?

Log in

To Survive, We Must Kill Our Father: The Wretchedness of Tolkien - The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal
September 16th, 2003
12:38 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
To Survive, We Must Kill Our Father: The Wretchedness of Tolkien

I remember my response when a teacher asked me whether I liked Moby Dick:

"The book itself sucked - but the Cliffs' Notes were riveting."

So ask me what I think about Lord of the Rings, why don't you? Oh, never mind, I'll just go off -

Tolkien is the biggest hack piece of shit ever to stumble on a story that ever existed. He may, in fact, be the poorest writer ever to create any sort of folktale with resonance. His plots are meandering, his descriptions are overblown in only the way that a boring old English windbag can get, and his dialogue is more wooden than his Ents.

It's time to destroy Tolkien.

Why Tolkien Is - And, More Importantly, Should Be - Irrelevant
Now, before I get into detail on why Tolkien sucks, let me get one thing straight: Most of Tolkien's admirers will defend him by pointing out that if it were not for Tolkien, the idea of a vast fantasy saga would not exist. And in that, I completely agree.

That's one of the reasons I hate him.

First off, let's get the "the first is always the best" hoo-hah out of the way: How many of you women are going to Freudian therapists to discuss how your penis envy and sublimated love of rape is really what causes your problems? The point is, of course, that quite often a thing that jumpstarts something valid is not something valid in itself. It is a great rough draft, but in the end we have to say, "Hey, thanks for inspiring other people to do a lot better than you did!" and move on.

Tolkien is one of those things.

Furthermore, the shadow of Tolkien has been fouling fantasy for a long time now. Every serious fantasy book must be three novels long, and it must feature a protagonist who needs to get (or understand) the foozle while he slowly goes mad trying to get it to where it needs to be, and a Big Dark Protagonist who's mean and controls armies. Every fantasy series has a long-buried ancient civilization and a funny language to speak.

Flip through the series, folks: Terry Brooks? Well, he's a Tolkien clone. But Stephen R. Donaldson? David Eddings? Fritz Leiber? Terry Goodkind? Melanie Rawn? Anne Mccaffrey? Michael Moorcock? Even Dune is, in many ways, a large and elaborate Tolkien riff.

And even if they don't specifically emulate Tolkien, their books are often written as a reaction to Tolkien - Terry Pratchett's Discworld, Piers Anthony's Xanth.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that every fantasy novel written since Tolkien is, on some level, a reflection of Tolkien.

(Well, that's not entirely true. There were some smaller series, like Amber and the Wold Newton universe, that managed to mostly break free... But they weren't really popular, and in many ways were more science-fictiony than fantasy.)

I think that to find the first fantasy novel that really told Tolkien to go to hell and blazed its own path, we have to look to George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones, which features no elf, no dwarf, no fucking Sauron clone... Just a bunch of really interesting humans duking it out in bloody battles.

And upon seeing how well Martin did it, and how interesting his world is, I was infuriated. I've had to spend my entire life reading fantasy series where authors spent so much time outline what an elf was like that they forgot to actually give individual elves personality...

And here we have Martin, who said, "Hey! Tolky! Blow me! I'm gonna put all of my effort into creating vivid human characters instead of creating some long and elaborate backstory for my series! And it's better than what you did, okay?"

We've spent all of these years thinking that the key to a good fantasy series was a vast and elaborate backdrop, because that's what Tolkien concentrated on. And really, the key is characters and plots, which are the least important part of Lord of the Rings. But still, every fantasy wannabe starts out where?

It's not the people or the plots. Oh, they have people and plots... But ask them, and they'll tell you about the city, and the history, and the races, and the people and plots are just sort of a sidenote.

Ask any other fucking genre what they're writing about, and it's the people and the plots. (Sometimes sci-fi concentrates on the place, but mostly to its detriment.) Yes, mystery writers sometimes fall in love with the mystery, and techno-thriller writers sometimes fall in love with the hardware... But thanks to Tolkien's ass-backwards planning, fantasy is the only genre where setting is routinely considered to be more important than character or action.

Thus, Tolkien's amazing accomplishment was that he he not only jump-started the fantasy novel genre, but he set it back fifty years at the exact same time.

We must move on. We must leave Tolkien behind, like we would Freud. Don't look back, or - like Lot's Wife's author friend - you'll be turned into a pillar of bad writing.

Why Tolkien Sucks
I think the best way to present my argument is this: I've spoken with any number of hard-core Tolkien fanatics. They nitpicked the movie, hated the minor changes, and squawked like parrots on the bulletin boards.

When I ask them how many times they've read LotR, the answer is always in the teens, and often higher: Twenty. Fifty. A hundred.

Except they never have.

Ask them closer, and what you'll find is that even the most die-hard of the fanatics skim their way past certain segments of the book. The long-ass poetry is a frequent fast-forward button, but often the tedious descriptions of the countryside and the pseudo-history get the flip.

In other words, most of Tolkien's die-hard supporters can't read everything he writes.

And thus I repeat: The Cliffs Notes are riveting.

Tolkien is a folksy writer - but his unique delusion is that he considered his world to be almost a real history. The details were crushingly important to Tolkien, which lends his world a weight of gravitas that cannot be beaten....

But his writing also meanders. He spends a lot of time focusing in on things that better writers would discard. His plots are filled with side-trails that wind nowhere, just like real history, and interchanges that really don't matter much at all. But like a man with no editor, Tolkien regurgitates it all so that you can see it.

There are those who will say that part of the charm of Tolkien is that his books read like history books. To which I say: This isn't real life. And worse yet, he commits the fatal flaw in that a lot of these sidelines are boring.

If his most devoted fans skip major sections of the book, how the hell can you call it a great literary work?

His writing is long-winded and tedious and focuses on the wrong areas. His dialogue is leaden. He loves his own poetry, which is cute but not particularly meaningful.

And his characters?

Hang on.

What Tolkien Does Right
Many people say that Tolkien does get the characters right, and I have to agree... To an extent. I've said that most of the work that a writer has to do is to put his characters into meaningful situations, and you're really done.

It's true. You don't need to write well if you can put your characters in a place the readers can identify with. And in that, Tolkien excels above all others - Frodo going mad as he tries to save the world. Samwise's love of a partner who is slowly growing apart from him. Aragorn's reluctance to take power, and the elves' dilemma of beauty becoming irrelevant.

Tolkien had a right knack for finding parallels to modern living that struck right through the heart of everyone. I wish I had his talent for this, because buried beneath a couple thousand pages of muck and mire lay these unassailable gems.

That said, what do we know of Frodo? He's brave, and he feels sorry for Gollum, and he's a hobbit who'd rather be home.

A thousand pages go by, and we barely know anything about the man aside from those three facts. Every character in Tolkien's books is gloriously - almost aggressively - one-dimensional, each given a task to carry out and placed lovingly in situations where, for a brief moment, you become Frodo. Or Sam. Or whoever.

I will say that the characterization in Tolkien is as crappy as the rest of the book, but Tolkien's ability to find the right place to put these little chess pieces is what gives LotR its majesty.

If you hold a piece of paper with a line drawing on it in the right way, it will appear to be three-dimensional. The drawing is still two-dimensional, however, and it's probably not a terribly good drawing at that.

Admire it for a fine optical illusion, but don't think it's good art just because it fooled you.

The Movies
Are the Cliffs Notes. The movies are a joy to watch, with vivid characterizations defined by actors with facial expressions, body language, and a vibrancy that's not present in the original chapter. Peter Jackson has a deep love of the books... But even more so, he realizes rightfully that a lot of what Tolkien does is boring, and needs both punching up and streamlining.

The movies are a joy. The books themselves are relics.

It's time to leave the old windbag behind. Yes, his world is charming.... But as a writer, I encourage you to find some other way to go about it. The history's not the key thing; it's the people.

Make the people come alive, with depth and desires and plots that go in unexpected directions, and you'll have a book that might one day outshine the master.

And when you write, pray. Pray that you can channel Tolkien's amazing ability to find sympathetic situations for your babies, and yet avoid the rest of Tolkien's many and crippling flaws.

Throw away the ring, folks. It's time to stop being invisible under the shadow of Sauron.

(232 shouts of denial | Tell me I'm full of it)

Comments
 
Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
From:ladytabitha
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:40 am (UTC)
(Link)
Don't forget Robert Jordan and The Neverending Fuckin' Wheel of Time series.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
Jordan's a transitory writer. As far as I'm concerned, he was trying to break away from Tolkien and failed. And then decided that his books needed to move slower and slower and slooooweeerrrr......

I gave up.
[User Picture]
From:jarodrussell
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:43 am (UTC)
(Link)
But let me ask the big question... How do you feel about Neal Stephenson?
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
First two novels, fucking brilliant. Couldn't get through Cryptonomicon.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
In my opinion... - (Anonymous) - Expand
From:ex_fyrefairy885
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:50 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think that the one-dimensionality of Tolkien's characters is one of the key reasons LoTR makes such a great set of movies.

Read any Ursula K. LeGuin? Utopian fantasy...with no Tolkien that I can find. Almost reads like Ayn Rand sometimes. (Same era as Zelazny.) Neil S. is good for similar reasons. I also like Folk of the Air. (My mom's favorite fantasy novel of all time.)
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:41 am (UTC)
(Link)
Always meant to read LeGuin, but never got around to it. Actually, I have a huge (and oft-depressing) knowledge gap of the biggest female fantasy writers. It's not intentional, but it's there.
[User Picture]
From:yendi
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
Spot on, on so many levels (other than the casual acceptance of the argument that he was first, which he so wasn't). I'm not sure I'd agree that causing reactionary writings like Pratchett would be a bad thing (as long as the Pratchett books stand on their own, which they eminently do). I'd also toss out James Stoddard's High House books as another fantasy series that decided that Tolkien's formula blew.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
Who was first if it wasn't him? Just because other writers got there first doesn't mean they count; they had to be POPULAR.

Causing reactionary writings is bad because it stifles creativity. Pratchett's a solid exception, but so many other people have gotten caught up in, "I'm writing about elves who are dimwitted and dumb! Ha ha! I am so clever!"

Never read Stoddard. Never even heard of him until now....
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
[User Picture]
From:shawnj
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
How long until you think someone tells you that you're wrong and that they read every word of that trilogy and would place Tolkein on the pedestal with people like Orwell, Hemmingway, or Joyce as the best novelists of the 20th century?
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:56 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ten minutes, max.

I can't get through Joyce, either.
[User Picture]
From:das_hydra
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
I usually can read *anything*. Even medical text books excite me.

I just can't get through more then a few pages of anything Tolkien related.

I felt like a failure.

Now I don't, and thusly feel GLAD I cheated and read the little timeline that gives away everything in the back of my copy.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:57 am (UTC)
(Link)
A lot of people can't. There are many, many secret Tolkien-haters out there. But we're all in the closet.
[User Picture]
From:mikester
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:53 am (UTC)

Great minds think alike.

(Link)
I thought you might find this amusing...I posted this on the old Retreat BBS:

"Message # 1792. Reply to #1791
Date: 06/15/94. Time: 16:56:52. Read 39 Times.
From : Mikester
To : Stranger
Subj : Stories?
RECEIVED


And because of Tolkien, every other damn fantasy novel that comes out is part of a trilogy."
[User Picture]
From:kennfusion
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
What is literature? What does a novel need to do in order for you to consider it worthy or reading?

I can tell you why I like the trilogy. I think he does an excellent job at portraying the variations of free will within the characters. Every main character in the series has choices to make. I believe that Tolkein explores the variance in human nature with this.

The best example I can give briefly would be through Boramir and Fharamir (no idea if I am spelling their names right). Boramir gives in to the lure of the ring and the power it could bring him, and the ability it would give him to make the world better as he sees it. On the other hand, when his brother learns a book later that he has the ring bearer in his midst, sends him on his way. He does not waver in this (unlike in the movie, where they change this). In the books though, we have 2 brothers, same genes, coming from the same environment and yet how they make decisions of "good and evil" differ greatly.

It is these types of details that make the trilogy worthy of reading.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:58 am (UTC)
(Link)
What is literature? What does a novel need to do in order for you to consider it worthy or reading?

It has to be entertaining enough for me to get through it without snoring. Beyond that, I'm pretty much open.

It is these types of details that make the trilogy worthy of reading.

It is these types of details which makes it a riveting movie. As far as a book, you got a ways to go.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
[User Picture]
From:mcsnee
Date:September 16th, 2003 09:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
Okay... After reading the title, I was ready to tear you a new one, but you made some valid points.

Have you ever read Guy Gavriel Kay? If you like Martin, you'll probably like Kay as well.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:43 am (UTC)
(Link)
I've heard that. I should read that in my *cough cough* copious spare time...
From:(Anonymous)
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:05 am (UTC)

True...

(Link)
I gotta say yer pretty much right on this one.

Me, I'm playing Morrowind. I'm sure its full of Tolkien stuff, but I'm not a really hardcore Tolkien buff, so I'm prolly missing half of the things I should be. Hell, I dont even know half of the stuff thats mentioned in the in-game novels, like the Battlespire or that kinda thing.

For me, if I don't go "oh god, this is just like Lord of the Rings", I'm happy. You dont see any crack-addicted Tiger-people in LOTR, for example :)

-C
Oh, and any one of the Tribunal - hell, maybe even just Vivec - could kick Sauron's ass.
[User Picture]
From:ysabel
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
Marry me?
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:43 am (UTC)
(Link)
Why? It wouldn't stick anyway. I KNOW your habits, woman. *g*
[User Picture]
From:dawntreader90
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
i admit that i am trying to get through reading the LOTR trilogy. and i also freely admit that i have read at least three other book in the time it has taken me to get through half of book one.

The Hobbit wasn't so bad, actually. i rather enjoyed it. LOTR however? i can't seem to make myself make time to read it. it's almost an "ugh i should read" feeling when i think about it. that's bad.

my biggest pet peeve is that once you get to know a character the group moves on and you know you won't see the character again. the SIDE characters have more interest for me than the MAIN characters.

as for books that are good but not like LOTR, have you read The Snow Queen/The Summer Queen duology from Joan Vinge? those books are the reason i ever got into reading sci-fi/fantasy novels in the first place. (that and reading the Narnia books as a kid.)

i'd say those are two totally un-Tolkienly book series.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
The Hobbit wasn't so bad, actually. i rather enjoyed it.

I LOVE the Hobbit. It's short, and sweet, and well-told. It doesn't digress too much.

Trimmed down, LotR could be a Hobbit.

Never read Vinge. See my earlier comment regarding my lack of female fantasy authors. I feel so guilty.
[User Picture]
From:rakafkaven
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:29 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know that Tolkien can be held so completely responsible. The flavor of fantasy you describe is certainly ubiquitous, but I don't know that it dominates. Cheesy romance novels are everywhere, but they haven't destroyed all literature that involves genitals. Much like Harlequin, I think Tolkien-take-offs serve a particular mental weakness that draws a lucrative audience.

I would posit that the focus on setting at the extreme expense of character comes from the same portion of the hindbrain responsible for the statistically intimidating amount of porn that features zero men. It's not that the afficianados are particularly pro-lesbian or pro-gyno-onanism. It's just that there's no room in their fantasies for a dick that isn't theirs.

Crappy escapist fantasy with transparent protagonists will persist as long as there's an audience that wants to imagine themselves as the only dicks of substance in the world. Tolkien didn't start this. He just wrote well enough (it is a mature writing style, and the boring bits just add to the adolescent perception of literchoor) to legitimize it.
[User Picture]
From:rakafkaven
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
That said, I disagree with lumping Donaldson in with the J.R.R. Jr.s. His first Covenant trilogy was a very clever deconstruction of the sort of escapism I mention above-- the setting is all-important, and most of the NPCs are really just an extension of the setting. He shows that a three-dimensional character can still fuck it all up, as his protagonist is a real dick in just about every way possible. I found the series to be a very intelligent metaphor about the escapism it uses.

We won't mention the second series. Really. I assume Donaldson was hungry, had a crack habit to feed, or was very angry with the publisher.
[User Picture]
From:shadesong
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
I fucking love you, man. This post has rocked my world so thoroughly - you have said exactly what I was too damn lazy to say.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:46 am (UTC)
(Link)
You and Yendi set me off. It's been boiling for awhile; I just wish I'd had the time to polish this more, but I may try to submit it professionally....
From:blackthorned
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
Very true, it took me 3 weeks to finish the series & after that I never picked them up ever again...
...though I did enjoy the Dune series a lot, I found that more so exciting but it also got into a lot of topics that I was interested in

...as a side note, the two made for tv series they've done for Dune & Children of Dune were awesome...so maybe that fits w/ your "good for a movie, bad for a book" type as well
...hopefully they continue the series for the other remaining books
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:47 am (UTC)
(Link)
I like Dune. Took me awhile, but I liked it. I also keep hearing good things about the Sci-Fi adaptation, and will prolly TiVo it when it comes out.
[User Picture]
From:shadesong
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
First off, let's get the "the first is always the best" hoo-hah out of the way

Also re: that: He was NOT the first. He was just the first to get trendy.
[User Picture]
From:amokk
Date:September 16th, 2003 12:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
First, first to be trendy, there's no difference.
[User Picture]
From:shellefly
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:43 am (UTC)

Hear Me Roar!

(Link)
As another fan of the excellent work of George R. R. Martin, I am delighted that you mentioned him in your post. Hopefully some of your LJ readers will now go out and pick up A Game Of Thrones, just to see what you are talking about.

[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:04 am (UTC)

Re: Hear Me Roar!

(Link)
They should. It's SOOO good.

*drools*
[User Picture]
From:kathrynt
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
I freakin' love 'em. I read the Hobbit when I was six, and my father read LOTR out loud to me and my brother when I was eight. Lemme tell you, that book benefits hugely from being read aloud. It took three months to read, and we did it two more times, I think. Now, whenever I re-read the books, I do hang on every word, because it all brings back memories of being eight years old, snuggled under the down comforter with my five-year-old brother while my father read us an epic bedtime story, singing all the songs and doing all the voices. His Nazgul voice still gives me chills twenty years later.

This is not, however, the experience of most people who read it -- I understand that. And I'm completely biased by having been brought into it so young. My brother says that LOTR is the closest thing to a religion that our family has, and he's right, and we all approach it with the blind faith of the true believers. And I loved the movies, and I agree with nearly every edit and change; you can't tell the same story in a different medium in exactly the same way.

As for Joyce and Melville? Can't fucking stand them. Joyce needs a boot upside the head, and Melville needs to have someone hold a gun to his head and force him to learn how to fucking write. I say that knowing that Tolkien suffers from many of the same flaws, and yet I'm willing to forgive him anything. Go figure.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't argue with love.

Go forth and enjoy the man with all your heart.
[User Picture]
From:magenta_girl
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:47 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'd like to add another point as to why Tolkien sucks...as a girl, who do I get to identify with in the LOTR? Tolkien strikes me as being so misogynistic, he even made mother nature a man...
[User Picture]
From:starbrow
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
*sigh*

As a girl myself, I've always identified with Faramir.

Why tie gender into who you identify with in a book, anyway? I've never understood that. Why is that the most important thing?
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
[User Picture]
From:inner_linbo
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:58 am (UTC)

As Middle Earth Turns...

(Link)
I managed to read the first two books but couldn't convince myself to finish the trilogy. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

I found Dune much the same, hating it everytime I read about that damn scar on the one character (it was as if Herbert decided that this characters name included that description).

But success brings imitation. I think you'd get an argument that many that have come since have done a better job, even in the fantasy soap opera genre.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 12:44 pm (UTC)

Re: As Middle Earth Turns...

(Link)
But success brings imitation. I think you'd get an argument that many that have come since have done a better job, even in the fantasy soap opera genre.

But that would BE my argument!
[User Picture]
From:faelad
Date:September 16th, 2003 10:58 am (UTC)

Damn, there's a butt-load of comments... time for my incoherent drivel.

(Link)
My ex-fuck-buddy tried to make me read LOTR. She'd read it to me in the lovemaking afterglow, and then send me off to read more on my own. Now when I try (yes, try) to read it, I hear it in her voice, and it drags terribly. Yet I persist, probably for the same reason that I forced my mind through Moby Dick. The whole "classic" status. Bah. You're right. Tolkien blows goats.

I hate fantasy. Wait, I love the idea of fantasy, but the books that I've read that claim to be "fantasy," overall, suck. Maybe that's why I'm writing an urban fantasy novel. I hope that I end up being part of the solution, not the problem.

George R.R. Martin is a wanker, too.
[User Picture]
From:faelad
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:06 am (UTC)

Re: Damn, there's a butt-load of comments... time for my incoherent drivel.

(Link)
Before I get tons of hate-replies re: George RR: I don't care for his work. It's a personal opinion. Many friends love him, and he lives not far from here. My friend hangs out with him, preventing him from writing the next book.

But me... I couldn't stand Game of Thrones. Or whatever it was called. But then again, I kept the book. Someday, I might try again.

I just didn't gave a rat's ass about his characters. That's all.
[User Picture]
From:rune1279
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I think you're spot-on w.r.t. Tolkien. I mean, I still enjoy Goodkind and Jordan (though Goodkind's gone to the dogs ever since book 3 and I no longer give much of a crap about any of Jordan's characters except Mat Cauthon), but I do regard them as a guilty pleasure -- literarily speaking, they're only nominally different from spending the equivalent amount of time watching summer blockbusters.

But you can't even get that guilty pleasure out of Tolkien. After slogging through the rest, you're almost too tired to enjoy the fun set-pieces.
[User Picture]
From:sonicbunny
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:08 am (UTC)

No arguement re: Tolkien and his overblown ways

(Link)
I found Anne Rice's first vampire novel to be the same sort of overblown literachur. :)

What do you think of Elizabeth Moon's "Deed of Paksenarrion" series?

I just finished it and I'm really impressed.
[User Picture]
From:dawntreader90
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:13 am (UTC)

Re: No arguement re: Tolkien and his overblown ways

(Link)
i loved the Paksenarrion series. that was SO awesome. i think it's the first (and only) 'military life account' style book that didn't bore me to tears. *g*

all the detail about military formations and strategy were fascinating, and the excellent storyline, background, and character depth made it that much better.
[User Picture]
From:starbrow
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:08 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, as one of those deluded Tolkien fans...I have to say I love the way he writes, and I skip nothing when I read the books, not even the poetry.

If I had the time, I would read them out loud, but I'm too impatient, alas.

On the other hand, I have absolutely loathed most other fantasy written "in the style of Tolkien."
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:September 16th, 2003 12:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)
On the other hand, I have absolutely loathed most other fantasy written "in the style of Tolkien."

We can agree, then.
[User Picture]
From:lysana
Date:September 16th, 2003 11:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
I have read LOTR through twice in my life. And yes, I do mean every last page. I can say the same about The Hobbit. However, where Tolkien's love of language at the expense of our mutually modern and Hemingway-influenced taste for spare prose loses me? The Silmarillion. The Book of Numbers in the KJV translation of the Christian Bible is easier to read.

Part of the deal with authors like Tolkien and Melville is they wrote for an age with different standards for storytelling and language usage. Tolkien was *supposed* to be meandering and thick with the backstory. Ever read any Dickens? Same tricks, different topic. May as well cuss out Sartre for writing in French. It doesn't have to be up your tree, but he wasn't writing for 21st century tastes.
[User Picture]
From:irishbanshee
Date:September 16th, 2003 12:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ever read any Dickens? Same tricks, different topic.

Yeah, but Dickens at least manages to flesh out his characters a little more and throw some humor into the mix. True, it's very dry 19th-century British humor, but it's still funny (at least to my odd twisted brain) even in the 21st century.
The Ferrett's Domain Powered by LiveJournal.com