Basically, most people i know claim that it is a great book, but personnally i have tried to read it several times but i cannot get passed the begginning. I was just wonder if the whole book carries on in this manner.
I've read it well over thirty times straight through, including reading it aloud twice to my children. I never had a problem with the pace of the story myself. But to each his own.
I attempted to read it many times myself, and had issues getting past the first part. I took about 3 or 4 attempts before I was able to actually complete the entire series. It does eventually pick up, but I think it's more through attachment to characters than actual pacing. The end really hooks you; when you want to know what happens in the final battle (even if it is a given). I particularly enjoyed the Helm's Deep battle (both film and book). I say give it another chance. Even if in the end you didn't enjoy it, you can still say you managed to finish it and also get a few writing pointers, whether it's what you can do to improve or what you shouldn't do.
The problem with Lord of the Rings is that for the first half of Fellowship it doesn't really know where it's going. Is it going to be another childrens adventure like the hobbit? the first chapter suggest this (style wise its completly different from the rest of the series). There's a bit of exposition from Gandalf explaining that the ring must be destroyed. Then the main plot gets forgotten with the introduction of Tom however his last name is spelt. Several chapters of pointless singing and walking about in woods ensue. Things pick up once they finally arrive at Rivendel, and from that point on the books are really quite good.
Thanks, i think im going to give it another chance and this time try to get past the beginning so i can get into the story. Thanks for the advice though.
I started reading The Hobbit when I was twelve... I loved it, altough at first I couldn't understand well Mr. Tolkien's vocabulary, being as I am Mexican and at the time my own English vocabulary was really limited. Then I started reading the Fellowship of the Ring and... Well, I couldn't go past the first fifty pages. I started reading them like a year ago, and this time I enjoyed them a lot. Tolkien created quite a masterpiece.
I do find the first few chapters pretty slow and dull. That's why the movie changed the timeline, I think. However, it does improve.
I saw the films before the novels, unfortunately, but the books contain a richness of the world and characters that the films lack (although they were good attempts). I too found it hard to get into the novel in the begining because of the vast detail Tolkien included in the novel. However, I eventually continued to read more of it several years after my first attempt, and didn't regret it. This vast detail that was initially offputting creates a wonderful richness that I've found in few other novels. I still haven't read the whole trilogy, because it is a difficult book to read. I tend to read it in chunks, putting it down when it becomes overwhelming. I think you need to be in the mood for the slow pace of the story. I'm currently halfway through the Two Towers, and I've taken to reading something else (The Hobit of all things!) and my interest is waning a little. I absolutely loved Fellowship, and parts of the Two Towers are great, especially in the introduction of the Ents in Fangorn, and the chase to find Merry and Pippin. However, the human battles bore me mostly, although they are much better in the books because of their brevity - in the films I found myself asking when they would end.
As well as the series is written, in my opinion you have to like the characters to stick to it. luckily, there are so many characters to choose from that all have important roles in the story. The one problem i had with reading the book was this: The Two Towers went entire sections without knowing what happened to key characters. This is the main reason I enjoyed George R R Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series so much. The books are evenly cut into different PoVs.
I can describe LOTR books in three words - passive sentences and adverbs. Other than that, I guess they are everything else as well - brilliant, thought through, deep, moving, emotional, scary even, sad, funny, long, long, did I say long? The LOTR books aren't my favourite, though they are not the worst I've read, by far. I prefer them to the Hobbit though, which is one book that I actually don't like. I'm very fussy about books, as I am with movies and tv-shows as well. :] and for me, the lord of the rings, however brilliant tolkien may have been, just don't make it to my top 5. For me the hook is really important, if the first page does not hook me (or even first paragraph) I'll put the book down, and move along to the other books in the store.
To honest I preferred it as Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen. It's something you should read once especially if you're interested in fantasy but as much as I've tried I can't get through it again.
Lord of the Rings was hard for me to get through, but i just reminded myself that Tolkien was too much of a genius to make sense then it was easier for me. It did take me twice though for it to make sense- since the first time I tried to read it I was just about eight
They're completed unrelated, just so you know. In Tolkien's words: "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases." They share sources/influences on other works (they both draw heavily from Norse literature and mythology) but LOTR is not a "version" of any of these stories except in the sense that it is passably similar in structure and general idea to several Norse epics.
I know they share the same sources. I strongly doubt LOTR carries no influence from Wagner. But whether they do or not doesn't matter. Whether he cared to admit it or not by virtue of drawing on the same sources the two are similar, and therefore linked. And I greatly prefer the Ring Cycle. Edit: What I mean, is that for anyone familiar with both works and their source materials, the influence is obvious. Because of this, both share strong thematic links- while LOTR does in many ways differ from both the Ring and the source myths, it still retains a strong link with them. In this sense, LOTR is- as is the Ring, a reimagining of early works. Also to say the only similarity between the two rings is that they are round is simply not true.
I think I may be the only person in the world who hasn't read LOTR. This thread has sparked my interest and I have decided I will read it after The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Although I respect Tolkien's contribrutions to literature - I wasn't too big on LOTR. I've read the entire series twice and just found it to be meh. My biggest issue with the books is the priority of description. All important and major events will be summed in a single passive setence or two then be followed by a ten page (exaggerating of course) description of something trivial like what they had for breakfast that day. It irks me to no end. On a side-note, I read a book for English class recently that has the same style as this - On the Beach by Nevil Shute? It's science fiction but still, it has the same flaw: passive description where it should be more vibrant and vibrant description where it should be passive.
I just read the LOTR books a couple of months before and i must say that i was surprised from the huge diference between them and the movies. I know well how all the movies are worst than the books but these movies were completely different. I like the books very much and it made clear many confusing things. I liked Aragorns history and outcome very much and i cant believe that it was cowardice that held him from his rightfull position in Gondor.
I absolutely love the books. I first read The Hobbit way back when I was in second grade (with some help from my mom, because it's hard for 7-8 year olds!). Ever since I reread at least one of them every year or every other year. I just can't get enough. I even read the other books he wrote like The Silmarilion, The Children of Hurin, The Unfinished Tales, etc. It's just so entrancing to me. (By the way, for other fans I completely recommend The Silmarilion!) I thought that the movies were good, but I have to think of them as separate from the books. They were very different, but good in their own way. I was very disappointed that Tom Bombadil didn't make it into the movies! He was my favorite!
