I know this isn't "general general" but I gotta sp

Zackarotto · Post by **Zackarotto** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:09 pm

I went through all those Narnia thingy books when I was in the 3rd or 4th grade... I should reread them. Other stuff to do, though... I will kill every librarian on the face of the earth if I can't get the fifth Ender's Game book (Ender's Shadow?)

Don't get me wrong, LOTR was good. I think it got worse as they went on, though. I was hooked during "hobbit" and "fellowship", "towers" took a long time, and I never even finished "return". Such a good story yet ruined by all of those descriptions... I would say that I want a simplified version, but that would make me sound like an idiot, wouldn't it?

I still don't consider myself much of a reader. I don't read anything but these large hyped up series, like Harry Potter.

I think there's a copy of the Silmarillion in my basement... Maybe I'll look for it later.

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:52 pm

Tolkien's problem was indeed that he just was too wordy. I love Harry Potter, even if it is hyped-up, they're still great books. I don't care what the snobs say about them! As for The Silmarillion, some advice Zacko: don't read it unless you like mythology, because it is more or less a collection of short myths detailing the history of the first and second ages of MiddleEarth. The myths are strung together, but there's a lot of information to take in, lots of names, battles, events. Like LOTR, but twice as bad. But the one advantage to it is, it's not as wordy. It's a relatively short book in comparison the LOTR, so you may just like it better. Who knows?

And the Narnia books are my all-time favourite novels, with The Last Battle being my favourite of the seven. I also highly recommend A Wizard of Earthsea, and A Wrinkle in Time, along with it's two sequels.

Zackarotto · Post by **Zackarotto** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:56 pm

Fine... I'll check it out. If I find it.

I didn't really have too much trouble with places and names in LOTR, because I'm used to that. So if that's the book's main problem, I should be fine. Hurray!

laserkid · Post by **laserkid** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:01 am

I read TlotR in middle school and loved it then but I can't stand the writing style now XD

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:18 pm

I think maybe as one gets older and reads more, thus being exsposed to different styles and superior writing, you are later able to notice more of Tolkien's faults.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:46 pm

I've read it so many times I look over it... The story is just too great to waste on spending time on detecting faults in the writing style.

Besides, I love ''wordy'' books. Can ever get too wordy for me.

Zackarotto · Post by **Zackarotto** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:49 pm

I think now that I understand all the volcabulary and everything, it's less interesting...

Just why did Tolkien write all of that nonsense? Was he trying to win some award for having lots of words and lots of detail? Just looking at all those maps told me he didn't have anything better to do. The words are just annoying...

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:18 pm

No, no. First of all, Tolkien was never a writer, he was a professor at Oxford and as for the LOTR, it was a kind of mythology he made up for his own pleasure. You see, he was an expert in Norse mythology and also in languages. I mean, the guy literally made up his own languages, for fun! That's how all of the languages came to be in the books. He developed the whole idea of MiddleEarth because he loved mythology and he imagined a mythology that England could have. You see, if it were up to him, he never would have published his LOTR books. We have his friend C.S. Lewis who encouraged him to to thank for that. To understand sort of why Tolkien wrote the way he did, it's helpful to know about the man himself. He was a very strict Catholic, very "set in his ways", very introverted. From all the studies I've done on him, I've gotten the impression that he was a hard man to know. Anyway, when you read the books, you have to keep in mind that this was a man who was in love with long "epicy" poems, legends, and myths, which tend to be very "wordy", partially because they're based on the fact that these were originally oral stories, so in that medium, they wouldn't have seemed so boring. It's the same as Shakespeare. "Macbeth" is a play for Heaven's sake! It's not meant to be read, so it comes out as boring! The other reason the LOTR books are hard to read is also because you are dealing with an author that developed this little mythology that he loved and well when he wrote it, he wasn't thinking about catering to other people reading it, how it would be for them reading it. He really did write these books for himself. Trust me, his publisher tried to edit the books, pleaded to be allowed to, but Tolkien was really stubborn and protective, and felt asking that was practically sacrilegious.

So I hope that clarifies it a little better for you Zacko. Sorry this ended up being soooo "wordy"!

Zackarotto · Post by **Zackarotto** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:01 pm

Ooh, look who knows their Tolkien history.

Yeah, thanks for the lesson. It makes sense.

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:25 pm

Yes, in my teens, I was indeed obsessed with Tolkien and I even did a thesis study on him in my OAC English Creative Writing course. I found it really weird when the movies came out and I wasn't as into Tolkien anymore and everybody who I know I would've never seen read LOTR was reading it. It was 1 more point for the our side!

Kanzenshuu

I know this isn't "general general" but I gotta sp

Who is online