yeah, keep the lessons coming bro. If you keep telling me things I already know, and keep reeling off impossibly long lists of obscure unheard of authors, you might start to look clever
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Also, no modern author could ever get away with writing a book where nothing happened in the first 100 pages and still get published. Well, not unless he's French.
They said that at the time. They were wrong. Go read Dan Brown.
Ouze wrote:
I like how you constructed it. Tolkein is a great author, and the only way you can think otherwise is if you're a lowbrow idiot hipster. No other option, bro.
It's called rhetoric. It's a literary technique.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Eggs wrote: Wolfe, Varley, Martin, Sanderson, Lieber, Le Guin, Hobb, Cook and King are not 'people no one has heard of'.
Not heard of game of thrones? Or earthsea? Or any number of Steven king books/films/tv series etc?
Don't assume because you don't know who a writer is, no one else will!
King was the exception. I've not read Game of Thrones but I saw it on tv. 10 hours and not a single thing has actually happened. The premise was barely established. It was a piss-take.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Testify wrote: I've not read Game of Thrones but I saw it on tv. 10 hours and not a single thing has actually happened. The premise was barely established. It was a piss-take.
I don't know where to start with this and seeing as we're veering off topic, it's probably best not to get into it too much, BUT...
GoT series 1 follows a well defined arc and narratively speaking, there is not a single character in the same "place" as they were at the beginning (with the possible exception of Varys who doesn't seem to evolve much).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/04 18:54:07
I don't know. Things still seem "Off" to me when it comes to te hobbit game.
Look at what you have for "Good Guys" : You have the Council of White, and whats in the starter set. And the starter contains Gandolf, who's also one of the 4 figures in the Council....
I like to say I have two armies: Necrons, and Imperium.....
Eggs wrote:Actually, I'd agree that game of thrones is pretty slow going and bogged down with detail, but no more so than Lotr.
I suppose there's a difference between detail that draws from ancient myths, and detail for the sake of detail. I find it odd that so many people find LOTR "difficult" in places. Disregarding the songs (seriously tolkein wtf?) I never found it slow or over-descriptive.
Flashman wrote:
Testify wrote: I've not read Game of Thrones but I saw it on tv. 10 hours and not a single thing has actually happened. The premise was barely established. It was a piss-take.
I don't know where to start with this and seeing as we're veering off topic, it's probably best not to get into it too much, BUT...
GoT series 1 follows a well defined arc and narratively speaking, there is not a single character in the same "place" as they were at the beginning (with the possible exception of Varys who doesn't seem to evolve much).
Right. You clearly regard this as a good thing.
If I wanted to read about 20 charectors story arks, i'd get 20 charectors books. There's nothing wrong with having a main plotline.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: You must be joking. There's more to Middle-Earth than the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. There's the stories of the First Age that are amazingly developed. Let's take George Lucas - he didn't develop the Star Wars world by himself, he got the help of a team of writers, producers and things like that. Meanwhile, Tolkien developed his world by himself in the trenches of France during the First World War.
Neither did Tolkien then, and it wasn't all done during WW1. He started the Silmarillion there but The Hobbit wasn't written until the 1930's and LotR during the late 30's- late 40's. He had help from his son picking up where he left off not to mention all the editors along the way. Most of what he wrote was derived from Biblical, Arthurian, Norse and Celtic Mythology so it's not that original at all then either. None of those was the point you asked about though since you wanted to know what other authors created their own worlds as detailed as Middle Earth. Nice deflection attempt though. You might want to try an advanced course in Tolkien literature in college though to help round out your knowledge.
Hell, he even created many different languages for use in his works. These languages can even be spoken! Half of those writers that you mentioned can trace the origin of their works to Tolkien as well.
Klingon can be spoken too. So what?
Pratchett is really the only one who traces back to Tolkien but he unabashedly admits he drew inspiration from LotR.
Ouze wrote:
I like how you constructed it. Tolkein is a great author, and the only way you can think otherwise is if you're a lowbrow idiot hipster. No other option, bro.
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Whatever the criticisms levelled at Tolkien as a author, he was an intellectual as a professor of early languages and an associate of CS Lewis and the Inklings, he wrote books which are among the most widely read of all fantasy novels, and those books are among the primary sources that shaped the modern concept of heroic fantasy fiction.
It does amuse me that some posting seem to think that enjoying the books and acknowledging their importance doesn't preclude a person from being critical and suggesting that they weren't perfect.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
It does amuse me that some posting seem to think that enjoying the books and acknowledging their importance doesn't preclude a person from being critical and suggesting that they weren't perfect.
Yup. I loved the whole world of LOTR (my first exposure to it incidentally being watching the Ralph Bakshi version at my Grandparent's house). I had a good working knowledge of the plot and saw the films. Then I tried to read the books whilst at uni. Ugh! The concept and world was beautiful but the execution in the original text was horrible IMO. Just stodgy and plodding in many places.
You can tell Peter Jackson was somewhat aware of this, as several things were cut due to pacing issues (Tom Bombadil anyone?).
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
I'll be the first one to say that I found Tolkien's books tedious and i've read all of them, they're not an easy read, it's not paced.
But, they are good.
And what's with comparing apples to oranges on here? Tolkien should be compared to his contemporaries, like C.S Lewis, MacDonald, Wyke-Smith, Morris etc.
but then again, taste is subjective, i'm not going to like everything that anyone else likes and vice-versa.
just enjoy what you enjoy and stop using rhetorics to your liking lads
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
I think it's important to remember that there was culture before post-modernism.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
I think it's important to remember that there was culture before post-modernism.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand that so it doesn't sound like meaningless waffle.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
I think it's important to remember that there was culture before post-modernism.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand that so it doesn't sound like meaningless waffle.
I'm going to paraphrase one of my lecturers here "Avant-garde is French for bullcrap."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/04 20:29:39
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Consider though that children are attracted to bright colors. I think that the brown and off white characters we see here will fail to capture their imagination as much as the vivid greens, reds, blues and whites of the former LOTR sets.
Sadly many people have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts due to the recession. Factor in also the increase in fuel prices. Factor in the increased cost of food, which will rise next year again in the UK as Tesco has forewarned a price rise. So overall there will be less families and individuals with the capital to invest in playing the game. This could have a severe effect on the number of gaming groups who play the game, which in turn reduces the hype and thus lowers sales.
Poor sales would affect the share value of games workshop. I remember being told that the game 'GorkaMorka' nearly sunk Games Workshop in the 90s because of how much it cost to publish and how few copies they sold. Could the Hobbit have consequences this serious for their company? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.
I feel I might be starting to understand those who say any Games Workshop product is value for money though. Am I right in saying that you have never paid rent, gas or food bills in your entire life and still live with your mother? And that, consequently, 100% of all income is to be spent on toys? Games Workshop is piratically guaranteed the pocket money of this sector of the gaming world, so long as the products have a high entertainment value. It may be that Games Workshop is able to survive indefinitely by targeting this sector of the market. I would say however that because they have priced their products so highly, they have little room for manouvre if the cost of living for the average family keeps increasing - they will inevitably lose customers as children's parents decide to put more money away for holidays, clothing and other necessities. GW will be unable to lower the price of their models, because this would undermine investor confidence, and the value of the company would plummet. So it looks as if they can only shrink and stagnate while many of their customers concentrate on other priorities.
In brief it seems this product has little appeal to the mature gamer who is, through the miracle of the internet, able to access products from numerous competitors, and that its appeal to children may be limited.
If the product is not well received by gamers this will adversely affect Games Workshop's revenues. I can only imagine what their reaction to this might be: another price hike!
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/12/04 21:22:02
I read tolkiens books in HS, and to be frank, I've never just skipped over so many pages in my life.
Tolkien can weave a good story no doubt, but man that guy was long winded about everything. If you're the kind of person who cares about tiny details then I imagine you'd fall in love with it. I personally don't care too much about things I don't find particularly interesting that happened in the past.
What happened to Moria? That's interesting
Here's two pages about what this cliff looks like, and a song tacked on. Skip
“Sometimes I can hear my bones straining under the weight of all the lives I'm not living.”
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.
CS Lewis, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Larry Niven, George R.R. Martin, Issac Asimov, Arther C. Clarke, Robert Jordan just for a few off the top of my head. Hell even throw L. Ron Hubbard in the mix (he started a religion based off his fiction).
Ah hah hah. Most of those writers never did anything even remotely similar to depth of Tolkien's world. Jordan and Martin are MORE slow-plodding and bloated than Tolkien, if anything, and Jordan's universe is a really poor ripoff from Middle-Earth.
Tolkien's works are great precisely because of all the trouble he went through to build background, peoples, history and languages. It all adds up to make the world more real & concrete than those made by most of his peers: tiny little stuff which doesn't jump out of the page outright, but when you add it all up, it shows. That's the difference between Tolkien and someone like David Eddings: as a writer, Eddings was no worse (better, if anything) but his worlds and characters were crude cardboard cutouts thought up in five minutes, whilst Tolkien spent years just documenting vocal changes between Quenya and Sindar.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand that so it doesn't sound like meaningless waffle.
Tolkein's books are about a living breathing culture. The people, the land, the gods and the spirits are all rationalised and understood.
Compare this to the post-modern obsession with splitting and clarifying the world. If you don't see the value of the first 100 pages of the Lord of the Rings then it clearly isn't for you.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
I read the books from the age of 9 through to about 11, which is back in the 80s.
Alice In Wonderland, the Narnia Books, anything by Dickens or several of his peers, all are of an age or older than Lot, yet don't suffer from the bloated verbal obesity of those books.
Duh, Narnia and Alice were children's books. That is like comparing RL Stine to Stephen King.
It's not the age thing. Much of the fantasy published today is if anything, much more bloated than Tolkien's works. Just look at Wheel of Time! Harry Potter was mentioned: Rowling's style is in fact very similar to Tolkien's in Hobbit and the books are very "full", they have enormous amount of detail, characters and plotlines, even the early ones which are much thinner than the last ones.
There were plenty of quick-reading, non-bloated, popular fiction published in 18th and 19th centuries. It's just that nobody knows those writers or books anymore, because they did not stand the test of time. They don't contain enough unique elements to entertain a literary student, and their style and setting is obsolete for modern reader. Nobody cares about, say, H. Rider Haggard anymore. Or for example, Karl May. Same thing is going to happen to many currently popular authors. I can absolutely guarantee that 50 years from now, nobody knows or cares who Dan Brown was or what books he wrote.
I love the films a lot more than the books, but how did Randall so crudely and eloquently put it in Clerks 2?
"If Peter Jackson wanted to blow me away with those 'Rings movies he would have ended the third one on the logical closure point, not the 25 endings that followed"
"When fething Frito wakes up from his little coma or whatever and all his Hobbit friends are jumping up and down on his bed and Sam leans in the doorway and gives him that very fething gay look."
This is hilarious in the sense that in a way, the films are MORE bloated than the books. Jackson is a great visionnaire and producer, but crappy director. It got even worse in King Kong, I hated that.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/12/04 21:43:33
I read the books from the age of 9 through to about 11, which is back in the 80s.
Alice In Wonderland, the Narnia Books, anything by Dickens or several of his peers, all are of an age or older than Lot, yet don't suffer from the bloated verbal obesity of those books.
Duh, Narnia and Alice were children's books. That is like comparing RL Stine to Stephen King.
It's not the age thing. Much of the fantasy published today is if anything, much more bloated than Tolkien's works. Just look at Wheel of Time! Harry Potter was mentioned: Rowling's style is in fact very similar to Tolkien's in Hobbit and the books are very "full", they have enormous amount of detail, characters and plotlines, even the early ones which are much thinner than the last ones.
There were plenty of quick-reading, non-bloated, popular fiction published in 18th and 19th centuries. It's just that nobody knows those writers or books anymore, because they did not stand the test of time. They don't contain enough unique elements to entertain a literary student, and their style and setting is obsolete for modern reader. Nobody cares about, say, H. Rider Haggard anymore. Or for example, Karl May. Same thing is going to happen to many currently popular authors. I can absolutely guarantee that 50 years from now, nobody knows or cares who Dan Brown was or what books he wrote.
I will cut a little slack on the assumption that English isn't your first language, but for future reference, addressing someone's comments with "Duh! " is going to generally illicit and aggressively belligerent response. Don't do it.
I consider LotR to be largely a children's book, certainly most people I know who read it first read it as a child, or a young adult at least.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox