Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
So it is not the point of LotR to be a good novel? What kind of reasoning is that?
Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit
- Thread starter Nuka-sama
- Start date
Major Advantage
Prince
The other day, I saw a trailer for the Hobbit movie, and it looked quite amazing. If I am to understand correctly, the Hobbit is a prequel to the Lord of the The Rings Trilogy. The thing is, I have never seen any of the Lord of the Rings Movies, and I have little to no idea what happens. So my question is, should I watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy now (a series of movies I've wanted to watch) OR should I wait till the Hobbit comes out, and THEN watch the Lord of the Rings movies?
Your help is appreciated
You should definitely read the book(s) first!! LOTR is probably the greatest book ever written! (apart from religious books like the bible for some people, you can't and shouldn't compare them)
There is so much complexity, you can read it again and again and you will still find an aspect you haven't noticed so far. I envy you for being able to read the book before watching the movie, as I never had any interest in fantasy novels before a friend of mine asked me to watch the first movie, so I read the books after I watched the first movie and I was so eager to find out how the story will go.
And with hindsight, the first movie was still great, there were some adjustments to made to fit it into 3 hours, despite some gaps in the logic, but the latter two??? Stupid characters acting totally out-of-character, only battle, battle, battle, it turned to a pretty normal action movie with just some great scenes (Theoden's speech before the Pelennor-battle still sends shivers down my spine). But overall, most of the atmosphere is gone in the movies, sacrificed for blood-thirsty battles and lame, ill-timed jokes, so read the books first!!! Even though it might seem hard and boring every now and then, it will pay off!
Nah. The setting is more "derivative" (mythologically, anyway) than deep and complex. And since there've been a legion of imitators since then, some of which have done a better job than Tolkien at worldbuilding, it might even be trite to the modern uninitiated.
Of the whole scenario, the languages are unquestionably the deepest, most complex, and - for the person who enjoys linguistics - the most immersive. Unfortunately, people who enjoy linguistics and who are capable of holding informed opinions on the subject are few and far between.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,383
One doesn't exclude the other. Most fiction is openly derivative. Depth and complexity come from that!
For example, the derivative work of it that I liked the most (Jacqueline Carey's) is only interesting because it is openly derivative, otherwise no one would appreciate a tragedy (and one with oddly cast characters) as fiction.
I'm not sure about the worldbuilding. But many of them were certainly far better storytellers than Tolkien. I read the Lord of the Rings once, and the prose was boring.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Just the opposite. It happened first chronologically and was written first, so it makes far more sense to read and watch it first.
And yes, I'm sure the book is far better than the flick, as usual. That was certainly true with LOTR. Read the books first. The Hobbit is fairly short and a very quick read anyway.
And yes, I'm sure the book is far better than the flick, as usual. That was certainly true with LOTR. Read the books first. The Hobbit is fairly short and a very quick read anyway.
holy king
Deity
the books are awfully written. if you have never read good literature before you wont be bothered, but if you have, skip them and make do with the films.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I'd actually disagree (about the better worldbuilding), at least as far as worldbuilding for the sake of creating a setting for a story is concerned.
Certainly, there have been efforts at far better geography, far more intricate politics, societies, etc. Each of them admirable in their own ways.
And all of them largely useless for the actual reason most of these settings are built: storytelling. You don't build the setting for a stories with maps; nor do you build it with history books, or biology books, or anthropology books. These are a best necessary support, at usual irrelevant fluff, and at worse, when they attempt to explain what shouldn't be explained, outright harmful. (Dragons fly and breathe fire because that is what dragons are, not because they have a zeppelin-like gas bladder that keep them afloat and can be turned into fire breathe. Or, to put it another way: the force is an energey field, and keep your medichlorians in hell)
The building blocks of a story (and of the story's settings) are other stories, which in turn lead to other stories, to other stories, all inter-connected. It's how all the great mythologies come to form, with characters eventually jumping from one legend to another and appearing into multiple tales. And it's how Tolkien's worldbuilding largely went - the story he wrote led to and hinted at further stories, and what we got to see of those hinted at more stories.
Tolkien (contrary to popular belief) made up the map as he went along, crafted the societies and cultures encountered along the way to meet the needs of his stories, and wrote down the history only afterward based on all the random ideas he had had while writing the book. But he made sure, almost whenever he introduced or mentioned something new to the story, to come back to it at some point and ask himself, "What IS this? What's it's story?", and he had a wealth of other stories ready to act as the backdrop for his novel (and even when he didn't, he could just borrow from his favorite mythologies and adapt to the setting).
Quite honestly, I think one of the biggest problem with Fantasy is the number of authors who tried to ape the appearance of Tolkien's work (maps, chronologies, etc) and the apparent content (elves, dwarves) thinking that was the core of Tolkien's works, compared with the few who actually managed to catch on (or duplicate on their own) what Tolkien actually was doing with those things. (And those who did generally had the common sense to do their mythological derivations from another set of legends than Tolkien).
---------------
That said, his actual writing is, indeed, cringe-worthy as often as not. I love the book still because I love what they show us - the glimpses after glimpses of a universe of stories stretching on to infinity - but it's definitely not readable by everyone.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That is certainly an interesting personal opinion. But others seem to disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
I wouldn't call them the best novels ever written. But they are certainly worth a read, especially if you are young. My brother hated to read anything until I turned him onto The Hobbit. He is still by no means a voracious reader, but he has read 5-10 novels a year since.
holy king
Deity
yeah, especially if you are young.
meaning especially if you have no idea what to expect from good literature.
then it's an amazing read indeed.
meaning especially if you have no idea what to expect from good literature.
then it's an amazing read indeed.
I've seen it said that if, at the age of 14, you don't think The Lord of the Rings is the best book ever written, there's something wrong with you; and if, at the age of 40, you still think it's the best book ever written, there's definitely something wrong with you.
Personally I would say it's not great literature, but it still has a certain greatness that would be just perverse to deny. It achieved, and deserved, its success because it did something which no-one had ever really done before on anything like that scale and level of detail. It would be churlish not to recognise that just because it's not as deep as Dostoevsky or well written as Dickens - just as it would be foolish to ignore its evident shortcomings just because it's better than Robert Jordan. (Which it is.)
As for the book and the films, I can't see the purpose of advising someone who hasn't read it or seen them to read the book first. One of the main reasons to have a film of a book is to tell the story to people who haven't read the book. Watch the films, and if you like them, read The Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings, but be prepared to find an awful lot of the latter very heavy going.
It is, incidentally, interesting to come back to the book after becoming familiar with the films; the sense of urgency and drama of the opening part of the first film is completely lacking from the book. After realising that he possesses the One Ring of Power which the Dark Lord is desperately trying to regain, Frodo proceeds to do nothing whatsoever about it. Gandalf occasionally turns up and says things like, "Thought of doing anything about the Ring, Frodo?" and Frodo says things like, "Oh, I know I should, but really I've just not got round to much these past few months," and Gandalf says, "Well, I'd say you probably ought to get onto that some time this year, at least." And so on. The film is infinitely more believable - Gandalf identifies the Ring and Frodo leaves to take it to safety right away, because it's quite important.
In other words, despite the howls of outrage from the purists, most (though certainly not all) of the changes Jackson made to the story were improvements, so I suppose that seeing the films first might make the book seem worse if you read it later. So perhaps there's no right answer.
Personally I would say it's not great literature, but it still has a certain greatness that would be just perverse to deny. It achieved, and deserved, its success because it did something which no-one had ever really done before on anything like that scale and level of detail. It would be churlish not to recognise that just because it's not as deep as Dostoevsky or well written as Dickens - just as it would be foolish to ignore its evident shortcomings just because it's better than Robert Jordan. (Which it is.)
As for the book and the films, I can't see the purpose of advising someone who hasn't read it or seen them to read the book first. One of the main reasons to have a film of a book is to tell the story to people who haven't read the book. Watch the films, and if you like them, read The Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings, but be prepared to find an awful lot of the latter very heavy going.
It is, incidentally, interesting to come back to the book after becoming familiar with the films; the sense of urgency and drama of the opening part of the first film is completely lacking from the book. After realising that he possesses the One Ring of Power which the Dark Lord is desperately trying to regain, Frodo proceeds to do nothing whatsoever about it. Gandalf occasionally turns up and says things like, "Thought of doing anything about the Ring, Frodo?" and Frodo says things like, "Oh, I know I should, but really I've just not got round to much these past few months," and Gandalf says, "Well, I'd say you probably ought to get onto that some time this year, at least." And so on. The film is infinitely more believable - Gandalf identifies the Ring and Frodo leaves to take it to safety right away, because it's quite important.
In other words, despite the howls of outrage from the purists, most (though certainly not all) of the changes Jackson made to the story were improvements, so I suppose that seeing the films first might make the book seem worse if you read it later. So perhaps there's no right answer.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
I agree. I watched the movie first, and I feel it was better that way. It gave me a good idea of what I was reading, and also made the scenes much easier to see. (Seeing Minas Tirith was much better than reading the description.) Also, there are scenes that the movie added that were skimmed over in the book, such as the lighting of the beacons.
Agreed. For example, Tom Bombadil, while an interesting character, never actually played a major role in the story, so I feel omitting him from the movie was justified.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Heh. I've heard that as well, and there is certainly an element of truth to it. I hadn't read LOTR since my early 20s after reading it the first time when I was 15 or so. I read it 4 or 5 times altogether. But I wanted to reread them before I saw the movies. I couldn't even make it past the first book. Then again, I also found the movies to be a bit boring and tedious as well. I had the images of what I thought Middle Earth should be like already firmly embedded in my brain.
I think that is generally true with any movie that is based on a book. But I do agree that if you are middle-aged then you may very well not find much interesting about the book, but you may actually enjoy the movies anyway.
That is because Frodo doesn't really want to give up his precious until he is finally forced to do so. I believe this is mentioned in the film as well, but not as much time is spent on it in order to keep it from being four movies instead of three. Plus, Tolkein wanted to set the stage for those who had not read The Hobbit first.
This is why nobody even dared try to make films about LOTR until Jackson did, especially since the animated version was so widely panned in the past.
LOTR begat Chainmail which begat D&D and all its spawn which begat MTG, Diablo 2 and epic fantasy fiction which begat A Game of Thrones and Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.
