I HATE Tolkien... Yet Love LOTR

[USSRGirl]

Ok... I have a theory... I think J.R.R. Tolkien faked Lord of the Rings. He copied it from a hobo he met in an English tavern.

LOTR is one of my all time favorite books. However... I cannot bring myself to read any other books by Tolkien (certainly not like with Lewis). The Hobbit... I've tried so hard to read it and got all the way to the part with the forest elves before giving up. It is SO stupid and childish! Utterly pointless... the characters are so different from the serious peoples of Middle Earth. I don't know who he's writing for because it's way to flourishy, old English epic style high vocabulary and lengthy descriptions for a kid to read, yet far too stupid of a silly lephrauchan story for anyone over the age of four. I know there some who will disagree and trust me I've heard all the arguments before. The Silmarilian is extremely cliche and sickening. Roverandrom I just picked up to today and put it down after the first two pages. That thing has no business being in the adult section of the library. Smith of Wooten Major I actually read all the way through wincing in pain with each cliche, cutesy sentence.

The only other Tolkien book I absolutely adore is Farmer Giles of Ham. It was well written and witty on a more mature level. Chrysofylax (I know I probably spelled it wrong) Dives is so cute.

But HOW, HOW can the man who wrote such a long, deep, bloody warlike epic stoop to writing such utter trash?!!!!!!! I just don't get it.

Either... A.) Tolkien copied a hobo. B.) Chris Tolkien secretly wrote the stories he released after his daddy's death in an attempt to capitalize on Tolkien's reputation. C.) Tolkien is just a one hit wonder.

[Radical Dreamer]

Uuuuh...Wow. Just wow. XD; Maybe it didn't occur to you that everyone has different tastes? I actually found The Hobbit to be quite enjoyable. So the elves sing...What's wrong with that? They are supposed to be musical peoples. Maybe Tolkien felt that his introduction to the lands of Middle Earth should be a light-hearted one (and yes, it is quite light-hearted). I mean, think about it. The Hobbit is the tale of how Bilbo Baggins became a burglar by joining up with 13 dwarves to take a stand against the big dragon, Smaug. The Lord of the Rings is about how Frodo Baggins saves Middle Earth from nigh-inescapable destruction. Yeah, the plots are different; one story has a much heavier plot than the other, but there's nothing wrong with Tolkein's writing style in either one.

Anyways, keep in mind as well that The Hobbit was written first, so there was room for him to make some changes in writing style.

On a totally different subject, why do you say you hate Tolkien? You do realize that Narnia (and the rest of C.S. Lewis's Christian-inspired books) most likely wouldn't exist without him, right? I mean, he did play a key role in bringing C.S. Lewis to Christ.

I don't really have a problem with you not liking The Hobbit; that's your opinion...But to say you hate Tolkien is taking it a bit far, don't you think?

[Puritan]

Tolkien is Tolkien, Temmy. His writings spring from a variety of sources, from his love of Nordic epics to his personal experiences and beliefs. Actually, if you understand where he is coming from, his stuff all ties together pretty well. However, like many authors, he found his muse but once, though it was wonderous, and while his other writing is good, in my humble opinion, nothing can reasonablly be expected to live up to LOTR.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

The Hobbit was pretty awesome, The Silmarillion was hardly cliche (much of it was thought up during World War 1) and I agree that Lord of the Rings is great.
I think hate's too strong a word though. His writing style is extremely boring and there is very little character development but he still makes for a great epic story, with memorable characters.

[Animus Seed]

The Hobbit... I've tried so hard to read it and got all the way to the part with the forest elves before giving up. It is SO stupid and childish!

It was a children's book.

Utterly pointless... the characters are so different from the serious peoples of Middle Earth. I don't know who he's writing for because it's way to flourishy, old English epic style high vocabulary and lengthy descriptions for a kid to read, yet far too stupid of a silly lephrauchan story for anyone over the age of four.

As stated, this was written before LOTR. Think of it like he was practicing.

I know there some who will disagree and trust me I've heard all the arguments before.

Then I'll try not to repeat any of them.

The Silmarilian is extremely cliche and sickening.

It doesn't help that he never finished it. I hope no one ever goes through my notebooks randomly and pulls some book together.

Roverandrom I just picked up to today and put it down after the first two pages. That thing has no business being in the adult section of the library. [/QUTOE]

Haven't read it yet, but at the library I work at, it's in the children's section.

Smith of Wooten Major I actually read all the way through wincing in pain with each cliche, cutesy sentence.

Haven't read it.

The only other Tolkien book I absolutely adore is Farmer Giles of Ham. It was well written and witty on a more mature level. Chrysofylax (I know I probably spelled it wrong) Dives is so cute.

Have I read it? I can't remember.

But HOW, HOW can the man who wrote such a long, deep, bloody warlike epic stoop to writing such utter trash?!!!!!!! I just don't get it.

Rings was his masterpiece? It was also written last, I believe.

I liked Leaf by Niggle.

[Radical Dreamer]

It is SO stupid and childish! Utterly pointless... the characters are so different from the serious peoples of Middle Earth. I don't know who he's writing for because it's way to flourishy, old English epic style high vocabulary and lengthy descriptions for a kid to read, yet far too stupid of a silly lephrauchan story for anyone over the age of four.

It was a children's book.

Yep, it was. In fact, as I read The Hobbit after completing The Lord of the Rings, I found it to be far easier to read than LOTR. It isn't written in the "Dick and Jane" style, sure, but just because it uses a higher form of language (and who's to say that children shouldn't be learning to talk like that?) doesn't keep it from being a children's story. And it's obviously not too stupid for anyone over the age of four, as there are plenty of adults who praise that book as one of Tolkien's masterpieces.

[Kuro-Mizu]

they were all written at different times for different audiences for different purposes... it would make sense for them read differently and maybe for an individual to like some of his works and not enjoy his others...

and just becuz he tried something else does not mean his other works are complete trash (although obviosuly in your opinion they are)

but either way I dont see this as enough reason to hate anyone... Actually I dont think there is evar a reason to hate anyone!

[Hitokiri]

::surpresses his Tolkien fan boyish-ness::

Sorry but everything I read in the first post - to me - was plain ignorant. Tolkien's masterpieace was not LOTR. It's a masterpiece to the eye of the public but the entire history of Middle-Earth was his masterpiece and his conceptualization of the Elvish language.

.......my girlfrend is also surpressing fan girlish-ness. haha.

[USSRGirl]

Oi. *mobbed by angry Tolkien fans*

-_____-;;

Sorry folks. I'm a major LOTR geek since long before the movies and quote nearly every memorable verse, but I simply dislike his other writings. Maybe it is a matter of taste. I never meant to highly offend Mr. Tolkien... I know he poured a lot of time and effort into those sickening books... and I truly don't throw darts at a pic of him so you don't need to worry about me harboring deep hatred for the man. I've never been interested enough to actually hate anyone sincerely.

I heard Tolkien didn't really believe in every story having a point. *shrug* Guess he just liked to write for fantasy value alone. Still... like Warrior4Jesus said... he lacks unique characters (Baron and Luthien = Romeo and Juliet, Bilbo = Unlikely hero, garden gnome thing, ect.) and they're not all that developed enough for me to read an entire book.

What's wrong with the elves singing? Nothing. They sang in LOTR, but it was beautiful Old English type ballads. In The Hobbit they just hummed 'traaa laa laa lally down in the valley!' It was dehumanizing! They're grown elves...warriors...very intelligent... they wouldn't be singing such nonsense!!! I have nothing against simple writing like Narnia geared towards kids but still enjoyable. The Hobbit, sadly for me, is just not it.

[Kuro-Mizu]

[quote="USSRGirl"]Oi. *mobbed by angry Tolkien fans*

-_____-]

the narnia books were boring to me... I don dont like Lewis's writing style... The stories are really good and thought out but te way he tels them just doesnt enthrall me!

the hobbit on the other hand has a good story line and sometimes its entertaining for me to sit down and read somhting that I dont have tothink about for to long!

so I think this is all just a perfect example of the simple fact that people just happen to have different tatse! ^_^

[Zarn Ishtare]

Temmy, stop giving me reasons to destroy you. Isn't you being a communist dictator enough?


Seriously though, Hate is alittle strong. And your critique is unfounded; it smells of literary snobbery. Please, we understand you have your opinions, and I certainly have mine, but you make the mistake of comparing one book to another. To enjoy a book, to really understand and love a book, you must believe in it, become apart of it, believe its laws and understand its rules. Your trying to compare characters with other characters, and I tell you, thats not how it works. A book should not have to live up to other books, or be considered a planet in a universe of literature. A book is a universe in and of itself, and one must take it by itself before giving strong judgement on it. If the book fails, it fails on its own and not because it wasn't Modern enough for you or it didn't fit into a comfortable niche you particularly enjoy.

[USSRGirl]

O.o Zarn is entering the mudslinging realm (as usual).

But in context of Middle Earth 'law', as you stated, The Hobbit makes no sense. Wargs can suddenly talk - not so in LOTR. Sauron is utterly ignored by Gandalf and dubbed 'the necromancer.' Beorn's breed of people are NEVER mentioned anywhere in LOTR. Ghwahir (sp??) is the only character I enjoyed from that book, and then more from LOTR than The Hobbit. Also, Gandalf was more reserved in his magic use during the war of the ring. Exploding pinecones? Hmph.

Well, I admit that The Hobbit is obviously a classic... just not to my taste. You people take the word 'hate' a bit to strong especially when talking about a dead author. LOTR was not planned before The Hobbit, and I guess on its own The Hobbit was meant to be a lighter story. My main... strong disliking.... of it is basically because there wasn't a lot of interesting plot or theme to think about. I could debate until your head explodes that Narnia is a very deep Biblical allegory (though not directly) where as Hobbit is more of just a standard adventure type thing in my opinion. But then as Vernhal said... a matter of taste. Whatever floats yer boat.

P.S. I'm not a literary snob. I'm a flat out snob on everything and proud of it.

[mitsuki lover]

Maybe it was a conspiracy by Tolkien lovers to cover up the fact that the Shannara books are superior?
Just kidding!
*Ducks flying Hobbits*
To be serious it all depends on taste as someone else said.
Though I wasn't kidding all the way when I said the Shannara books are superior.
In some ways they are better written than Tolkien's books.

[USSRGirl]

Agreed. A matter of taste. Just wondering if anyone else had that impression. I know someone in the real world (hmm...ya know that life outside CAA? XD) who agreed even though he actually read through all of Silmarilian.

Hmm... never heard of Shannara. O.o

:: Ducks from enraged fans ::

Actually this gives me an idea...

[JasonPratt]

May I add, aside from the Hobbit being completed way first (as his notion of a children's story), that he spent like _DECADES_ tweaking LotR? Lewis finally had to demand he publish the thing and stop twiddling with words here and there.

A lot more work was put into LotR than into the Hobbit. (Actually, changes go from Hob to LotR. Though even Hob was changed, especially in regard to the ring, once LotR streeted. The "Riddles in the Dark" chapter especially.)

And Gandalf _does_ think enough of the "Necromancer" to go be doing something about him (putting him conveniently out of the picture after the Beorn incident. Who factors so little into LotR for much the same reason the northern Dwarves do--because he and his descendents are up north taking care of business. {g} Notice that Legolas is the only one of the Mirkwood elves to show up in LotR at all, and _that_ was only because his father sends him to Elrond's council. Ditto Gimli, son of Gloin. Gandalf doesn't recognize Sauron to be a major threat at the time, because everyone thought Sauron was destroyed, and he was hiding out under a nom de guerre.

That being said, I agree the rest of Tolkien's work tends to be stodgy and dull. (Farmer Giles of Ham excepted.) But neither did he spend forever working them up, either. (Lewis used to irritate him to death because he could sit down, write a Narnian book in one draft, and publish the thing. But--Tolkien has had his reward: none of the Narnian books have ever been voted Book of the Century, much less the Millenium.)

If you want to be glad of bullets dodged, check out the collected notes of Tolkien's original drafts and compositions for LotR.

[uc pseudonym]

O.o Zarn is entering the mudslinging realm (as usual).

I'm quoting this because it stuck out to me as representative, but I do not mean to target anyone in particular. Everyone should take a moment to recall that we are discussing entertainment, and though this can be enjoyable and worthwhile, it also should not be taken more seriously than it merits. So the next time you want to contribute your opinion, make sure to double-check and remove anything that might be needlessly abrasive.

Now that I've finally stopped lurking in this thread, I feel as though I should make some commentary on the primary subject, but I think I'll pass for the time being.

[USSRGirl]

>.>; Aren't you going to at least tell us that we're all mindless puppets in a creepy voice with a village smoldering behind you, UC?

Hmm... I think the word 'hate' caused people take this thread a bit too personally. I meant it in a playful sense of strong disliking. Not that a nail a Tolkien poster to my wall and throw darts at it in a vengful and twisted manner. I think Vernhal said it best... both sides can have their arguments... it comes down to a matter of taste.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

The Sword of Shannara is an excuse to basically plagarise Lord of the Rings.
And while LotR's writing style is dry, I think the Shannara books are close to rubbish.

[USSRGirl]

BILLIONS OF BLISTERING BLUE BARNACLES AND A THUNDERING TYPHOON!!! >.< I never said LOTR was dry!!! :: Throws an orc skull at Warrior4Christ :: I love LOTR and despise people who rip it off!! I just didn't care for Tolkien's other books.

[indyrocker]

One thing to keep in mind is that he was not a novolist he was a profesor of Anglo-Saxon and a lingwist that loved hystory and felt the erge to create a hystory for the varous forms of elvish that he had created.

[mitsuki lover]

Well if The Sword of Shannara was plagiarism so is just about every other fantasy novel or series for that matter.
What I mainly meant about the Shannara series being better written than most anything Tolkien wrote was precisely that,from a technical stand point they are much better.Terry Brooks is a professional writer while Tolkien,as noted above
was not.In fact Tolkien being a philogist and expert in Anglo-Saxon probably explains why so much of his writing bogs down in overly florid description.He also was too much the perfectionist constantly writing and re-writing over and over again even when others felt he had gotten it right.Perhaps too much which explains why it took so long for his books to get published.That doesn't take away from the fact that what he created became a classic,it only is to indicate that from a technical stand point they're faulty and not as good as some series that would come later.

[Radical Dreamer]

One thing to keep in mind is that he was not a novolist he was a profesor of Anglo-Saxon and a lingwist that loved hystory and felt the erge to create a hystory for the varous forms of elvish that he had created.

The master of Anglo-Saxon lit (and probably linguistics too), for that matter. XD I mean, just thinking of all the languages he created puts George Lucas to shame.

[uc pseudonym]

BILLIONS OF BLISTERING BLUE BARNACLES AND A THUNDERING TYPHOON!!! >.< I never said LOTR was dry!!! :: Throws an orc skull at Warrior4Christ ::

Warrior4Christ did make that statement, however. I think that was his opinion, not putting words in your mouth.

In fact Tolkien being a philogist and expert in Anglo-Saxon probably explains why so much of his writing bogs down in overly florid description.

It is also important to consider the time period in which the book was written and the expectations for literature at that time. This applies to almost all books considered classics, actually. I belive that if Charles Dickens wrote Great Expectations today he would write it very differently (and I still wouldn't like it).

I mean, just thinking of all the languages he created puts George Lucas to shame.

The invention of Wookie, however, stands as a milestone in philology.

[indyrocker]

I still prefer quaina (sp) and other forms of elvish to wookie since the audio used in the origanal star wars were nothing but a track of random bear growls and other noises made by such animals it took nerds to creat the actual wookie language.

[uc pseudonym]

I apologize; I really should limit my sarcasm in text form. My intent was to poke fun at the fact that the wookie language is hardly a language at all.

[animegirl1]

i can only say one thing to this....I WANNA READ THE HOBBIT NOW!!!

and i highly reccomend the book "the seer and the sword"...its a VERY good fantasy adventure type book and an awsome sequel...haha sorry ima book fanatic!

[indyrocker]

[quote="uc pseudonym"]I apologize] I figured. I'm just one of those people that does things like that.

[Zarn Ishtare]

Temmy, Temmy, Temmy. Don't you know Intellectual Snobbery only looks good on Liberal College Proffesors?

[USSRGirl]

>.>; Wookie lingo *WAS* a milestone.

Oh... one more thing I gotta add that I just recently found out. My friend is reading the original Wind and the Willows and reports that Tolkien royally ripped it off for the hobbit. Apparently, Mr. Mole (I think he said it was the mole...) is identical to Bilbo Baggins. 1.) He's a comfortable little critter who hates adventures 2.) He eats multiple meals a day. 3.) He lives in a homey hole in the ground. 4.) The hole is called MOLE-END! (Ahem... Bag End... ring any be bells?)

Further proof that Tolkien is unoriginal, and that Zarn is a name calling little monkey who cannot even form a proper come back.

[Nate]

Apparently, Mr. Mole (I think he said it was the mole...) is identical to Bilbo Baggins.

Yeah, I mean, I remember Mr. Mole's wizard friend who helped him to defeat an evil rabbit to get a powerful ring that could turn him invisible and...

You know, it's pointless to talk about this. SO WHAT if Mr. Mole is exactly the same as Bilbo? That doesn't mean he stole the idea. Geez, you might as well say Kenshin is a ripoff of Jubei, or that your beloved Tron Bonne is a ripoff of Precis from Star Ocean! I mean, they're both young girls who are excellent with machinery and have robotic minions and have a guy they secretly like but are too ashamed to admit it...OH NOEZ, TRON BONNE IS A COPIED CHARACTER, THE HORROR!