On a scale 1-10, how much should I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

need opinion pls

0 imo

File: Saruman_!.jpg (6KB, 265x190px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 265x190px

>>8426994
tens of thousands

>>8426994
5

Depends if you like weird old fashioned prose and a rambling plot in the style of a myth rather than a modern narrative.

If you want an easy read to introduce yourself to Tolkien, try The Hobbit. I'd say The Children Of Hurin is also more readable but might not be appealing if you aren't already into his world.

>>8427008
haha, i get it, it looks like a RING lmao!

really depends
do you only have interest in books as a form of art? do you care about knowing the canon and what makes a book a great book? In this case I would say around 4 or 5 because Tolkien is one of the few genre writers that not only have originality, he also have the knowledge and his worldbuilding is great, and above all he have "sincerity", you can really feel how much he loved the lore he was creating

do you read only for entertainment and for fun? 9 I think, maybe even 10

>>8426994

Have you read The Hobbit?

I would think that would be enough to know whether or not you want to plow through the full LoTR.

>>8427023
this: rating a book on a scale out of ten is pointless and arbitrary

nevertheless LOTR is not worth reading. id give it a 3

>>8427020
;)

>>8426994
3/10
seriously

>>8427017
>Depends if you like weird old fashioned prose
I wish Tolkien was like this. You really need to read more.

>>8427027
>this: rating a book on a scale out of ten is pointless and arbitrary
No, it's not.
Also, that's not what the OP is asking for. It's a shame you didn't type a third thought, then you may have been thrice retarded to match your rating.

>>8427023
deduct a point if you actively identify yourself as an """""atheist"""""

File: e60434bc0c535165f99a10a3dfd178bd_400x1000.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>8427009
AND MY AXE

File: f54.jpg (119KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 768x1024px

>>8426994
It depends on your tastes. I'd argue it is both an essential story of the modern canon and one that is supremely beautiful. I readily recognize however that not all are suited to appreciate its wonder. Does your faggot self number among them?

File: 1286825110437.jpg (255KB, 640x920px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 640x920px

>reading lotr
>most parts
>the sam and frodo parts
>mfw

File: 1471779468802.jpg (64KB, 500x591px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x591px

Honestly? 1. The overwhelming majority of people like it, but they don't understand it. It's just a simple fantastical story to most, quaint but meaningless. It's a nothing at best, something to divorce you from others at worst.

There's a reason Tolkien's son condemns the films and mourns the proliferation of his father's work among the masses they've caused.

>>8427103
what don't most people understand?

>>8427109
Sublimity.

>>8427103
Why does his son condemn the movies? I love love love the movies lol

>>8427134
bc they're shitty action movies for plebs like you

File: 1467858571969.jpg (145KB, 1300x900px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1300x900px

>>8427134
...exactly.

>>8427134
Because he thinks Peter Jackson turned them into dumb action movies for teenagers (which he did). No clue what this nigger >>8427113 is talking about however

>>8427140
so youd rather have no action in it i dont get it?

>>8427148
I'd rather there be a single character in them from tLotR instead of linear archetypes who wear their names and that serve no purpose but cinematic pablum. But that's just me.

>>8427169
what movies do you like?

>>8427140
I like them a lot as exactly that.

>>8427169
Holy fuck that is pretentious

>>8427175
And that...is typical. To the point of vulgarity.

>>8427171
I like lots of movies. In fact I like TLotR films, they are well done for what they are, but they aren't TLotR in anything but name. Fun, though.

My favorite film is likely Lawrence of Arabia.

>>8427190
How so?

>>8427134
disable javascript and read this http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7168&IBLOCK_ID=35

Do you think you'll like the epic fantasy journey stuff? If not, then no.

File: 1466031490536.gif (1024KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

1024KB, 500x354px

>>8427210

>>8427227
How aren't they lotr in anything but name?

>>8427213
Just read. That's gay man. Author sounds like a bitch.

>>8427241
every character is made generic and unlike their actual characterizations, their interactions naturally follow suit, and the whole story is consumed by the need for accessibility it becomes less of a story and more of a visual experience

i will give an example, take aragorn

jackson turns him into this incredibly linear self doubting hero archetype, an absolute 180 from the aragorn in the books, the result is a character with no internal consistency whose every development is inorganic and purely because the plot demands it

all of the nuance and tragic beauty of the original tale is stripped away, which can't be forgiven regardless of how effective the visual experience or music is

>>8427252
pleb

10 it's a must read

all these faggots saying not to read it have no soul they are stuck reading shitty books that they don't even enjoy just to gloat about how they read it so they can feel as if to have a false sense of superiority . They live meaningless lives and only read in order to fill a gap in their empty lives. One day that gap wont be able to be filled by books and they will move onto something else and try to ruin that hobby for the other true lovers of that hobby with their bullshit. Tolkien is one of the best authors in our human history. His ability to create beautiful worlds and characters to an extent that you actually feel as if Arda( the world in Lotr) is real and all the places and characters have exist at one point in time. Every person who has the ability to read should read it, for I believe that it will make you a better person. Silmarilion,Children of Hurin, Hobbit and lotr will make you appreciate this world more and teach you more about friendship, integrity, honor, loyalty, decency, and a love for nature as like no other book can.

>>8427311
I give you a 8 m8, now this is a good bait

File: 12321.jpg (2MB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1365x2048px

>>8427103
>Honestly? 1. The overwhelming majority of people like it
Should have just left it at that, senpai.

Otherwise apt, desu.

>>8426994
If you read fantasy, I'd say 8. If you don't read fantasy, probably 2. It is somewhat dated, but enjoyable. I enjoyed it a lot more when I read it as a kid.

>>8427651
fuck off faggot.

>>8426994
7?

It's really great, but Tolkein gets a little too descriptive at points.

>>8427651
>It is somewhat dated

Are you actually calling a book written only 60 years ago "dated"?

>>8426994
>as a historical document
10
>as a work of art
5
>as entertainment
1

>>8427705
In what way is LotR valuable as a historical document? It doesn't even describe real events.

>>8427688
which is the point. he created more than just a setting for a novel, his intention was to create a believable world with it's own unique functioning languages, histories, lore, myths etc etc

>>8427706
????????

>>8427017
>weird old fashioned prose

What are you talking about?

>>8427708
And he did just that. Very, very well. I just got the point after 2 full pages, and some descriptions went on more.

Not an issue exactly, just my opinion.

>>8427706
If you're interested in the development of the fantasy genre it's essential. It's also interesting for someone looking into the evolution of the epic poem. That's about it though.

File: 1457847527468.jpg (83KB, 500x492px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x492px

If you like fantasy, they're an excellent read.
The movies pale in comparison to the books however.

>>8427725
isn't he just iluvatar roaming the earth for fun?

>>8427730
That's a theory, not an actual thing

File: NSTQ7NH.jpg (921KB, 5645x1142px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 5645x1142px

"Not all those who wander are lost"- Tolkien

Those 7 words changed my life

>>8427725
I still lol at the fact that he couldn't be trusted with the ring because the Council of Elrond thought he would just lose it by being careless.

love this song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9468-QKRoCg

>>8427705
>>8427688
>>8427651
>>8427103
>>8427031
>>8427027
>>8427017
>>8427023

>Confirmed for actually having read the trilogy WITHOUT the use of rose-tinted glasses

Seriously, the book was mediocre if not for the fact that it was the first of its kind, but even then, it wasn't REALLY the first of its kind.

Fantasy and Scifi existed in similar states of creation all throughout the 30's and 40's. My grandfather has a HUGE collection of old fantasy and scifi books, and my father inherited all that when he died.

You know what I realized? Tolkien was not "The Best". World building, "story", and "character development" does NOT a good book make.

Great writing makes a book what it is.

...And you guys saw what I did up there with the quotation marks, right? Because compared to the genre fiction of its time, it really wasn't even that special.

I remember falling in love with this old fantasy novel from Ireland about a hunter who falls in love with his bow. One day the king tries to buy it off of him and won't take no for an answer, so the bow "shoots itself" into the king's heart and the people decide to burn the bow on a pyre as punishment. When the ashes have died down, it turns out he hid himself underneath the boughs of the pyre and found two skeletons huddled against each other. One of that of a man and one of that of a woman.

Now THAT was fucking excellent. It didn't create a new world to tell it, and there were no strange beasts, or goblins, or orcs, but it was EXCELLENT fantasy for its time.

I believe LOTR is literally a meme. People like it because they see everyone else does and they don't really know a whole lot more of fantasy and scifi other than the few big-name titles on the shelf.

If you actually HAVE read it recently, with a critical eye, you'd find that it's, at most, an 8/10 for a dedicated fan.

To literally anybody else who could possibly give a shit, it's a 5 or a 6 out of 10, easily. Don't fool yourselves. It's seriously NOT as good as you guys say it is.

>>8427793
He invented an entire mythology and set of languages and cultures with an enormously complicated backstory including a creation myth, millenniums of civilizational history, loads of particular interesting stories, etc.

Who else has really done that that successfully? Maybe the LOTR isn't the best book but that's missing the point really

>>8427793
> Ireland about a hunter who falls in love with his bow

>Some potato irish faggot who loves to shoot phalic objects out of a bow he has sexual relationship with is better than Tolkien works


what ever you say brah

>>8427793
>It's seriously NOT as good as you guys say it is.

You're right, it's better . literally the subplots in Lotr are better than almost 99 percent of fantasy books.

>>8427809
That and the fact you can get lost in his works for years on end and still find something brand new with each following read.

>>8427809
I fucking do that every time I run a game of D&D.

I could literally drop a 200 page book on you about the religions of my fake world and the people who live in it and yadda, yadda, yadda, but I'm obviously not going to, because

A. 2000 word limit

and

B. You wouldn't give a shit

Seriously, writing for worldbuilding is NOT that hard.

It's hard in the sense it takes a lot of time and energy, but it's not hard in the sense that only a few "talented individuals" have the "perfect gift" of worldbuilding.

I urge you, RIGHT fucking now, to try and create a new fantasy world.

It'll take about a month or two; heck, it could probably take a whole year, but it's VERY, VERY possible, and literally ANYBODY who tried could do it. You just think it's hard because YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY DONE IT.

Worldbuilding is not exclusive. Even neckbeards who sit in their parent's basement playing boardgames and calling themselves "Guild Masters" can do it.

It just takes time and energy.

>>8426994
10/10
Would go myself to throw the one ring to Mount Doom even if it cost me my fingers and health.

>>8426994
If you're not one of these airhead patrishlords then 7/10. Tolkein specifically says in the preface to the book that it's not a commentary on anything, it's just a story for its own sake, so if you're not into that then you won't like it.

>>8427852
he says it's not an allegory. that, like, means something pretty specific, especially in Tolkien's usage

>>8427840
you do know that D&G pretty much only exists because of Tolkien, and how do you repay someone who was crucial to the creation on your hobby? By shitting on his works . You sound like a douchebag

File: 6a00d8341bffb053ef00e54f3cae4e8833-500wi.gif (123KB, 300x449px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 300x449px

OP if you want to get the most out of LOTR you have to convert to Catholicism before you read it.

>>8427860
if you think that Tolkien's worldbuilding is the most interesting or significant thing that he did, you're the shithead

>>8427861
desu you should probably do this anyway if you're interested in literature

>>8427793
>t. plebius maximus

>>8427863
and you're an idiot for not recognizing Tolkien as the father of modern high fantasy. His works set the foundation for almost anything fantasy related to this day even your beloved D&D.

>>8427840
>he thinks making up random shit and even unironically using the term worldbuilding is comparable to the development of tLotR
ayyyyyyyyy

>>8427860
I don't actually use the D&D setting to run my games. I just call it "D&D" because I actually use a system called "GURPS" and I don't really know if GURPS is very well known beyond the scope of /tg/.

I use my OWN world, and I use my OWN setting, and the MOST Tolkienish thing about it is the fact that elves and dragons exist, and magic kinda-sorta does too.

That's it.

If anything, I'd say it's much closer to Meme of Thrones or a Discovery Channel documentary than anything Tolkien has really done.

And for the last fucking time, I'm NOT shitting on his works.

I've acknowledged the fact that he's the "father of fantasy", but even then, that is NOT an acceptable substitute for good writing and character development.

I simply said that he's NOT as good as everyone on here says it is, and you guys can't really tell because everyone read those fucking books when they were 13 and now you guys can't take off your fucking nostalgia glasses.

It's like hipsters who go "lel, Majora's Mask was the best vidya gaem of all time! Modern games suck! And 2pac is the best rapper of all tiem! Modern hiphop is gay, I liek REAL mussic! Bonr in the rong generation@"

>>8427889
If your own ability to construct posts is any indication, you've no capacity to identify or understand good writing.

>>8427889
D&D game where the world is based off the Discovery Channel?

also your entire argument boils down to Huur durr I don't like anything thats popular. Which in turn makes you a hipster .

>good writing and character development.
Subjective. I for one love his writing style and his character development .

>>8427889
lol

Also, his writing is good. Not a super-strong prose stylist, but it has other excellent qualities. Which, I think, differ a lot from what modern fantasy is usually trying to offer, and works in a different way, which is tricky.

>>8427889
What's so bad about Tolkien's writing? Can you give an example? I thought the character development very impressive but I last read it 5+ years ago.

Without specifics you really offer nothing but generic hipster sentiments...all while condemning hipsters.

>>8427103
>The overwhelming majority of people like it, but they don't understand it. It's just a simple fantastical story to most, quaint but meaningless.

I need to know more, wtf are you on about. You've caught my curiosity. Tell me fucker.

>>8427886
It's VERY comparable, you colossally sized ass-poacher.

I'm not fucking with you. GO ahead and start worldbuilding RIGHT fucking now. Once you see just how simple it is, you'll start to think "Oh shit, Tolkien really wasn't that special. That faggot from 4chan was right."

I fucking bet you 20 goddamn dollars. No joke. If you legit come back to me after a month or two of dedicated worldbuilding and if you still feel the same way about Tolkien's """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""gift"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" for worldbuilding, then by all means, contact this email and ask me for your well-deserved money. I won't even fucking hesitate to give it to you, that's how strong my convictions are.

[email protected]

>>8427913
>I'm not fucking with you. GO ahead and start worldbuilding RIGHT fucking now. Once you see just how simple it is, you'll start to think "Oh shit, Tolkien really wasn't that special. That faggot from 4chan was right."

ahahahahahaha

>>8427858
He actually says in the foreward to the second edition, "as for any inner meaning or 'message,' [LOTR] has in the intention of the author none."

>>8427913
Says the guy who's favorite book is about a guy who fucks a longbow.

>>8427913
Once upon a time in the gray dark of the interwebs a faggus maximus appeared out of the shadows of the past. Which past that is? one where the past is the future and the future is now.

how am i doing?

File: 1460911125930.webm (221KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1000x563px

>>8427840
>>8427840
Lmao, splendid comedy anon. Yes, I'm sure your D&D games rival the mythos created by a classically trained Oxford PhD philologist, who is among and literally was peer to some of the greatest writers of the 20th century, who passionately refined and developed his Middle Earth for 50+ years in between translating the medieval folklore of Europe as a hobby, and who essentially birthed the modern fantasy story as we know it. I am sure of it.

>>8427913
I've always thought it would be cool to do some world building. If it's really simple I guess I can just crank something out tonight. What's the method?

>>8427946
according to him all you have to do is watch shark week on the discovery channel

>>8427913
desu he spent an incredibly autistic amount of time on his worldbuilding, way more than what anyone else has been willing to do since. he also studied linguistics, history, and something else related to it, if i remember correctly, so his worldbuilding was constructed and made believable by his professional knowledge on top of the incredible amount of time and effort he put into it. all the different languages in his world are themselves working languages that you could learn and speak to someone else who had also learned them, with their own etymological history in his universe too. the mythology and history of tolkien's world is unique in its detail and scale. myself i think his books are pretty boring, but i can understand why people appreciate his worldbuilding.

>>8427913
The sad part is you might actually be stupid enough to believe this. This is what's meant by most people can't appreciate tLotR. Tell me anon, have you read the medieval canon in its original Norse, middle English, etc...and instilled its elements in your works? Do your etymologies have internal systems of logic based upon said ancient languages with functionality enough to rival spoken and established languages today? No? Then you are HILARIOUSLY wrong. You can't even form a fucking sentence without talking LIKE this, you IDIOT.

>>8427946
>be god
>have a sweet idea for reality
>photons and shit
>forces and whatnot, I'm a genius
>make nebulae and galaxies and things
>peering through your endless creation in all its majesty
>what'sthis.jpg
>blue planet in boring section of creation
>some of your molecules started doing a weird self-repetition thing
>okthen.png
>leave to go view the boundless wonders of your universe once more
>remember a while later the kind of gross blue planet
>absolutely grotesque abominations have sprung up and are milling about excreting disgusting substances
>jesuschrist.exe
>send a figure to explain what is going on and how to be less disgusting
>they murder him
>leave the planet forever the way you leave that thing that has begun to smell extremely strange in the back of your fridge out of fear of opening the container
>your apartment begins to smell
>it becomes overwhelming
>you leave to beg on the streets from fear of even opening the fridge
>we made god homeless

>>8427889
Tolkien's world has actual magic to it. It's convincing because it is based upon real literary and linguistic elements. I'm afraid your D&D games where Zlipridik the Fag-brand quests in Asselot don't really hold the same weight anon.

File: 220px-TheHobbit_FirstEdition.jpg (16KB, 220x276px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 220x276px

Have you read The Hobbit? Its a real easy read and a good story. Very enjoyable 10/10.

My edition contained the first chapter of Lord of the Rings and it was so a huge difference. Much more wordier and derived. It was more descriptive and fine tuned I guess, but it didn't have the charm the first chapter of The Hobbit did.

TLDR just read the hobbit

>>8427897
I don't want to dedicate any more time into my posts than I already have to, ass-dragon.

>>8427903
I'm not saying "hurr durr I don't like anything popular", I'm saying "hurr durr, you guys only like it BECAUSE it's popular".

You guys only know, like, 3 books about fantasy and 3 books about scifi, and it's the shit that everybody already knows. If you've read more fantasy or scifi from all around the world, you'd realize Tolkine is just "breddy good" and not "the best goddamn thing that happened to fantasy since ever".

>>8427904
Does it really mean he deserves to be hailed as a 9 or a 10 out of 10? He's a linguist first, writer second. His best friend DYSON told him to STFU when he started reading LOTR to his writing buddies down at the country club.

>>8427905
Okay, so for example, everyone talks about how "Aragorn was this great, 3 dimensional figure in the books, but the movies turned him into an action hero".

No, you idiots, if you remember what you fucking read, Aragorn was always a fucking action hero. Seriously? Elves give him special treatment because they see that he's the rightful king? He goes from "ranger who knows a lot" to "right hand man of Gandalf, a literal fucking god"?

A "bad-guy" race, solely created to be a race of bad guys?

"Oh, but orcs were ackshually tainted elves who--"

Shut the fuck up, nerd. I KNOW what orcs are; it still doesn't mean he couldn't give them a legitimate reason for war beyond just "lel, I'm angry because I was born evil".

How about instead the orcs want war because they believe war will keep the status quo, which they believe is actually a good thing?

Literally ANYTHING besides just "I'm bad because I used to be good, but now I'm bad lol".

And I know this is cliche as fuck to talk about now, but the eagles really were a piece of shit. Even dedicated Tolkien fans know it is, don't fucking lie to yourselves.

The eagles were "too proud" to save the world? What the fuck does that even mean? They're think they're good enough to save the lives of a couple of hobbits, but they're too good to save the world from an army of evil?

What is this, The Contrary Club?

I'm gonna stop right here because I want to address a few other people and not go over the 2000 word limit.

>>8427963
>>8427966
Okay, so I've done some thinking and I think you guys are right. Tolkien could kick my ass when it comes to linguistics. He's a linguistic major, first and foremost, and where that is concerned, he'd definitely have it out for me.

BUT, I'm an anthropology major with an emphasis on politics. When it comes to believable empires with functioning systems, livable cities with functioning roads and buildings, relatable tales of the common man, and believable metalworking, stone masonry, animal husbandry, and tons of other shit Tolkien did not explicitly get into, then I would whole-heartedly whoop his fucking butt.

>>8427989
>Okay, so for example, everyone talks about how "Aragorn was this great, 3 dimensional figure in the books, but the movies turned him into an action hero".
No-one says that at all. Stopped reading there.

>>8427982
>>8427950
Well that's too bad. I was hoping he would have some advice on how you're supposed to develop possible languages incorporating natural language principles. I guess he probably hasn't the slightest clue about some of the essential features of natural languages like regularity of sound change, phonological derivation, binding theory, extraction islands, projective meaning, etc.

You don't, do you >>8427913 ?

>>8427989
>you guys only like it BECAUSE it's popular".

It's popular for a reason fagtron

>You guys only know, like, 3 books about fantasy and 3 books about scifi

more weird assumptions from you based on us acknowledging that Tolkien's works are worth praise?

>>8427989
so, like, just on a basic level, you don't understand what's going on w Aragon

>>8427989
Can't tell if underage summerfag or retard?

File: 1429997061531.png (482KB, 858x718px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 858x718px

>>8427793
>You guys are seeing this book through rose-tinted glasses.
>I read this book muh grampa had as a kid and it was so much better (can't remember its name though).

>>8428007
yah i bet you 5 million dollars this duder reads some terrible-ass fantasy

File: 1462150563664.gif (118KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 500x250px

>>8427989
>Okay, so I've done some thinking and I think you guys are right. Tolkien could kick my ass when it comes to linguistics. He's a linguistic major, first and foremost, and where that is concerned, he'd definitely have it out for me.
It's not just language, it's also about story. Almost everything in Middle Earth parallels or alludes to some other great work. The tale of Turin for example mirrors both the Finnish myth of Kalevala which while not very recognizable in the English world itself mirrors Oedipus. The very nature and structure of the tale has literary merit.


>BUT, I'm an anthropology major with an emphasis on politics. When it comes to believable empires with functioning systems, livable cities with functioning roads and buildings, relatable tales of the common man, and believable metalworking, stone masonry, animal husbandry, and tons of other shit Tolkien did not explicitly get into, then I would whole-heartedly whoop his fucking butt.
This is honestly something a 10 year old thinks. "My world is realistic, that makes it good, people die and poop and everything". Only an idiot think Tolkien failed to incorporate what you describe as an asset and didn't intentionally focus on other things, precisely because TLotR is styled as a classicial fairy tale, it wouldn't be appropriate to dwell on politics and the minutia of life.

>>8428008
That's putting it mildly, there are excellent broad and weighty explanations for the nature of Orcs and Sauron etc in the legendarium. This guy literally has everything wrong.

>>8427989
>BUT, I'm an anthropology major with an emphasis on politics. When it comes to believable empires with functioning systems, livable cities with functioning roads and buildings, relatable tales of the common man, and believable metalworking, stone masonry, animal husbandry, and tons of other shit Tolkien did not explicitly get into, then I would whole-heartedly whoop his fucking butt.
Martin? Get the fuck off lit you fat shit and finish TWoW, I'm sick of HBO spoiling me because you take 10 years to pick up a pen.

File: 1430004098277.png (278KB, 806x720px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 806x720px

>>8427989
>believable empires
>functioning systems
>livable cities
>functioning roads and buildings
>believable metalworking
>stone masonry
>animal husbandry

>relatable tales of the common man

File: tumblr_mv4zs604Bw1qepzg9o4_500.gif (1008KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 500x200px

A lot of people know that JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis were good friends, colleagues, and fellow Christians around the time both Narnia and Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit were being written. They both learned from each other, but in the end, I've discovered one thing about their writing styles.

Tolkien is a master world-crafter, but his storytelling is a little lacking. Lewis, however, is a master storyteller... but his world building is not as fleshed-out or rich as Middle Earth by Tolkien. Narnia is rich and full, but not nearly as deep or arguably creative as Middle Earth, BUT the stories that take place in Narnia just feel more... fun, enjoyable and even emotionally appealing than those of Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien created the amazingly whole world of Middle Earth, and sometimes that gets in the way of the story he's trying to tell. Oftentimes in the books, you'll find passages lasting ten paragraphs or more... describing scenery, backdrops, and actions that could be summed up with "They walked down a hill." Richness and detail are never unappreciated, but sometimes it slows the pace down to a crawl.

Both series (Narnia's seven and Lord of the Rings 3 [plus 1 for The Hobbit]) are definitely worth a read, but you might enjoy Narnia more, although it has a distinctly "younger" feel to it.

>>8426994
6, it's a book for young adults. It's very good YA material to the point where it does have literary merit, but it's a LOT of pages for what it is. I always suggested it for my ESL students because it's a good work for grinding through pages.

Herodotus does the entire worldbuilding thing better IMO. His history is actually mostly mythology and the mythologized world he builds in his exploration of why the Persians and Greeks fought is a very interesting place.

>>8428020
Lovely gif anon. The beauty of VGA sprites.

From which game is it?

>>8427950
Fuck off, ass-mango.

>>8427946
>>8427997
Not overnight. It's going to take at least a month or two to establish a good base.

And unless you majored in a whole slew of relevant shit, there's no way you're going to be able to do it all on your own.

Look, I get what you cock-monglers are saying. I DON'T know as much about linguistics as Tolkien does. I will admit, right fucking now that I might have gone too far by challenging him on that thesis alone.

BUT worldbuilding simply takes time and patience. The best part is, if you're a muh realism fag like me, then the real world has already done much of the work for you.

Things like internal consistency in language, alien physiology, sport history, that's gotta be done by people who've actually studied that shit. You gotta walk up to people from your university and ask around, because they're the ones that actually know what they're doing.

IE. When I was creating an alien species for one of my Scifi worlds, I asked my professors, some random dudes sitting in the library, I looked up all kinds of medical textbooks, I even asked some artists to see if it could be done, and it took a long ass time, and I had to bother a lot of people, but what came out was more-or-less scientifically plausible within the bounds of science as we know it.

(It turned out to be a bipedal bird-tortoise looking thing with opposable feet and a mane of feather-like quills covering patches throughout its body, roughly about a meter tall and an omnivorous diet.)

That motherfucker alone took me a good month, but I fucking did it, and it works.

Take cues from the real world. If your story talks a lot about war and adventure, read a bunch of war poetry developed by the Landsknechts during the 15th century.

Read about the development of the pike formation from the 1400's and onward, and then look up how the introduction of guns lead to the decline of chainmail in France but also lead to the rise of the cuirass thousands of miles away in Spain.

If you want to write about a tribe of savages living within the woods, Roman literature speaks very harshly about the germanic barbarians living within the foot of the hills and forest, but interestingly enough, after the fall of the Roman empire, their literature suddenly views them as noble, and people of great merit.

You want to talk about knights without copying the knight's of the round table? French literature is fucking filled with that shit.

You don't have to copy history itself, but read enough about it and the details come to you.

Harsh, arid climates obviously mean oasis cities and long, trailing caravans for trade, because it's impossible to sustain a small city on just the resources you can farm yourself.

Places like Europe and Asia, or anywhere north of the hemisphere would have interestingly extensive amounts of mythological tales and festivals celebrating the coming of summer and fearing the coming of winter.

South of the hemisphere would mean

>>8427989
>BUT, I'm an anthropology major with an emphasis on politics. When it comes to believable empires with functioning systems, livable cities with functioning roads and buildings, relatable tales of the common man, and believable metalworking, stone masonry, animal husbandry, and tons of other shit Tolkien did not explicitly get into, then I would whole-heartedly whoop his fucking butt.

I want to say this is bait but this is a LOT of effort for a troll post.

>>8428064
Can

you

stop

hitting

enter

twice

every

time

you

finish

a

fucking

sentence

???

>Elves give him special treatment because they see that he's the rightful king?

Because he is the heir of Issildur and is next in line to the throne of Gondor. Aragorn is one of the last Dunedains who are a race of men which came from the western content not middle earth. They are held in high regards among elves.

>He goes from "ranger who knows a lot" to "right hand man of Gandalf, a literal fucking god"?

Have you even read the books? Aragorn is not a regular human and he was never just a random ranger who walks around for fun.


You didn't even read the book and you're here trying to tell us how shitty of a book it is?

>>8427989
>Tolkein was primarily a linguist
Actually, Tolkein wasn't a linguist, and he didn't know about any of the linguistic principles I mentioned here >>8427997 either, apart from regularity of sound change. However, the languages he came up with turned out to be pretty plausible because he basically just borrowed a real grammar from some language (I think Finnish) and threw a proto-germanic lexicon on it, then put it through several series of plausible (i.e. phonetically motivated) sound changes.

By modern standards, Tolkein could not possibly be considered a linguist. He knew a lot of languages, and he knew a bit about some of the principles of historical linguistics, of which regularity of sound change is one, but he NEVER published ANYTHING of any significance to linguistics whatsoever. He was officially an English professor, and it should come as no surprise that his academic work centered around literature, NOT linguistics. He happened to be interested in historical literature written in languages with a philological tradition, so I guess you could call him a philologer.

>>8428073
Shut up, nerd.

>>8428059
nice bait, almost got me

>>8428064
>It takes an education in linguistics to be able to construct a plausible language
Sounds reasonable.

>it takes an education in anthropology/literature to construct a plausible world
I don't see a problem here. What is everyone arguing about?

Read them my man.

>>8427989
>Okay, so for example, everyone talks about how "Aragorn was this great, 3 dimensional figure in the books, but the movies turned him into an action hero".
>No, you idiots, if you remember what you fucking read, Aragorn was always a fucking action hero. Seriously? Elves give him special treatment because they see that he's the rightful king? He goes from "ranger who knows a lot" to "right hand man of Gandalf, a literal fucking god"?
>A "bad-guy" race, solely created to be a race of bad guys?
>"Oh, but orcs were ackshually tainted elves who--"
>Shut the fuck up, nerd. I KNOW what orcs are; it still doesn't mean he couldn't give them a legitimate reason for war beyond just "lel, I'm angry because I was born evil".
>How about instead the orcs want war because they believe war will keep the status quo, which they believe is actually a good thing?
>Literally ANYTHING besides just "I'm bad because I used to be good, but now I'm bad lol".
>And I know this is cliche as fuck to talk about now, but the eagles really were a piece of shit. Even dedicated Tolkien fans know it is, don't fucking lie to yourselves.
>The eagles were "too proud" to save the world? What the fuck does that even mean? They're think they're good enough to save the lives of a couple of hobbits, but they're too good to save the world from an army of evil?
>What is this, The Contrary Club?
Did you read some kind of abridged LotR version for children? I am honestly flabbergasted anyone lacks the self-awareness to realize how stupid you sound right now. You're woefully wrong on every single count and come off as someone describing what someone else described to them as the story of tLotR based on their friend's account of the film for the Chronicles of Narnia.

>>8426994
Just read a book on botany and ecosystems. It's the same thing but you will actually learn something

But if you insist on faggy fantasy read the much shorter (and better even by Tolkien's estimation) Worm Ourobouros

File: 1470713523382.png (620KB, 905x1280px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 905x1280px

>>8427311
I would seriously consider this trolling if the Lotr wasn't so good.

Seriously faggots, go read it. It may be dry at times, but it is worth it.

>>8426994
6. Iconic fantasy and entertaining, but nothing special as literature.

It's a bloated walking simulator

Only an autist or someone with German ancestry could enjoy it

>>8428112
Yep, he said himself that it's a story with no deeper meaning or "message" behind it.

The Eagles would have been shot down because of this great invention called "the bow," not to mention the leader of the Ringwraiths, who flies a fucking fell beast through the skies surrounding Mordor

They couldn't do anything while the Eye was watching. Only when the armies of Sauron were routed could they interfere

>>8428130
he said it's not meant as an allegory which is not the same as saying it has no "deeper meaning"

>>8428133
Why did the eagles come to save them at the end?

>>8428139
This is literally answered in the post you responded to

>>8428137
I have the book right in front of me and he says explicitly, "As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."

>>8428142
That's why the orcs wouldn't shoot them down. Why wouldn't men shoot them down? I mean, the eagles could have at least flown them a little closer to Mordor before they ran into orcs. Presumably they didn't because they were afraid that men would shoot that them.

>>8428145
lying cunt, fite me irl

>>8428155
Get out the book and check for yourself m8.

File: 1422308766910.jpg (23KB, 440x218px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 440x218px

>>8427257
>it becomes less of a story and more of a visual experience

Why do pretentious cunts not understand what movie adaptations are?

Do you people watch adaptations just to complain they aren't the book? No fucking shit, the whole point is so we can watch Gandalf and Saruman and the Riders of Rohan and the Balrog and Ghost Warriors and Gimli and Legolas and epic fight scenes and orcs and fantastical landscapes and visualizations. Sure its a bit unpleasant to have a differing mental image from some of the things portrayed but fuck you get over it.

You pretentious cunts need to fuck off with your reddit level over-analysis of book to film adaptations.

>>8428133
>>8428142
Man, there's more to it than that. It is heavily suggested that the Valar intervened in the confrontation at the Black Gate/the destruction of the ring in the fires of Orodruin, the Eagles came help to because Manwe fucking told them to -- and he did this after the peoples of Middle Earth had decided their own fate since the Valar are fundamentally divorced from their doings because of the Gift of Men.

>>8428133
>>8428139

Not to mention the Eagles were very sovereign beasts - they could not be ordered around and only decided to join the cause because of the Lord of the Eagles and Gwaihir's relationship with Gandalf, who was one of the Five mighty Istari. They were the messengers of God, basically, and as such, they probably only interfere in Wars when they see it absolutely necessary.

>>8428165
>Do you people watch adaptations just to complain they aren't the book? No fucking shit, the whole point is so we can watch Gandalf and Saruman and the Riders of Rohan and the Balrog and Ghost Warriors and Gimli and Legolas and epic fight scenes and orcs and fantastical landscapes and visualizations. Sure its a bit unpleasant to have a differing mental image from some of the things portrayed but fuck you get over it.
If you weren't retarded you'd understand the point was that you aren't watching Gimli, Gandalf, the Rohirrim, etc...

Do you think that classical literature could also be just stories like lotr, not intended with a deeper meaning, but people just read into it after the fact?

>>8428173
I think his point was that you should ignore characterization and everything else besides ebin visual scenes

>>8428174
I once had a professor lecture for an hour on the significance of the number 3 in the Iliad.

>>8428130
Every true artist says this because they don't want to endorse one interpretation of their work

It's very clearly influenced by his experiences in WWI, including the bodies under the water and other references

>>8428189
Influence != allegory.

Plenty of fucking idiots say it's also clearly about race, or Catholicism, or the virtues of being a Luddite, etc...

>>8428174
I'm a film student, and my professor taught me something pretty useful that can be applied to literature or really any artform, too.

(Also, I'm not sure if this was his original idea, or if he was referencing someone, but even still)

He said that when you make a movie, keep it really simple. Like, really simple (story-wise). That way, your audience does all the tough, complicated bullshit of applying meaning, allegory, and symbolism and all you gotta do is tell an entertaining story. "Oh, the shadows casting off the water well is meant to represent the First World's disinterest in the Third World's poverty?" SURE! Why the fuck not!? Did the creator intend that? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, but it's whatever. Point is, most art/stories -don't- have deeper meanings. We just create meaning for them.

I know with LOTR, as a Christian myself, I find a lot of themes and meaning in Tolkien's stories. Are they there purposefully? No - I'm pretty sure I read a letter from Tolkien once saying "My books are NOT ALLEGORIES!" but did his personal faith influence his work? Absolutely. Does mine influence my interpretation? Absolutely. Does that mean LOTR is really more than a swords and sorcery tale of wizards, dragons, and magic jewelry? Nah.

>>8428194
Yes, and...?

People are saying these stories have no deeper meaning, and they do

>>8428208
Tolkien didn't deny meaning, he denied allegory.

>>8428189
He also says that "an author cannot of course remain unaffected by his experience." But those influences don't necessarily add a meaning or message to the story.

>>8428211
Yes. You're agreeing with my point. There's literally no point to this reply chain

File: 1449845850675.jpg (94KB, 437x437px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 437x437px

>>8428173
>Completely incapable of understanding

Consider killing yourself after reading this non-retard's post:
>>8428182

>tfw movie is just flashing pictures and sounds not le intellectual deep multi dimensional ego masturbation medium.

>>8427009
best reply in thread
i kek'd so damn hard

>>8428211
I've posted the direct quote twice already. He did deny meaning. See >>8428145.

>>8428217
Yes, they do

Just because the story isn't a fucking allegory doesn't mean it doesn't comment on the hero's journey, myth, language, the effects and development of war, valor, Sam's servitude reflecting the class system in Britain, and all this other shit

Yeah, it's not an allegory. It still has depth. What about this is confusing?

>>8428218
you too >>8428223

>>8428223
He denied specific meanings or messages intended by the author.

>>8428227
Quite.

>>8428223
>He did deny meaning
Anyone with a brain understands this to mean allegory.

>>8428228
Yeah, he says it's not allegorical or topical. We've covered this. What else is he going to say in his intro? Douglas Adams
Spends most of his intro to THGTTG talking about how pointless it is, too

>>8428174
Depends on what lit you're talking about.

>>8428052
Daily reminder that Tolkien loved to talk shit about Lewis' writing.

>>8428238
>>8428236
>>8428232
>>8428227
If there is no intended message or deeper meaning intended by the story, then how can it be a commentary on anything? You're just making connections that aren't really there. Don't get me wrong, I like Lord of the Rings, and I actually don't like literature that's meant to have some kind of message. But I'll take the author at his word when he says there's no point reading into it.

>>8427793
I'm glad I don't read for the same reasons you do.

In a good book I expect to find a fully realized world, a thoughtful story, and a host of unique characters when I read.

I want to care about what I'm reading, I want it to set my imagination flowing. I want it to raise questions that I ask myself years later.

I could care less if the author meets some "standard" of writing style or if he impresses me with his sophisticated vocabulary. Of course, some level of competence is required, but it is not at all the deciding factor.

If he has nothing interesting to say, then regardless of how he says it I won't be moved.

>>8427725
>Tom Bombadil

The biggest troll of Tolkien.

>>8428265
Oh yes, but I always liked that about their relationship. I think they challenged each other. Plus, it was Tolkien's influence and mentoring that kind of brought Lewis into Christianity, which in turn, inspired him to write his fiction works and later his brilliant theological essays like Mere Christianity, The Weight of Glory, and The Great Divorce.

Also, Screwtape Letters which a rare breed of Christian theological satire.

Both men were great, in my opinion.

>>8428266
Why do you equate allegory with meaning? A story can have meaning without having allegory. Do you really think Sam's journey isn't a commentary on gentlemen servants in Britain? You think Tolkein just made that up without being influenced by his culture in any way? Do you think he wrote a story about a man who raises an army with the power of his voice and didn't think about despots? Do you think a man who translated Beowulf wasn't influenced or have any thought to myth and its history in Britain?

Whatever. If you want to convince yourself that you read 1200 pages of a book and got no meaning out of it, that's on you, I guess

>>8428278
I want to know their opinion on various famous writers before their times like Dickens.

I know Tolkien didn't really like Alice since it was just all a dream and it really bugged the hell out of him.

>>8428285
>Do you really think Sam's journey isn't a commentary on gentlemen servants in Britain?

Sam for best butler in literature.

File: 1452373556330.jpg (133KB, 717x508px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 717x508px

>>8428195
Your position, while morally bankrupt, has some truth in it, but not in the way you think--because meaning isn't about putting something into things, but creating the right shapes for the reader's mind, to have the audience move (on their own), rather than moved them (by force), rather than put something in them, to extract something.

>>8428285
comprehension or context are irrelevant in the face of intentionally over literal interpretations of cherry picked quotations, Tolkien himself said his book is meaningless, sorry

>>8428285
What does it even mean to say that some element in the plot is a commentary on something if it's not a reference to the real world? "Gentlemen servants in Britain" refers to the real world, not the fantasy world in the book. If the story reminds you of gentlemen servants in Britain, then that's part of your subjective experience with the story and that's great, but it is by no means intrinsic to the story. It's intrinsic to you.

>>8427861
>le Tolkien was a Cath o lick

I seem to forget the part where most of the hobbits ganged up on the small population of Hugenot hobbits and burnt them alive

>>8428266
>>8428285
you are both wrong

read the death of the author smhfam

>>8428267
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying he DOESN'T have a thoughtful story, and I'm saying I DON'T think his characters are all too unique.

I spoke wrongly when I said "worldbuilding and shit don't make a good book". Instead, think of it like I was trying to say "the amount of detail that goes into your worldbuilding and shit doesn't matter as much as the actual content of it."

Pretty much I'm trying to say, "detail does not equal depth", which I believe is Tolkien's flaw when it comes to writing.

People who dismiss Tolkein as tripe on this board are memers who can't read.

If you can read the Lord of the Rings and not draw anything further than "muh fantastical adventure story" then you really have no business criticising literature

>>8428315
>he only watched the film

>>8428751
this

8, lord of the rings is what got me into literature.
Only giving an 8 since I'm a huge LOTR fanboy so I might be biased

>>8426994
Skip the first 1-2 chapters and the last 5-6 except for the Scouring of the Shire.
You'll thank me later, shit gets unbearably draggy.

Tolkien's works stayed with me the most out of anything i've read .

>>8429916
>>8428238
>>8427989
>>8427913
>>8427889
>>8428145

wtf I hate /lit/ now
>>8428064
>>8428266
>>8428433

>>8428072
Have you read the books? Aragorn was introduced as random ranger dude, it was only around the second half of FotR that everyone started treating him like a snowflake because "muh grandaddy wuz from Numenor".
Hell, the early drafts of FotR even had him as a hobbit before Tolkien decided to go full autismo with the world building.

>>8430026

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself what exactly he is a ranger of? The fact that he was apart of an order of rangers that were tasked to protect Eriador and the fact that he was the leader of that order from the beginning implies that he was special from the beginning .

Bottom line is, the worldbuilding may be good (especially for its time) but god damn does Tolkien have no sense of pacing, especially in comparison to the films.

Fellowship of the Ring:
>book one is basically a wacky hobbit adventure in the same style as the Hobbit with talking trees and ghosts and sheet
>book two is probably one of the best parts of the series

The Two Towers
>the whole saruman half of the book starts off well but quickly goes to crap
>treebeard chapter gets full autistic with at least 30 pages of deepest lore shoehorned in;
>helm's deep happens around midway through the plot and lasts 3-4 pages
>the rest of the book is just them walking to isengard and then talking to saruman
>the frodo/sam half is good but still somewhat meandery

Return of the King:
>first half is excellent
>sauron gets killed 3 chapters into the second half
>the rest of the book is more walking and referencing deepest lore for around 150 pages
>oh and there's a mini saruman fight thing at the end that's kind of exciting

Basically each book is divided into a decent-to-good half and a shitty half. I get that it was written in the 1950s and the literary tropes and standards for pacing weren't the same then but that's the point, it's really mediocre by modern standards even if it was great then.

>>8429956
You mean the story or the actual prose/lines?

>>8430179
The story, characters, events that happen, the poems in the book and a number of very memorable lines.

>>8430101
>I get that it was written in the 1950s and the literary tropes and standards for pacing weren't the same then but that's the point, it's really mediocre by modern standards even if it was great then.


Classic literature is slowly paced and boring at times that doesn't mean they aren't great.

>>8430101
Most of this summary is incorrect

Perhaps next time you read the LOTR, you should pay more attention

>>8426994
If you like fantasy 10 if you just want a good book then 7 or 6

>>8426994
10?
>one of foundations of modern fantasy
>very popular trilogy with huge popcultural impact and influence
>objectively good books