Tolkien - overrated?

[Taluntain]

Let's stick to the topic... please use PM to work out such arguments.

[8people]

I respect Tolkien for his innovation and devotion to a genre that until his thorough evaluation and writings took hold was a very sad little thing. He is for all intents and purposes the grandfather of fantasy.

It's a dedication to the crafting of a realm and the depth within it that I can admire and appreciate and even reflect upon.

However, I must inquire as to why there were so many sodding songs in the first book. It took me five attempts to break the barrier and get through the whole thing but the initial attempts invariably left me either forgetful why some chap announced "THIS REMINDS ME OF A SONG!" and bursting out into a four page stanza on something vaguely related which could have easily been more succinctly described in conversation or narrative (Or a shorter song for goodness sake) it was probably by the time I was vaguely confused as I seemed to be reading the transcript of a stilted musical that I willed the next words to be "Then Frodo bit the elf in the kneecap to shut him up"

I am not adverse to verbosity or narrative depth but there are means and methods to make it a more energetic, satisfying and attentive read.

Generally the rest of the books were quite good, though a marked lack in consistancy of full description and near complete sparcity of relevant detail scattered in a few of the chapters.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Originally Posted by 8people

However, I must inquire as to why there were so many sodding songs in the first book. It took me five attempts to break the barrier and get through the whole thing but the initial attempts invariably left me either forgetful why some chap announced "THIS REMINDS ME OF A SONG!" and bursting out into a four page stanza on something vaguely related which could have easily been more succinctly described in conversation or narrative (Or a shorter song for goodness sake) it was probably by the time I was vaguely confused as I seemed to be reading the transcript of a stilted musical that I willed the next words to be "Then Frodo bit the elf in the kneecap to shut him up"

The first Monty Hall movie I watched was Holy Grail. I thought they had to be Tolkien fans after watching it.

[Déise]

I loved Lord of the Rings but I can see why a lot of people wouldn't like it. I don't mean that some people are too thick to appreciate it, I just get that reading huge chunks describing the weather (misty) isn't everybody's cup of tea. Of course I was a kid with lots of spare time when I read it, I may not have the patience if I tried now.

I'd echo all the thoughts about the world being stronger than the story. I think that's what Tolkien was more interested in himself. He was a professor of ancient English and a lot would have been drawn on the mythology he studied for that.

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

That is wrong. He didn't just take things out, he changed parts the story, he being Jackson fo course. Just take the Fellowship for example. They cut out Bombadil and Goldberry. Bombadil was an option for the Ring at the Council of Elrond. They cut out the Barrow-Downs which is where the Hobbits got their Blades. They cut Glorfindel out, who was considered an option to be part of the fellowship when discussed at the Council of Elrond, let alone part of the Flight to the Fords. And then added Arwen in his place? Crap! Jackson tore the movie apart for his liking. What he did was change the story, he did not just cut out the background stuff.

A movie is a very different medium to a book. You've much less time and too many characters and details make things confusing. Jackson had to make the changes he did if it was to work on the screen. Bombadil had no real connection to the main story. Arwen effectively covered two characters in the one. It made her a different person to who she is in the book but it didn't make her a bad character nor did it interfere with her place in the plot.

[Rawgrim]

I can understand why they removed Bombadil for the movies. He adds notihing to the story, and he picks up the ring and tosses it about. It kind of ruined the "danger" of the ring, for me at least. In the first 30 mins of the movie we are told that messing with the ring is pretty much extremely dangerous. And then the hobbits run into an oddball in the woods, that the ring just doesn`t affect?. It ruins the momentum bigtime.

[Late-Night Thinker]

How many Zep songs reference the Lotr? Zep 4 has a few. Battle of Evermore, Misty Mountain Hop and Stairway to Heaven. I never connected the others.

Over the Hills and Far Away sure feels like a LotR song (even though it doesn't explicitly make any LotR references.) Well, "pocket full of gold"? Could just be a pot reference.

[LKD]

I just picked up the extended version of the whole trilogy -- 15 discs or so -- holy crap! I listened to the commentary by Jackson and the two co-writers and found it highly entertaining. Despite what the Monday Morning Quarterbacks have to say, everything they did in the film seems to have been well considered, pondered, bounced around between various stakeholders, and then a decision was made.

Those who criticize the movies without knowing about the various logistical obstacles that were inherent in the production of the film should see if they could do a better job. I somehow doubt they could.

As for the books, I would argue that the world is stronger than the characters. When i read the books, I didn't get as invested in the characters as i have with other books. That's just a style issue, though, not indicative of lack of skill on Tolkien's part.

I also remember thinking that the songs and poems frequently included were kinda lame. As I've gotten older, I don't mind them as much. People likely did that sort of thing a lot more before the advent of Walkmans, Discmans, iPods, etc.