GameBanshee Forums

Reread all 5 books. The Silmarillion for his 'concepts' and the basis for the 'world' of Middle Earth and it's peoples/myths/etc.. Take the Hobbit as it was intended, as a children's book written for his. And the trilogy just as an 'epic' story of good vs evil. And you may enjoy the story.

IMO, trying to over analyse Tolkien is a trap that many fall into. And detracts from the 'fun'.

Some forms (most in my opinion) of entertainment need to be approached just as that; entertainment, escape if you will. I leave the analysis of those things to the 'intelligensia' that get off on espousing their views in the form of 'everything needs to be a debate or it has no worth'. Once again, in my opinion, not everything needs to be analysed or debated to have worth.

And like others have stated, art is purely subjective.

Well, I guess I'll get flamed for this - 'oh well'.

OK 3 votes so far:

Jennabard & Anatres pro
Kid contra

And many interesting comments about the books

I was pro, and I think you should write a book report for us on how it is unwise and unfair to label the professors make believe world with contemporary and earthbound concepts of bias.

I'm sorry Waverly, I didn't realise your implication about me having a twisted mind was synonymous with a pro vote.

Update:

3 pro (JB, Anatres, Wave)
1 contra (Kid)

CE, get three bottles of your favorite wine and start reading. It is a very good reading, don't try to analyze it. It will take all the fun out of the story.

Should you reread Tolkien? Yes, if...

...you have the pretention of being a sci-fi/fantasy know-it-all. Tolkien is like Shakespeare to the genre. If you want to have any kind of a deep understanding for all things D&D and fantastical, if you want to understand where all fantasy authors have learned their trade, if you want to learn what kinds of literary works old Oxbridge occultist fuddy-duddies write, then his work truly ought to be read.

Before the film comes out, I'd recommend reading at least the Fellowship of the Ring.

If any of you get the chance, you should read his Letters. Speculating as to what the man's psyche was according to LotR or the Hobbit will not reflect the truth of this crazy old coot. He was fanatically catholic in a way that was simply too weird for the 20th century so it shouldn't be surprising that his works have profound Christian undertones. He was born & bred an old boy which accounts for the glaring & disturbing class/caste references in the works. Finally, he had an old fear stemming from his childhood in South Africa of "darker" people. He wasn't racist in the traditional sense, in that he wasn't a goose-stepping brownshirt or an active proponent of hatred. He just had a deeply-rooted psychological/pathological distaste for Africa and non-European locales with harsher climates. i.e. He was an old fart.

For the record, I'm a big fan. I'm just letting the truth be known.

Let me leave the Tolkien fans out there with this bit to chew. Ever give any thought to the relationship between Frodo & Samwise? Didn't Sam seem a little too sycophantic most of the time? Tolkien wrote him up as the ideal servant, a model for the working class. I wonder how this will be handled in the film.

Count me as a pro vote too. Though I haven't read them, I feel they should be read given enough free time. There is so much controversy about the books, why not read them and come to your own conclusions? I intend to as well.

Hermetic writes:
if you want to understand where all fantasy authors have learned their trade...

(sigh) Sometimes I wonder if naming (and occassionally knowing) all those writers who pay no attention to Tolkien or who detest his writing is really worth the effort.

Entering this debate late and not having read Tolkin at all - my only advice is if you want to read his books, or try again - then go ahead.
If you don't really feel like reading them, but you want to because a lot of people are talking about them and Tolkin - then don't.

Don't read a book only because others says it is good; a great pice of epic story; etc.
Only read it if you want to/feel like it.

Look to yourself for answers to questions like this

Absolutely.

@Xandax, I don't think she was going to ask us to make up her mind for her. I think she just wanted to get some opinions of people she likes, from all the different perspectives offered. There's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind, provided one keeps in control of it.

i am of the opinion that if you have read it once and did not appreciate it then why bother again, you could always get it on audio book and listen to it as opposed to reading it which might speed things up. i have never read LOTR, i am somewhat uninterested in it.

Personally i am much more of a fan of Michael Moor****, read his work it is short and very inventive...... although some of it is a little bit to blasphemous for my eyes

Hey a Moorkock (heh) fan! Cool. I'm sure you're aware that the longsword Blackrazor in BG2 is inspired by Elric's sword Stormbringer, eh? Anyhoo, I feel Moorkock is a good example of a fantasy writer who ought not to be labelled as a Tolkienite. Tolkien inspired the idyllic fantasy that we're familiar with today, the D&D and quite sanitary style of fantasy, with halflings and elves and goblins. Moorkock comes from the same school as a Robert E. Howard or Frank Herbert, I'd say, a darker and more sinister form of the genre. I find it amusing that you would call it "blasphemous". Arioch seems pretty satanic doesn't he? Good quality reading.

I did not say all his work was blasphemous, just some of it.

He is definately one of the better fantasy writers because he does not fall into a particular category and his work is very diverse.

I think the problem that Tolkein and a lot of the early works have is that they have been expanded on and bettered by authors in the later day, we know what to expect from the characters in the books because we have 'seen it all before' (IMO)

Thanks to all of you for responding

Fable writes:
<STRONG>if you didn't like it initially, I'd suggest something which is more culturally neutral, or presents an entirely different set of values: perhaps Cabell, or Dunsany (who, though he lived during the Edwardian era, was less a part of it than Tolkien), or Vance (a fascinating author). </STRONG>

Fable, is there any particular work you would recommend to me?

Anatres writes:
<STRONG> IMO, trying to over analyse Tolkien is a trap that many fall into. And detracts from the 'fun'.</STRONG>

Darkpoet writes:
<STRONG>get three bottles of your favorite wine and start reading. It is a very good reading, don't try to analyze it.</STRONG>

You might not believe me, but I wasn't trying to analyse it last time either. I was about 15 years old, and started reading it mostly because some of my friends said they were good. My reaction of the books was very sponaneus, and as stated above as I recall it.

Hermetic writes:
<STRONG>Should you reread Tolkien? Yes, if...
..you have the pretention of being a sci-fi/fantasy know-it-all. </STRONG>

Certainly not, fantasy and sci-fi are about the only literary genres I don't feel a need to know a lot about Rather, I have a great interest for literature in general. Do you think Tolkien's work hold enough literary qualities to be of interest even for a non fantasy fan?

Xandax writes:
<STRONG>Don't read a book only because others says it is good; a great pice of epic story; etc. Only read it if you want to/feel like it. Look to yourself for answers to questions like this </STRONG>

Thanks for your concern, Xandax Generally, I agree with your view regarding almost everything in life. But books is a special area for me - I've always been very interested in literature, and read a lot, so nowadays I sometimes find it difficult to get new ideas of what to read. Thus, I often ask my friends (here and IRL) for tips. (So, Fable is right is his assumptions about my motives for asking you to vote)

mr Sleep writes:
<STRONG>if you have read it once and did not appreciate it then why bother again, you could always get it on audio book and listen to it as opposed to reading it which might speed things up.</STRONG>

I'm a very fast reader, I read a normal 200-250 p novel in 2-3 hours depending on language and style. Tolkien in English would maybe demand twice the time, but I still think an audio book would actually slow down things for me.

<STRONG>Personally i am much more of a fan of Michael Moor****</STRONG>

I'll check him out if I can find him here *sigh* This stupid program - his name is Moorc0ck?

Update:

5 Pro: (JB, Anatres, Wave, DP, Gwalch)
2 Contra: (KID, Sleep)

And even more good arguments and disussion...Soon, I'm going to my summer house and then we'll see if I bring the books or not

]quote]Hermetic writes:
Tolkien inspired the idyllic fantasy that we're familiar with today, the D&D and quite sanitary style of fantasy, with halflings and elves and goblins...[/quote]

@Hermetic, Tolkien was a later example in a long tradition of this, that goes back to extremely popular fantasy at the turn of the twentieth century. Can you name any fantasy authors prior to the start of the AD&D manufacturing lines in the 1980's upon whom he had any influence?

Dear Fable, you must feel like Sisyphos...need I say more. *hug* Maybe this subject is apt for the public fallacies thread?

@C Elegans, I'm afraid you're right.

@Fable: Hmmmmm...how about Terry Brooks for a pre-80's Tolkien ripoff? Shea & Flick were well written characters, but the rest could have had their names replaced with their Tolkien counterparts according to race, occupation, etc. Even Allanon, who plays such a prominent role in the Shannara series, is nothing more than a Gandalf in disguise. But I'm hardly an expert on this genre. Tolkien, Moorc0ck, Brooks, and a bit of Eddings and McCaffrey make up pretty much all I've read of Fantasy/Sci-fi. I don't think I need to be an expert to visit any book store though, where I can see the shelves stocked full of Tolkienesques. In fact they should've named the whole genre after Tolkien. And now you reveal to me, Fable, being the well-read Fantasy/Sci-Fi reader that you seem to be, that this genre pre-dates Tolkien? I am really intrigued now because I had always thought it so amusing, being the philologist that I am, that this whole genre was born out of a crazy academic's linguistic ramblings. Anything you recommend I pick up?

@Hermetic, you actually hit on the one book that came out before 1980 that was so Tolkienesque it almost qualified for legal plagirism: Brooks' The Sword of Shanara. It showed up in 1978, and I got a review copy. Frankly, I felt it stunk. The characters were such Tolkien ripoffs. Situations, too, would be lifted from LOTR, but minus any plot justification, which Tolkien built in. It was the first book of its kind.

But not the last. Unfortunately, as you point out, a lot of the fantasy stuff on the shelves these days are mass-marketing ventures by a few powerful companies who pay hack writers to churn out endless streams of imitative fantasy. The good stuff often makes it only to a few large stores, or can be purchased on the net.

I've posted a bit on Tolkien under a couple of other topics, here--you might check down for similar fantasy literature stuff in SYM. There's a world of great, slightly older fantasy out there which deserves to be read, but isn't--because it's still under copyright, and because the authors had standard veteran writer contracts of several years ago, stipulating a fair reimbursement for their work. The modern AD&D treadmill of fantasy garbage will always be republished, because the authors are getting one-shot, small contracts. Republishing doesn't get 'em a cent.