Is The Hobbit/Lord Of Rings really that bad of a series?

>>9954799
Here's a test:
Do women and/or liberals like the book?

If yes = it's shit
If no = it's genius

>>9954799
Barking up the wrong tree. No one here is capable of anything but mindless parroting of what they think Joyce or Bloom believes (this having read neither).

Having read the books so long ago as to disqualify myself from discussion (and not actually disliking them to begin with), I'd say LOTR is indulgent. Excessive detail serving no obvious purpose other than to forward a trite allegory about about WWII. Many authors imagine detailed worlds and histories when writing, but they don't showboat it.

The Hobbit seems pretty good to me, though.

>>9954804
Are you being ironic? Why did I even ask this question, curiosity made the cat look like a fucking idiot to a bunch of self centered twats who think they're genius and go to book clubs without even being able to understand the books they were suppose to read.

>>9954804
Must be genius then.

>>9954819
>a trite allegory about about WWII
Tolkien said many times this was NOT his intention when writing LotR.

>>9954799
Because like all forms of media made for entertainment, it is entirely subjective.
No matter what book or movie you discuss, there are people who will either hate or love it.
Tolkien for example has a very distinct and dense style of writing that a lot of people find off-putting.

>>9954830
>>9954830
A trite allegory about good and evil, then. Point is, the details don't seem to be anything other than indulgences for their own sake. With the exception of Infinite Jest (which I strongly dislike), many of the other baggy-digressive books "talked about" here in fact can justify that seeming looseness.

>>9954847
>A trite allegory about good and evil, then
Yeah and the Bible is worthless garbage, all those fucking details like the lineages, or in the Iliad with the catalogue of ships are all just "indulgences for their own sake" right?
Point is if you don't see what tolkien is doing you might be mentally retarded or worse, a tasteless pleb.

>>9954799
Yes, The Lord of the Rings is a work of peak artistic genius, rivaling the best of Greek poetry and drama. The canon slaves will groove on regardless but their impotent whining will amount to as little as the critics' dismissal of Kafka or Melville. It makes no difference, Tolkien is for the ages
>>9954847
"trite allegory" LOL. You understand nothing about the sophistication of Tolkien's undebased delineation of good and evil and it's roots in his views on techne and theology. Your complaints amount to the groveling of dogs. Don't comment here if you can't see the forest for the trees.

>>9954875
Exactly, comparisons to the Bible or The Iliad are apt. People who can't see what Tolkien is doing are simply viewing his work through their own rear-view mirror perspective, as Bloom does. Tolkien is a mythopoeic architect of the highest order.

>>9954875
>>9954876
>>9954891
Great contributions. Thanks, /lit/