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.

Bullockist wrote:
Less "product of the times" more product of the past.

A product of his time was the product of the past, because he was in the past.

Completely ignoring that being a product of the past isn't really a criticism of his work since he intended it to be such.

That too.

 LordofHats wrote:
Completely ignoring that being a product of the past isn't really a criticism of his work since he intended it to be such.

Playing devil's advocate, if I wrote a new novel *intended* to have wooden characters, a predictable story, uninteresting prose, and artificial-sounding dialogue, would that insulate it from criticism of those flaws?

If you're going to evaluate LotR as a popular novel series -- which it was -- and compare it to another popular novel series, some of these criticisms of the writing, characters and structure are valid no matter the author's intent.

I'm really trying not to come across as a hater here. Again, LotR is a monumental work in the genre. But I can't get behind people treating it as flawless.

A better analogy would be people criticizing my choice of syllables when I wrote a story in haiku.

It seems like more people are giving Tolkein more flak than I anticipated. Abort mission! Abort mission! Eject, eject, eject!

I will admit that the book of LOTR was not the most fun I've ever had, but The Hobbit was definitely enjoyable. I think LOTR and the Hobbit both stepped it up as films.

Now. I would like to offer something interesting. WHat if with combined both the SOng of ice and fire with Lord of the Rings. There are great things in both. LOTR has a great setting and very strong mythology. A song of ice and fire has better characters, but not a better story.

I as a writer like both of them. GRRM is an interesting writer, and has his own strengths. Tolkien wrote extremely beautifully, and has his own strength.

If there was a writer who combined these two strengths into their own work, it would be the greatest writer ever.

But eh. I am only a dreamer of a writer. Reading other peoples settings is kind of a hobby.

 gorgon wrote:


Playing devil's advocate, if I wrote a new novel *intended* to have wooden characters, a predictable story, uninteresting prose, and artificial-sounding dialogue, would that insulate it from criticism of those flaws?

I any of those things were wholely true about Lord of the Rings it wouldn't personify the fantasy genre as it commonly does. Even then, a story with any of those things isn't even inherently a bad story. Much of Tolkien's work in LotR was about world building something which I think even today LotR is the unrivaled king of fantasy with that respect, conveying more information in 5 books than Gameswork Shop has in dozens over nearly 30 years. Few works have managed to build a world like LotR did.

Frankly I'm not sure how anyone could even make the accusation that his dialogue sounded artificial. Go read a Saga or two. It's really quite authentic and the story is only predictable because we all know what happens by now even if we've never read the book or seen the movies. Sword of Shannara for example was considered an unbriddled rip off o LotR as were numerous other stories throughout the 60's and 70's. LotR has defined is genre so much that those of us reading it later are somewhat immune to it because its effect is already engrained into us. The plot, while far from revolutionary by any means, as so engrained itself into the culture of its own genre, that anyone reading it now doesn't quite get the full impact. D&D was one of the biggest spreaders of this because the creators purposely drew allusion to LotR to build their game's popular appeal.

It's like calling the plot twist at the end of The Empire Strikes Back predictable while completely ignoring that it's only predictable because references and allusions to it permeate our culture to the point its nearly impossible to not know before hand. EDIT: For a video game reference I site anyone who calls Halo 'generic' completely ignoring that Halo is the LotR of FPS and anyone playing later games misses how sweeping an effect it had on its genre and might find it bland and boring compared to games that followed.

If you're going to evaluate LotR as a popular novel series -- which it was -- and compare it to another popular novel series, some of these criticisms of the writing, characters and structure are valid no matter the author's intent.

True but people take it to far. I do find Tolkein's prose a burden to read, and very long winded at times, but that doesn't make them bad per se. Some people love them some people hate them. Liking something is a subjective standard. Objectively, Tolkien's prose are quite masterful from a literary perspective granting that what makes them masterful is also what makes them a burden for those of us who just want an epic story to read.

But I can't get behind people treating it as flawless.

I never claimed it was. My claim is primarily that a lot of the criticism directed in this thread is based in personal tastes and ignores the merits of the work itself. Saying I don't like something is fine by me (I might argue it with you but in the end I don't care that much). Saying something is bad simply because you don't like it is ignorant.

Both book series are enjoyable.

 kronk wrote:
Both book series are enjoyable.

Voices of reason unite!

I do not hate either.

Anybody that says LotR is predictable is really just confusing old with new.

LotR is predictable because you, the reader, are already familiar with fantasy in general. Which takes its inspiration almost wholly from Tolkien's work.

So of course its going to be predictable because its the original that all the stuff you are comparing it to was actually based on it. When you should actually be scrutinizing all other Fantasy against the LotR, which is the gold standard, not the other way around.

It would be like saying Shakespeare is predictable and boring, but that's only because his work permeates our society in literature and movies so you instantly recognize it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anybody that says LotR is predictable is really just confusing old with new.

LotR is predictable because you, the reader, are already familiar with fantasy in general. Which takes its inspiration almost wholly from Tolkien's work.

So of course its going to be predictable because its the original that all the stuff you are comparing it to was actually based on it. When you should actually be scrutinizing all other Fantasy against the LotR, which is the gold standard, not the other way around.

It would be like saying Shakespeare is predictable and boring, but that's only because his work permeates our society in literature and movies so you instantly recognize it.

Stop stealing my thunder

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anybody that says LotR is predictable is really just confusing old with new.

LotR is predictable because you, the reader, are already familiar with fantasy in general. Which takes its inspiration almost wholly from Tolkien's work.

So of course its going to be predictable because its the original that all the stuff you are comparing it to was actually based on it. When you should actually be scrutinizing all other Fantasy against the LotR, which is the gold standard, not the other way around.

It would be like saying Shakespeare is predictable and boring, but that's only because his work permeates our society in literature and movies so you instantly recognize it.

'Nuff said. I can heartily agree with this.

Guys, perhaps this wasn't clear, but the example in my first paragraph was a hypothetical *new novel*...not LotR itself. I assumed it'd be more obvious since a couple of those qualities don't easily apply to LotR IMO.

I like LOTR as well as GOT but lotr is more written in older style of writing as done in myth's and saga's. got's style is more contemporary.

Lord of the Rings is about the only time that as an avid reader I thought the movies were better than the books. That's saying something.

Eh. People whose sole complaint about a movie is that 'the book was better' aren't much worth listening to. Like the Harry Potter films. Those are some all around good movies, in nearly all respects but people call them terrible because they skipped some scene or another from the books. It's silly. LotR has a solid series of movies. At the very least you can watch them in the theater and not feel like you've wasted your money (though you might feel like your time has been dragged )

I would postulate that those people are correct when it comes to some movies.

Namely Eragon...

He's actually a linguistic first, then writer.

It's still amazing that the following are actual written/spoken languages in the LoTR universe:
Black Speech
Three Elvish language
Dwarvish
Dundain
Western
... and a few others I think.

Just reading his appendix, notes, other compilations is a trip.

 whembly wrote:
He's actually a linguistic first, then writer.

It's still amazing that the following are actual written/spoken languages in the LoTR universe:
Black Speech
Three Elvish language
Dwarvish
Dundain
Western
... and a few others I think.

Just reading his appendix, notes, other compilations is a trip.

Yeah I actually can speak dundain... That is the only language I have ever learned. Thanks Dad, for reading me the Lord of the rings when I was 5 years old!

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would postulate that those people are correct when it comes to some movies.

Namely Eragon...

Well yeah but Eragon on its face is just a bad movie. There's not even a need to compare it to the book to call it bad XD

My intention is merely that 'the book was better' is not an argument that a movie is bad. EDIT: Really it says nothing meaningful about the movie at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Yeah I actually can speak dundain... That is the only language I have ever learned. Thanks Dad, for reading me the Lord of the rings when I was 5 years old!

I hear you haven't read Shakespear until you've read it in the original Dundain

Grey Templar wrote:I would postulate that those people are correct when it comes to some movies.

Namely Eragon...

I think it's best we just pretend that (I can't call it a film) monstrosity never happened and wait 10 years for the LOTR-budget 3.5 hour reboot it deserves... Ah, I can dream...

whembly wrote:He's actually a linguistic first, then writer.

It's still amazing that the following are actual written/spoken languages in the LoTR universe:
Black Speech
Three Elvish language
Dwarvish
Dundain
Western
... and a few others I think.

Just reading his appendix, notes, other compilations is a trip.

Agreed, and this is what puts Tolkien's work so far above and beyond of the rest of fantasy literature. Any competent writer can create a country or a race, but it takes pure genius to create an entire world with several fully developed languages and cultures so in depth it's almost possible to speak them fluently.

rossp8 wrote:Lord of the Rings is about the only time that as an avid reader I thought the movies were better than the books. That's saying something.

I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.

Most films of books I have come to dread after fiascos like Eragon, Percy Jackson and The Golden Compass, but LOTR stands with the greatest of films and the best of books, largely because of the amazing material it was based on and how that was realised on the big screen.

 Paradigm wrote:


I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.

For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.

It is a bit off topic, but I'd hold up the Stardust adaptation as a fine example of a fun movie tied to an excellent novel.

Gitzbitah wrote:
It is a bit off topic, but I'd hold up the Stardust adaptation as a fine example of a fun movie tied to an excellent novel.

I haven't read the novel, but I enjoyed the heck out of Stardust.

Gitzbitah wrote:
It is a bit off topic, but I'd hold up the Stardust adaptation as a fine example of a fun movie tied to an excellent novel.

I agree with that. It was a great film. And a great adapation. But barely anyone watched it because it came out right after the film failures of Eragon, Golden Compass. So people avoided it.

I am glad someone actually said that. Stardust was a fantastic movie.

The Shining.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.

For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.

I would say 2001 is;

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.

For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.

I would say 2001 is;

Did 2001 ever pick up the pace though?? I think I've made it as far as the initial space station walkthrough scene before being utterly bored to tears

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


I wouldn't say they were better, but they are certainly the best book-to-film adaptation made. Hence why they place as number one in my all-time favourites.No other book adaptation places in that list, so it's a testament to both the book and film. Tolkien created the world and Jackson did a stunning job of bringing it to life.

For the fantasy genre, sure. But I'd still contend that Fight Club is, hands down, the greatest film-book adaptation.

I would say 2001 is;

Did 2001 ever pick up the pace though?? I think I've made it as far as the initial space station walkthrough scene before being utterly bored to tears

The film is pretty slow but asa book-to-film adaptation it's one of the best, only a few details are different and Arthur C Clarke incorporated one into the sequels