tolkien as an intro...

[danzig138]

Conan. When I started playing, I had read Tolkien, but didn't care for it, but I loved Conan. That was the name of my first character. Creative, huh? After I started playing, I read the DL books, and loved those. I'm thinking about giving Tolkien another chance after watching the movie though.

 

[Maerdwyn]

For me, it was Greek and Norse Myths, followed by Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain that turned me on to fantasy in general during fourth grade.

But is was the D&D cartoon that actually introduced me to the existence of the hobby.

I received the red box basic set and The Hobbit as presents for Christmas that year, and the rest is history.

 

[Maerdwyn]

Re: Grrr!

the author of my first hefty novel entitled Dragonworld (forget the author's name)

That was another of my early influences - loved it. I think it was a collaboration between two guys - Byron Priess and Michael Reeves (Reaves?). The illustrations were nice, too; at least my young brain thought so then.

edit - umm.. Me no rite gud

 

[Mark Chance]

That they were...

That was another of my ealry influences - loved it. I think it was a collaboration between two guys - Byron Priess and Michael Reeves (Reaves?). The illustractions were nice, too; at least my young brain thought so then.

It was a collaboration, and the illustrations were quite well done. I even named a character Jondulran, after one of the novel's characters. A few years ago, I gave the book away to one of my students as a "made-it-to-high-school!" present. And so the legacy is passed on.

 

[mmadsen]

Conan. When I started playing, I had read Tolkien, but didn't care for it, but I loved Conan. That was the name of my first character. Creative, huh?

We all did that, right? Some of my first characters were Bilbo, Frodo, etc. I guess the funnier part is that our games were pretty lethal, at least at 1st level, so I also had Bilbo II, Bilbo III, Frodo II, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

I do understand people that find FotR to be slow at first (my wife is among those), but what I don't understand is people prefering the movie. That leaves me speachless.

I think I can clear up exactly why most people don't like LotR.

Have any of you read, for example, 'Les Miserables', in an unabridged version?

Same sort of pacing. Very slow at first, and mutliple branching paths, and then all the sudden the action picks up and all those paths start converging to a big climatic finish. Then the book goes on for another 100 pages. The problem that most people have with LotR is that it is not a modern novel. It doesn't have the sensibilities of a modern novel. It doesn't even try. So if you grew up with a diet of modern novels, movies, and so forth, its probably terribly off putting. I can understand that.

I just can't understand what anyone saw in the movie (beyond the 1st 15 minutes). It was a kids charactiture of the story. Heck, at times it wasn't even that. And it was SLOW, TEDIOUS, and BORING. I kept waiting for PJ to get on with it at Weathertop. I kept waiting for him to get on with it at the Fords. I kept waiting and waiting for him to get on with in Moria. For crying out loud, how can you manage to slow down the pacing of the action any further? And yet, how could you manage to be more brisk with the critical character setting scenes with Aragorn, Boromir, Leoglas, and Gmili? And what's with Galadriel? I pity the poor person who hasn't read the book who is going to be going, "Now why in the world are the Hobbits still speaking fondly of that ugly old radioactive elven witch back in the first movie?" Most importantly, what writer would decide: "You know, or hero just gets way too much screen time. Let's replace all his cool scenes with scenes of him cowering and quivering in pain, and at his biggest moment in the story will have a bit romantic character take his lines." What writer would take probably the most beloved peice of 20th century fiction and go, "You know, these really famous lines. I think I could change em around and make em better. Forget shortening em up or something. Just rewrite the whole shabang." Kinda like a writer deciding, "You know, better than just truncating the 'To Be or Not To Be' speach, I'll just rewrite so its better. 'Should I off myself, or not. I don't know. Life can be real tough sometimes.' Actually, that's better written than what PJ did with Aragorn's, "I am Aragorn son of Aragorn and if by life or death I can save you, I will."

My only explanation is perhaps that those that liked the movie, and found it more exciting, intense, fearful, or what not (since I found it none of those things) is that some people are just more visual than others and did not understand it until it was _SHOWN_ to them. Then, suddenly, they got it - not because the movie was better, because it was a pale shadow - but because it was a movie. I mean, how in the world could you prefer the visual presentation of the Weathertop scene in the movie (which was lame, well lit, looked like a stage, and was kinda campy) to the sharply realized and terrifying on in the book UNLESS you never quite _saw_ the one in the book?

 

[mmadsen]

I do understand people that find FotR to be slow at first (my wife is among those), but what I don't understand is people prefering the movie. That leaves me speachless.

Movies and books have very different strengths. For instance, I enjoyed both the movie and book versions of Black Hawk Down, but their hardly interchangeable. In the book, you obviously get a lot more depth. In the movie, you get the visceral thrill of seeing and hearing a "little bird" tear apart a city block with those mini-guns.

The Lord of the Rings books are extremely verbal, full of interesting languages, historical references, etc. The movie is simply amazing to watch. (I still hate the troll though.)

Have any of you read, for example, 'Les Miserables', in an unabridged version?

Has anyone?

Same sort of pacing. Very slow at first, and mutliple branching paths, and then all the sudden the action picks up and all those paths start converging to a big climatic finish. Then the book goes on for another 100 pages. The problem that most people have with LotR is that it is not a modern novel.

While I agree that Victorian novels weren't as terse and to the point, each small chapter had enough going on to keep an audience interested. They were like literate soap operas, not slick two-hour movies.

And it was SLOW, TEDIOUS, and BORING.

I was surprised by what they kept in and what they cut out -- and especially by the extended intro exposition, beautiful as it was.