Arwen-Undomiel.com
http://www.arwen-undomiel.com/forum/

Lotr Books NOT Interesting?
http://www.arwen-undomiel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16011		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  TheThain [ July 22nd, 2007, 8:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Lotr Books NOT Interesting?
My cousin seemed to think that. Now, she has a very good critical mind, and I often agree with/respect her opinions, but at this point, I believe, she had it wrong.

She was in the process of comparing lotr to hp. This is what she came up with.

lotr movies are way better - the acters in hp have no talent (this is not meant to bash anyone who likes hp, I'm just stating what she said)

Lotr is much better written - Hp's writting sucked

But, for all of this, because lotr was better written, it was boring. You got too caught up in the "fancy" language to apprecaite the story. The movie was good, but the book made you fall asleep. HP was written in a blut, poor, and choppy style, but it focused more on the story, which was exciting.

Can anyone make sense of this? Do you think there's some truth to it?

I guess it's just some people can't get into a certain style of writting. But how, then, can you get into a poor stlye of writting, but not a good one? That doesn't really make sense to me...
Author:  smeagollum [ July 22nd, 2007, 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think that there is truth in it and it is just what you said. Some people are able to read books for the literary element while others read just for the plotline. If I saw the movies before, I probably would not have read the books. I would know basically where the plotline was headed, and so would have no true reason to.

What I learned in English Class was that there are two main types of readers: ones that appreciate the way the book is written and ones that need suspense to keep them reading. Many readers that need suspense can find a book dull or boring because it is hard for them to get through all of the descriptive aspects of the story, and they just want to know what happened, not why or how it happened.
Author:  Ánië Súrion [ July 22nd, 2007, 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
smeagollum wrote:
What I learned in English Class was that there are two main types of readers: ones that appreciate the way the book is written and ones that need suspense to keep them reading. Many readers that need suspense can find a book dull or boring because it is hard for them to get through all of the descriptive aspects of the story, and they just want to know what happened, not why or how it happened.

That's a really good way of saying it, smeagollum. :) That's why a lot of people today can't read LOTR, because Tolkien loved rich, detailed descriptions and most people today are so used to movies - which don't take a lot of time with details and descriptions - that they just want to get to the point, with no fancy stuff. The first time I read FOTR I did actually find it kind of difficult to manage. :blush: But, thank God, I'm stubborn. :-D
Author:  Fíriel_18190 [ July 24th, 2007, 4:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Hmm... well I don't agree with that. I usually appreciate the way the book is written, but I also need suspense to keep on reading. I liked LotR for both things and I think there's quite a lot of suspense going on in the story, but I think it is harder to understand than HP not only because of the words Tolkien used. But besides that I don't think you can actually compare HP to LotR. I always disliked doing that, because I think they're two very different stories.
Author:  TheThain [ July 27th, 2007, 9:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Ánië Súrion wrote:
smeagollum wrote:
What I learned in English Class was that there are two main types of readers: ones that appreciate the way the book is written and ones that need suspense to keep them reading. Many readers that need suspense can find a book dull or boring because it is hard for them to get through all of the descriptive aspects of the story, and they just want to know what happened, not why or how it happened.

That's a really good way of saying it, smeagollum. :) That's why a lot of people today can't read LOTR, because Tolkien loved rich, detailed descriptions and most people today are so used to movies - which don't take a lot of time with details and descriptions - that they just want to get to the point, with no fancy stuff. The first time I read FOTR I did actually find it kind of difficult to manage. :blush: But, thank God, I'm stubborn. :-D


*Nods in agreement* Thanks! That makes a good deal of sense! :-D

Fíriel_18190, my counsin thought thatt lotr was extremly predictable. But, then again, she predicted what she thought the ending of hp would be, and she got rather close!

Quote:
but I think it is harder to understand than HP not only because of the words Tolkien used.


Sorry, but did you mean lotr? :P And I'm curious to know what you think makes it harder to read besides that!
Author:  The Nightingale [ July 28th, 2007, 1:32 am ]
Post subject: 
I think... with a lot of books you have to be the right kind of person to read them.

I know people who read big, thick, books, but yet can't stand to read books like Les Miserables or Lord of the Rings because of the way they're written - I think a good way to prevent this is to "juggle" what you read, goign back and forth between what you read or whatnot.

I found them interesting, so does my 9 year old brother. I think they're just a little hard to "get into."
Author:  mephiston, lord of death [ August 3rd, 2007, 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lotr Books NOT Interesting?
TheThain wrote:
My cousin seemed to think that. Now, she has a very good critical mind, and I often agree with/respect her opinions, but at this point, I believe, she had it wrong.

She was in the process of comparing lotr to hp. This is what she came up with.

lotr movies are way better - the acters in hp have no talent (this is not meant to bash anyone who likes hp, I'm just stating what she said)

Lotr is much better written - Hp's writting sucked

But, for all of this, because lotr was better written, it was boring. You got too caught up in the "fancy" language to apprecaite the story. The movie was good, but the book made you fall asleep. HP was written in a blut, poor, and choppy style, but it focused more on the story, which was exciting.

Can anyone make sense of this? Do you think there's some truth to it?

I guess it's just some people can't get into a certain style of writting. But how, then, can you get into a poor stlye of writting, but not a good one? That doesn't really make sense to me...


I agree on most points there. I think at the end of the day, it has to do with the large level of slang terms being used in english, that the language seems to be losing its more poetic, bardic sounds. Tolkien was a professor of english,in a time when english was a bit more repected in my thought. nowadays we have a culture that seems to not hold its language in proper esteem, and thats how I see it really. You are pretty right for most of what you said I think.
nice
The Lamenter
Author:  Ashwise [ August 5th, 2007, 4:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tell your cousin to reread it again. the first time I read FOTR, I was wanting to fall asleep, but after I was done, I was like what happens next? After I reread it, I gained an appreciation for the books. My theory is the more you read it, the better they become.
Author:  TheThain [ August 10th, 2007, 4:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
^But I presume you read the books before you saw the movies, right? She's seen the movies, and really enjoied them, but doesn't see the point in reading a book that's boring (in her mind) and that she already knows the ending to!
Author:  FRODOFAN [ August 17th, 2007, 1:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think there's some truth in it. I do believe that the style of the Harry Potter books are inferior to all of Tolkien's, but they are meant for a different audience.

I have never seen the Potter movies because I'm not interested, but the Lord of the Rings is bursting with fantastic actors.

I met a person online once who also thought the style of The Lord of the Rings books was dull and boring. They thought that it spent too much time on description. Everyone in the world will never all like the same things, but I think that the description is really one of the best parts of the book because you can picture everything perfectly and every reader sees the same thing.
Author:  Fíriel_18190 [ August 18th, 2007, 9:58 am ]
Post subject: 
@ the Thain:
sorry I've just seen your question. Of course I mean LotR.. what a stupid mistake :blush:


I agree with what you wrote Frodofan. I also like LotR because of all the detailed description of everything, but I also know lots of people who find the detailed description boring.
Author:  TheThain [ August 21st, 2007, 8:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Fíriel_18190 wrote:
@ the Thain:
sorry I've just seen your question. Of course I mean LotR.. what a stupid mistake :blush:


Don't worry! We understood what you meant. :-D

Actually, the real question I asked was eher (you probably didn't notice it because I didn't use a question mark :duh: )

Quote:

Quote:
but I think it is harder to understand than HP not only because of the words Tolkien used.



Sorry, but did you mean lotr? And I'm curious to know what you think makes it harder to read besides that!

:)

I agree with what everyone said, about the descriptions. I like them. Some people don't. I guess there's noting wrong with that!
Author:  Aerandir [ August 22nd, 2007, 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
The descriptions, for me, were a large part of what made the book so great, besides its plot and depth. I love how much detail there is. Tolkien's descriptions of Lothlórien are positively enchanting, as are his descriptions of the Ents, Henneth Annûn, and Minas Tirith. They add so much to the books.
Author:  Hanasian [ August 29th, 2007, 2:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Aerandir wrote:
The descriptions, for me, were a large part of what made the book so great, besides its plot and depth. I love how much detail there is. Tolkien's descriptions of Lothlórien are positively enchanting, as are his descriptions of the Ents, Henneth Annûn, and Minas Tirith. They add so much to the books.

I agree, and these descriptions gave me beautiful mental images of these places. But to read them after seeing P.J.'s movies, I would think all one would 'see' while reading them is the images already associated with those places that were put there by viewing the movies.
Author:  Miriel [ September 6th, 2007, 9:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
"Huh?"

That's what I thought when I read the title discussion. I mean, they may be a bit difficult at first but not uninteresting. Well...I suppose if you're not into psycological (sp?) battles, poetry, fantasy, wisdom, struggle between good and evil, medieval times, and deeper things of life, then you're probably not going to enjoy them.

But that would just be a boring life to have. :blink:
Author:  Christian [ November 25th, 2007, 5:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I do not agree that the Harry Potter books had been written in a bad manner. However I had thought that they had been written in a simple manner. One that would be simple for the audience it had been written for to read. That does not equate to a bad manner of writing to me.

Furthermore the comparison of the Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter books do bother me. I have thought that this comparison has often been due to the fact that the Lord of the Rings fans feel that the series is in competition with Harry Potter, which it is not as it is different all together.

The Lord of the Rings is not boring but I have found that it had been hard to read through the books again. It is an interesting book and I had thought that it had been one of the better series I have read but once I had read them all, I have not found the need to read through them again. It is true that a book has to have good descriptions as well as depth and a good plot, but there is such a thing as too much description. Being much too detailed can be rather distracting in a story especially if what you are describing is insignificant. I am not saying this is the case with the Lord of the Rings trilogy but it does exist. ;)
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/