Do you enjoy The Lord of the Rings?

Viking Bastard · Mar 8, 2012

Dannyalcatraz said:
Nice summary!

I bet it's also because the type of prose he was trying to evoke simply sounds better in Icelandic.

I think you are correct.

jonesy · Mar 8, 2012

I read it in Finnish when I was a kid, and I thought it was fantastic. Best thing ever, no faults whatsoever. Then I read the original language version, and I was stunned. The Finnish translation was faithful, it wasn't like anything was changed. And it is my language, so of course I'd prefer it. But I still hold that the English version isn't that good. There is something wrong with his prose. :blush:

As a world builder he has no equal. The other stuff, he's just a good writer.

delericho · Mar 8, 2012

I've read Lord of the Rings twice, and keep meaning to return for a third visit. I enjoyed it both times, but a lot more the second - the advantage of those extra years meant that I had more patience with it, and didn't get bogged down in the narrative.

I won't deny the flaws in the work, which are significant. However, for all that it is quite common to bash it, it is remarkable how few fantasy authors have even come close to matching it. And even more remarkable when you consider that Tolkien's real passion was the Silmarillion and other associated works, and not so much LotR itself.

jonesy · Mar 8, 2012

The problem with Silmarillion is that he never did finish it himself, so it's really hard to critique it. All one can say is the same thing: he's a great world builder.

Viking Bastard · Mar 8, 2012

jonesy said:
I read it in Finnish when I was a kid, and I thought it was fantastic. Best thing ever, no faults whatsoever. Then I read the original language version, and I was stunned. The Finnish translation was faithful, it wasn't like anything was changed. And it is my language, so of course I'd prefer it. But I still hold that the English version isn't that good. There is something wrong with his prose.

I tend to find that books are generally better in their native language, even when translated by great writers. There are exceptions, though, and Tolkien is among them.

Cor Azer · Mar 8, 2012

It took me four tries over five years the get past the gathering at Rivendell scene. I love the story, and the background, but JRRT had a rough grasp of pacing.

In my opinion, a great book, but certainly not a starter or introductory novel into fantasy. Better to get into the genre another way, and then try to appreciate LotR as the foundational classic.

jonesy · Mar 8, 2012

Cor Azer said:
In my opinion, a great book, but certainly not a starter or introductory novel into fantasy. Better to get into the genre another way, and then try to appreciate LotR as the foundational classic.

If someone needs an introduction into fantasy just point them at The Hobbit. That's a foundational classic. Better book too.

Ahnehnois · Mar 8, 2012

I think it felt like reading a history textbook, but that this feel created a unique sense of verisimilitude. I found the story quite compelling and affecting.

While I can see why some might criticize its style, the position of those who seem to think it has no substance is quite a remarkable example of the bias that exists against genre fiction.

Umbran · Mar 8, 2012

Cor Azer said:
It took me four tries over five years the get past the gathering at Rivendell scene. I love the story, and the background, but JRRT had a rough grasp of pacing.

My understanding is more that our thoughts and preferences on pacing have changed since Tolkien's day.