LotR movies better than the books?

[Henry]

I have to mimic SixChan's experiences here. The last time I attempted to read the FotR, I got as far as the hobbits arriving in Bree. That was it. I had to quit by that point. Nothing the hobbits could have done or said after that point would have interested me - because nothing the hobbits had done or said by that point HAD interested me.

Thankfully, at least the movies give me a chance to see the general flow of the story, and why some people consider the trilogy so awe-inspiring. If the trilogy inspires the same kind of wonder in them that the movies do in me, then I envy them in a small way -- because, barring threat of physical violence, I will never attempt to read them again.

 

[King_Stannis]

If the trilogy inspires the same kind of wonder in them that the movies do in me, then I envy them in a small way -- because, barring threat of physical violence, I will never attempt to read them again.

Similar experience with Thomas Covenant series by Donaldson. 4 times I've tried, and 4 times I've failed.

 

[Mallus]

Similar experience with Thomas Covenant series by Donaldson. 4 times I've tried, and 4 times I've failed.

No one can blame you for that King_Stannis. Reading that series is akin to self-inflicted act of violence {and I liked them}.

 

[Agback]

I'm trying to read them again. I've tried 4 times now. I can't get into them, but maybe it's because its so big.

This is a very common experience. I must know ten or a dozen people, some of them real fantasy buffs, who have tried hard to read LotR and bounced before they got past the Council of Elrond. And when I re-read the book I often start at the Council of Elrond, which is where the story starts.

I'd like to say that this was a fatal flaw in LotR. But it is very hard to maintain that a book that has out-sold every other book ever written (except the Bible) has a fatal flaw.

I still maintain, though, that LotR would be a better book for a heavy edit, and better still for a substantial abridgement. The Reader's Digest condensed version (due out in 2044, Sonny Bono willing) could easily be half the length, and omit neither incident nor characterisation. In addition to which there are long sequences that don't belong to the book at all. For instance, the whole first chapter is essentially a bridge from The Hobbit. This is quite unnecessary, especially as readers rarely come to LotR as a sequel to The Hobbit and the book would benefit from its excision.

If I had been in Peter Jackson's shoes I would have cut the Party sequence as well as Tim Benzedrine and the Barrow-wights, and done without a prologue, to leave room for myself to build up to a revelation in the Council of Elrond.

Regards,


Agback

(Edit: insert missing subject in main clause of last sentence, and correct italicisation.)

 

[KenM]

If had been in Peter Jackson's shoes I would have cut the Party sequence as well as Tim Benzedrine and the Barrow-wights, and done without a prologue, to leave room for myself to build up to a revelation in the Council of Elrond.

Regards,


Agback

If you watch the extra stuff on the FoTR extended DVD, Jaskson was told from new line that there HAD to be a prologue. They Did the prologue very well, IMO. It started out with a good action sequence, and explaned everything, AND showed how bad-ass Saurion(sp?) was with the ring. Then cutting to the peaceful shire was good, as it showed what they were fighting for. I never liked in FELLOWSHIP book (only one of the 3 i read) in the begining when Gandalf explains "you must destroy the ring" is not explained well, but done well in movie.
Tim Benzedrine? You mean Tom Bobilbil(SP?)

 

[WizarDru]

Herbert's Dune?

Succinct?

<Inigo> I don't think that word means what you think it means </Inigo>

The only book I've ever tried to read where I actually, honestly fell asleep while trying to read it. TWICE. IN THE SAME SPOT.

(Always right around p.54, I think, and always when Feyd-Ruatha is wondering why his uncle is always arguing the master of assass.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

huh? Wha?

Sorry about that.

To KenM's point, I think he's not comparing page count, he's counting readablity and density. Word count is a more accurate comparison, but Tolkien still is much less material. However, LotR uses arcane and romantic language, and is much more of a linguistic challenge to read than, say, Wheel of Time, which is much simpler in vocabulary and tone. Not better, but different.

For example, my wife has yet to assualt LotR, and barely got through it the last time, nigh on two decades ago. The Hobbit, on the other hand, she tore through in a matter of hours. Same author both times, different language use, different style. To some, it is a time-honored old friend to revisit, for others, such as myself, it is tough but mostly rewarding read. For others, it is a trial akin to scaling a mountain. Tastes vary. As the good Colonel points out, you really can't argue personal taste.

Rereading Tolkien now, I am keenly aware of how much I skimmed in days past. While I appreciate the books from a different perspective now, they still are a lot of work to get through. No one can argue that it isn't a popular or well regarded work. Anything that still enthralls audiences 50-70 years after it's initial publication and has sold over 50 million copies is surely a success by even the broadest of definitions. And unlike most of the other fantasy authors, JRRT crosses over into literature, and is widely regarded as one of the more important works of the 20th-century.

I used to consider Jordan a good author, but he's become a victim of his own success. With so many characters, insufficient editing and an apparent fear of resolving his story, he truly has become the master of bogging down. I love his characters and his writing style, but his plot has wandered, and he's obviously lost his way.

Now Martin, on the other hand, has redefined the modern fantasy novel, for me. The 'seat of your pants, never knowing what comes next' feel combined with the tight plot, clever dialogue and engaging characters are what I seek in a book. It is, in turns, smart, funny, suprising and frightening. One thing that Tolkien doesn't do for me, that Jordan and Martin have (to varying degrees) is emotionally engage me. The 'Red Wedding', for those familiar with the event in Martin, is a disturbing event that causes people to put the book down. It's that upsetting. Tolkien just doesn't elicit as strong a response from me. I truly care for the characters of Tolkien's world, but ironically only poor Boromir really resonated with me...and perhaps only BECAUSE of his death.

I ramble, now. Go on about your business.

 

[KenM]

To KenM's point, I think he's not comparing page count, he's counting readablity and density. Word count is a more accurate comparison, but Tolkien still is much less material. However, LotR uses arcane and romantic language, and is much more of a linguistic challenge to read than, say, Wheel of Time, which is much simpler in vocabulary and tone. Not better, but different.

Excatly, well put. I'm just starting GAME OF THRONES, like it so far.

 

[Storminator]

Excatly, well put. I'm just starting GAME OF THRONES, like it so far.

GoT is the least of the books in the series. You have some great reading ahead of you.

PS

 

[MulhorandSage]

Similar experience with Thomas Covenant series by Donaldson. 4 times I've tried, and 4 times I've failed.

I had no problems with Covenant - well, as far as reading it goes, even if it's a literary equivalent of a fit of sad drunkeness - and I found Tolkien exhilerating.

Though I did skim Book I of LOTR on my first read, not because it was dry or difficult, but because I wanted to be sure Bilbo was okay.

And if you find Tolkien difficult, stay away froim Wolfe's New Sun series at all costs. (Though if you don't, try it. It's an extremely dense read, but I found it worth the effort).

Scott Bennie

 

[WizarDru]

And if you find Tolkien difficult, stay away froim Wolfe's New Sun series at all costs. (Though if you don't, try it. It's an extremely dense read, but I found it worth the effort).

Less of arcane read to me, but I still just couldn't cotton to it. The setting and the characters just didn't appeal to me, though I have friends who think it's brilliant.