• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Anyone feel the same way? (Film and Book related)

Sonny673

Sonny673

New Member
I grew up knowing absolutely nothing about Tolkien and the books he wrote. My mom had bought The Hobbit for me when I was in third grade and I kind of shrugged it off. I eventually read it in 10th grade, and I loved it. Now that I am older, I've found out that numerous amounts of my friends actually grew up reading The Lord of the Rings books, which in a way surprised me.
When the films were released, I immediately was interested in seeing them. Upon viewing them, I completely fell in love with them. Since I loved the three films (the third being one of my favorite), my interest in the books peaked and I bought the first.
I really found myself struggling to get through it. Was it a terrible book? Not at all. However, I really couldn't get into it. Tolkien was really descriptive and usually in books, such as the Redwall series, that wouldn't bother me, but it did in this book. I felt he was way to wordy, which I know really helped his world come to live since there is even a dictionary for his world he created, but this turned me off from the books. Maybe it is because I'm not a big enough fan to really care about this entire world he created, and I don't really care to explore it much outside of the initial three books, but I felt he could have really shorten things down, while still giving me a sense of what it was, if he didn't put so many things in detail.
Has anyone else felt this way, or have majority of you read the book way before the films came out?

Thanks.
 
yeah!

I'm with you. The Silmarillion was a long and boring book about the history and folklore of Middle-Earth, I think I caught myself snoring a few times while reading it.
 
I agree - I found the first one extremely hard to get through, although the others wern't as bad. I find it really boring when authors are over-descriptive, and so sometimes I find myself skipping whole pages in order to get to the "meat" of the story.

~MonkeyCatcher~
 
Silmarralion is not a page turner. It is a bunch of notes that Tolkien created to justify how the events in Middle-Earth came to be. They were later realesed by his son after his death. Its just the notes thrown together and annotated by his son. It is written in the foreword that JRR would not have realease this without editing it some more.
 
i really cant say because i havnt read the books, but what i can say about slower, or even boring parts in books is that i find that i tend to read through slower parts of books a little faster, because i guess it all doesnt get me thinking as much. i guess this can be a bad thing too but, o well.......the only book ive read were ive caught myself saying, get on with it already was the stand. other than that reading things that drag out forever(like my post here) doesnt bother me too much.


im gonna buy the hobbit soon......
 
I was never a fan of Tolkien. I read the books before I watched the movies because I cannot bear to see an adaptation before reading the original. I had tried reading them before many times (particularly as a big fantasy-genre fan), but could never get further than half way through the first one. One good thing about the movies was that it forced me to plow through the books. So now I can really back up my 'I'm not a fan of Tolkien' claim to those who are simply shocked by this apparently sacreligious statement.

I just didn't find them overly gripping. It wasn't just the long descriptions that detracted from the story, I also felt that the characters weren't as well developed as they could have been. The story was really rather basic, overall, and while the trilogy is long, it feels padded to me. As I've stated many times before on this forum, I do admire the man for breaking new ground in the genre, but I think there are certainly much better writers out there. Every time I read a new book jacket with some derivative of the phrase, "Comparable to Tolkien...", I cringe and try to resist the urge to throw the book against the wall. Reviewers who compare ALL fantasy to Tolkien as though he's the benchmark should be shot... preferably with a buck shot to ensure more painful penetration. No one with some little appreciation for the depth and variety of fantasy should be writing reviews such as these... and don't even get me started on the publishers who are perpetuating the 'Tolkien benchmark falacy'.

Rant over... I'm tired and take no responsibility for the nonsensicalness of this writing, and reserve the right to say 'I was talking crap' on the morrow.
 
i reali loved the lord of the rings books, they were the first books i ever read wich was not so long ago, i actually prefer the books to the films, i think tolkein has an amazing mind and i love the depth he goes in about each character and surroundings, im amazed at the concept of ancient war and the way he uses the concept of honour and bravery in battles instead of people hiding behind guns like they do nowadays, warfare was a mmatter of skill and courage once and now is a mechanical destructive thing
 
it wasnt necessary, but would tolkein be such a legendary author if he didnt go into such depth. i think the depth seperates the books from others it makes it individual and special, tolkeins intension was to create a book that was almost believable to make people think " wow this could hav actually haappened million of yrs ago" he did this because he new that england lacked its own mithology so he wanted to create one, and i think he succeded
 
The Hobbit was my downfall. I finished it only out of a sense of obligation and, at that, only by flipping two to four pages at a time toward the end. Lost any interest in further books right there. Saw only one movie, finally. It was spectacular on the eyes but the story was tedious -- except
when she slew because she was no man.
That was the only neat touch I saw.
Peder
 
Peder said:
The Hobbit was my downfall. I finished it only out of a sense of obligation and, at that, only by flipping two to four pages at a time toward the end. Peder
Click to expand...
I absolutely loved the Hobbit when I first read it - I reread it many times when I was younger. I read it when I was about 10 so maybe it's a book that appeals to younger people more than older?
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
I absolutely loved the Hobbit when I first read it - I reread it many times when I was younger. I read it when I was about 10 so maybe it's a book that appeals to younger people more than older?
Click to expand...
MC,
I won't disagree with that especially, except I have a grown daughter who enjoys Tolkien, and the crowds going in to see the movie had a large number of adults as well as children. So I never had the impression it was strictly for younger people. Maybe it is :confused:
It did, however, remind me of an older series by Lloyd Alexander, which was for Young Adults, so I'll concede that I am not in the target age range (along with quite a few other adults who OTOH do enjoy him. :) )
Peder
 
Peder said:
MC,
I won't disagree with that especially, except I have a grown daughter who enjoys Tolkien, and the crowds going in to see the movie had a large number of adults as well as children. So I never had the impression it was strictly for younger people. Maybe it is :confused:
Peder
Click to expand...
Oh, I was talking mainly about The Hobbit rather than TLOTR books. I still enjoy The Hobbit, but maybe this is because of the liking I had for it when I was younger. Then again, maybe you just don't like his work :p
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
Oh, I was talking mainly about The Hobbit rather than TLOTR books. I still enjoy The Hobbit, but maybe this is because of the liking I had for it when I was younger. Then again, maybe you just don't like his work :p
Click to expand...

"Don't like" is way too strong, although Hobbit did exasperate me with its pace. And I may well have liked it if I read it as a child; my children did. It barely made it into my childhood, however, and I missed it then; and I was in and out of college by the time of LOTR appeared. So these books weren't always around (hard to imagine!) for me to catch them at the right age. And I see that Hobbit is described as a book for children, so I guess my reaction shouldn't count there. Publication dates and I are just out of joint it would seem.

Peder
 
Peder said:
"Don't like" is way too strong, although Hobbit did exasperate me with its pace.
Click to expand...
It did take me about two goes to get past the start of the book, but I flew through the rest. I seem to have a problem starting Tolkien's books - it took me about three goes to finally get past Tom Bombadill (sp?) in The Fellowship :eek:
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
It did take me about two goes to get past the start of the book, but I flew through the rest. I seem to have a problem starting Tolkien's books - it took me about three goes to finally get past Tom Bombadill (sp?) in The Fellowship :eek:
Click to expand...
Well, I worked among a group of guys who were all avid fans so I know there are many out there. I just didn't get innoculated at the right age is my guess. :(
Peder
 
clueless said:
Tolkien only wanted to show that he could also write poetry. He couldn't.
Click to expand...

But blob212 said that he could and it was great and stuff. I'm so confused now. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top