Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KahlessNestor" data-source="post: 7545531" data-attributes="member: 6801311">I haven't watched Matt's video yet (I am behind on watching his channel), but I think a lot of it has to do more with Matt's own style and writing philosophy than anything about the merits of Tolkien. Matt describes his own style (in Priest and Thief) as &quot;hardboiled&quot;. He is very terse and to the point.I agree with Umbran that many people's trouble with Tolkien is likely more a result of modern people's lack of attention span due to television and screens than anything to do with his writing. I saw the same thing when Chris Claremont came back to the X-Men in 2000. Fans have the attention span of squirrels on crack and couldn't handle his deliberate story pacing, so he was out within six months and they brought in some people to hack out some terrible wrap ups.I had no trouble being engrossed in LOTR in 8th grade. I had a lot of trouble with The Scarlet Letter and The Count of Monte Cristo at the same time. None of that reflects on the talent of Hawthorne or Dumas. These books are and remain classics for a reason well beyond my puny existence and are worth the trouble to read. The same can be said for probably the best novel ever written, &quot;The Brothers Karamazov&quot; by Dostoyevsky. It isn't easy, what with the different cultural milieu and the dense themes. I always tell people to read it twice, the first time for character names (they all have 3, because Russian) and plot. The second to really luxuriate in the themes. Not easy, but well worth the effort. I have the same problem with Victor Hugo, who I think is an objectively bad novelist but good storyteller, and Les Miserables is probably my third favorite book, beaten by Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and a much better novelist,&nbsp; though they were writing at the same time and in the serialized style.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KahlessNestor, post: 7545531, member: 6801311"] I haven't watched Matt's video yet (I am behind on watching his channel), but I think a lot of it has to do more with Matt's own style and writing philosophy than anything about the merits of Tolkien. Matt describes his own style (in Priest and Thief) as "hardboiled". He is very terse and to the point. I agree with Umbran that many people's trouble with Tolkien is likely more a result of modern people's lack of attention span due to television and screens than anything to do with his writing. I saw the same thing when Chris Claremont came back to the X-Men in 2000. Fans have the attention span of squirrels on crack and couldn't handle his deliberate story pacing, so he was out within six months and they brought in some people to hack out some terrible wrap ups. I had no trouble being engrossed in LOTR in 8th grade. I had a lot of trouble with The Scarlet Letter and The Count of Monte Cristo at the same time. None of that reflects on the talent of Hawthorne or Dumas. These books are and remain classics for a reason well beyond my puny existence and are worth the trouble to read. The same can be said for probably the best novel ever written, "The Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoyevsky. It isn't easy, what with the different cultural milieu and the dense themes. I always tell people to read it twice, the first time for character names (they all have 3, because Russian) and plot. The second to really luxuriate in the themes. Not easy, but well worth the effort. I have the same problem with Victor Hugo, who I think is an objectively bad novelist but good storyteller, and Les Miserables is probably my third favorite book, beaten by Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and a much better novelist, though they were writing at the same time and in the serialized style. [/QUOTE]

Verification