Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 323375" data-attributes="member: 4720">Tried it.&nbsp; Doesn't work, possibly because I never found the dialogue clunky.&nbsp; I rather liked the dialogue, whether spoken or read.&nbsp; It's the narrative that bludgeons people into unconsciousness.&nbsp; And it's only bad in Fellowship (specifically, most of it up until the Council of Elrond).&nbsp; The other two books are paced much better and manage to be interesting (even enthralling) throughout.&nbsp; But Fellowship almost seems designed to weed people out.&nbsp; Like Organic Chem for pre-med/pre-vet students.&nbsp; It serves very little purpose other than to scare off those that aren't really serious about moving on.&nbsp; My eyes achieved the same glazed-over effect while reading the journey from Hobbitton to Rivendell that they achieved while reading crystal-field theory.&nbsp; I got the impression that Tolkien was trying to determine exactly how far he could wander from the actual story and get away with it (so that's where Jordan got it from!).&nbsp; The last third of that book and the vast majority of the other two are stunning.&nbsp; It's almost hard to believe they were written by the same author.&nbsp; There's a sudden segue from textbook to page-turner.&nbsp; The Two Towers and The Return of the King are both in my top 10 books of all time.&nbsp; Fellowship barely makes the top 30, and that entirely on the back of the Moria sections.&nbsp; Jordan started with a bang, and then definitely went thorough a dropping off period.&nbsp; Tolkien started with a prolonged whimper, and then builds to one of the more impressive crescendos I've ever read.Can anyone actually mount a defense of the narrative structure of Fellowship?&nbsp; Particularly of the entire Bombadil sequence?&nbsp; The only defenses I've ever heard were always undermined by the fact that people felt the need to preface them with &quot;Mind you, I was REALLY stoned at the time...&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 323375, member: 4720"] Tried it. Doesn't work, possibly because I never found the dialogue clunky. I rather liked the dialogue, whether spoken or read. It's the narrative that bludgeons people into unconsciousness. And it's only bad in Fellowship (specifically, most of it up until the Council of Elrond). The other two books are paced much better and manage to be interesting (even enthralling) throughout. But Fellowship almost seems designed to weed people out. Like Organic Chem for pre-med/pre-vet students. It serves very little purpose other than to scare off those that aren't really serious about moving on. My eyes achieved the same glazed-over effect while reading the journey from Hobbitton to Rivendell that they achieved while reading crystal-field theory. I got the impression that Tolkien was trying to determine exactly how far he could wander from the actual story and get away with it (so [i]that's[/i] where Jordan got it from!). The last third of that book and the vast majority of the other two are stunning. It's almost hard to believe they were written by the same author. There's a sudden segue from textbook to page-turner. The Two Towers and The Return of the King are both in my top 10 books of all time. Fellowship barely makes the top 30, and that entirely on the back of the Moria sections. Jordan started with a bang, and then definitely went thorough a dropping off period. Tolkien started with a prolonged whimper, and then builds to one of the more impressive crescendos I've ever read. Can anyone actually mount a defense of the narrative structure of Fellowship? Particularly of the entire Bombadil sequence? The only defenses I've ever heard were always undermined by the fact that people felt the need to preface them with "Mind you, I was REALLY stoned at the time..." [/QUOTE]

Verification