Soo after the Gatsby thread- anyone care to convince me about LOTR?

Hello again littlelamb. It's been fun reading the pros and cons. And pointydog in particular did make me laugh.

It occurred to me that there is something to be said about "how" we read books, if you're to be "seduced" into reading LOTR.

For a start, I don't think it's going to matter, really, if you don't. Or if you decide you really can't bear the experience of reading it.

But, in the interests of seduction ... .

There are lots of diferent ways to read books. they're so fascinating, in that books tend to demand a different way of reading each one and tend to set things up to get you to read them in certain ways.

So "The Great Gatsby" is, I think, amazingly seductive; it allures with its beauty, it aims at seduction. You're never, really, going to get going on it unless you allow yourself to be at least a little seduced by the propensity of money to morally corrupt, to gild, to allure. You have to allow yourself to expereince the glamour of youth and beauty and wealth, and yet sense that there is an undertow of doubt. If you resist all that, you will really not be inclined to read on, or to feel the full effect of the ending, when it comes.

Similarly, with LOTR what you need most is time (as others on this thread have pointed out). I'm sure there's a really good reason why so many adolescents enjoy it, and it's not simply that its moral and character reach is not deep, even immature. I'm sure it's because they have so much time, so can really immerse themselves in the imaginitive experience. And they are also able to put aside demands for modern sexual politics and deeper insights, at least temporarily, just for the pleasure of the story-telling experience.

I think the way to read LOTR is actually quite innocently, in the same way I used to love "Noggin the Nog", and I think it would be sad to think there isn't a place in our reading experiences for such an important pleasure.

Now, if you're on mn, I suspect that you have (young?) dcs. So maybe now is, perhaps, not quite the right time for LOTR. Alice Munro, perhaps? Or Jamaica Kincaid?

Also, A very long story cut short, my very dear friend was doing Eng lit at Oxford in the mid 70's and met Tolkien as he was a friend of my friend's tutor.

On this meeting, Tolkien asked my friend "go on, ask me the question everyone wants to know. 'Why did you write The Hobbit?'"

Friend says no. I want to ask you.."What was CS Lewis really like?".

The Big T dualy obliged.......

no not a boy or a nerd. My mother was much enthralled by tolkien and was caught up in a buzz about it in the late 50's early 60's - thinking about it, she must have been late teens - a good age to read it. She adored reading and wanted me to be able to understand that my imagination is so much brighter than any movie could ever make any book.

and that is why fans always said - it couldn't be done.

but it was and apart from boromir it was really good.

anyway, my mother read to me - the hobbit when i was about 8 or 9. ..Yes i know i was spoiled only child who had a mother who read to her!

and she did the voices, and changed her tone for the exciting bits - and i can remember wanting to find out what happened next.

and i read it to my children - the hobbit that is.

yes to "bored of the rings" years ago. The funniest bit is on the covers re our hero being frisked by an ethereal elf, as I recall. the rest was pretty lame.

Has anyone read "Bored of the Rings"? One-joke parody, not half as funny as it thinks it is.

I finally dragged myself through it about 4 years ago, having read the first book at least twice, the second book about halfway through once - I found it got progressively worse. It starts off quite chatty and fun and light-hearted (heck, I liked Tom Bombadil!) but by the end it's all King James-style prose and endless gloomy battles where the characters all speak with archaic inversions.

I get the point about it being influential, and I was interested in it for that reason. I don't regret the time I spent reading it but I never want to have to pick it up again.

Try this one too:

is a bit sweary though

I did enjoy the films. I resisted seeing them for a long time. But they are good films.

But the books are better.

I do like it, lamb

Thread, if you didn't enjoy the first film, why did you watch all three of them? Are you a hobbit addict?

I like LOTR very much. I like the tone of sadness and inevitable loss.

And I have nerver read any writer who describes locations so vividly. That is why it is a shame to have seen the films and to have had my own views of Rohan, Gondor, etc wiped and overwritten.

if you've got a spare two minutes and want a summary, here you are

The thing is, it reads like this
1 ominous predictions
2 deaths of a few key characters
3 Repeat
{battle
aimless-endless wandering in wilds by other characters
more big gruesome battles
more endless wandering
more violent and detailed battles
more endless wandering)
4 until reader is bored or hypnotised.

I got about 1/2 way thru the 2nd LOTR before I gave up, can't remember anything specific that happened. Tried to watch the films, managed to only get about 1/2 way thru the first film, it was indeed exactly like the books!

I tried and gave up with LOTR. I've never regret it. I got addicted to the map.

I do like bits of The Hobbit. But there is a boundary that is not worth crosing and further Middle Earth adventures are only for the foolhardy.

little, it is indeed the most tedious wank. Give up while you still have a personality.

Yes, skip Bombadil.

But ideally, read it at age 14. Or younger.

I love it, read it as I watched the movies. Did the same when the Tripods were on the telly way back when, loved that too.

I'm married to a geek (computers & gaming), his mates collectively signed our wedding book as "the geeks", and I think after stunning them all with button bashing one session I got christened an honorary geek, but I don't have the hardcore thing that they do

Now my mate is a geek

VampiresWalkin - I tend to use the two pretty vaguely. Apparently young persons now say "neek". I bunged it in because my bf studied computer science and having read LOTR was a noted characteristic of his cohort.

Kickassangel - It can't be mass fiction, a huge, popular hit and hard-going. Hard going for some, maybe ... but many belt through it.

And only a certain period of Eng Lit Studies exalted beautiful writing as the hallmark of Great Literature. Though, as someone whose critical tastes were formed in that period, i somewhat mourn its passing.

VampiresWalkin is right; it's a darn good tale. And actually, that's an incredibly significant and amazing thing to be.

It really is worth persevering IMO, but definitely read The Hobbit first.

I think it's one of those books where it's no good if the only reading time you get is 5 minutes in bed at the end of the day. You need to read it in decent chunks, at least until you are past Tom Bombadil and the story gets going because otherwise you get bogged down in a 2-page description as Custardo says. Tom Bombadil is a great part of the story though, but makes a lot more sense if you've read The Hobbit.

I'm not a boy, but I'm definitely a borderline nerd .

Sorry - nerd. is there a difference between nerd and geek? I always see geek as more computery...

I don't read for great literature, I read for a good story or to feel.

I get the good story with lotr

No, I am not a boy. Geek is a bit hit n miss though tbh