Is it just me and Lord of the Rings?
solosuperia
Posts: 333
I just cannot get into it!
Years ago, a girlfriend of the time was banging on about what a wonderful book it was.
Got a couple of chapters in.....Gave up.
A few years later tried again.
Got a couple of chapters in.....Gave up.
Then the film got all the publicity, and the critical aclaim for the book.
I'm really going to read it this time..........
Got a couple of chapters in.....Gave up.
My son bought me the DVDs, after trying ever so hard to get interested after 30 mins thought Oh No!
Gave up.
I am quite an avid reader, across most genres. But Lord of the Rings doesn't happen.
Anybody else in the same boat?
My current bias is towards Scandanavian Noire.
Years ago, a girlfriend of the time was banging on about what a wonderful book it was.
Got a couple of chapters in.....Gave up.
A few years later tried again.
Got a couple of chapters in.....Gave up.
Then the film got all the publicity, and the critical aclaim for the book.
I'm really going to read it this time..........
Got a couple of chapters in.....Gave up.
My son bought me the DVDs, after trying ever so hard to get interested after 30 mins thought Oh No!
Gave up.
I am quite an avid reader, across most genres. But Lord of the Rings doesn't happen.
Anybody else in the same boat?
My current bias is towards Scandanavian Noire.
0
Comments
-
I never got into it either. I waded through the book many years ago - girlfriend at the time etc etc.
Tried watching the movie a few years ago on a DVD and grew so bored - I kid you not - that I found myself reading an old grammar book in preference. Utterly tedious, that film was. After half an hour I turned it off and went back to my far more interesting reading...0 -
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
It's just been discovered that not everyone likes the same books and films! The world will never be the same again!0 -
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
It's just been discovered that not everyone on BR gets the point of the thread they are reading. The world will always be the same!
Don't get LOR either
my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
It is an odd book. and its biblical style annoys me, but I've read it several times and each time I find something that i missed in previous reads.
It's true we can't all like the same stuff no matter how much of a classic it is supposed to be. I've tried 'Catcher in the Rye' and 'On The Road', but couldn't get passed the first few pages; if they hadn't been on the Kindle I'd have thrown it across the room.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
I read it as a kid - thought it was OK, remember liking the earlier part of the book but finding it dragged a bit when it moved onto the more macro scale battles and what have you. It's aimed at teenage boys, computer programmers and heavy rock fans though isn't it so maybe we just aren't the target market.
Quite enjoyed On The Road but I was a student at the time - not sure i'd like it now - Catcher In The Rye - thought it was an easy enough read but didn't really see what the fuss is about.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Sorry, if that's not the point of the thread you could perhaps explain it to me then?team47b wrote:HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
It's just been discovered that not everyone on BR gets the point of the thread they are reading. The world will always be the same!
Don't get LOR either0 -
bompington wrote:
Sorry, if that's not the point of the thread you could perhaps explain it to me then?team47b wrote:HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
It's just been discovered that not everyone on BR gets the point of the thread they are reading. The world will always be the same!
Don't get LOR either
no, you work it out
In case you weren't being sarcastic then...Can you explain exactly what it is that we are missing, because we have all tried to read/watch this epic and it doesn't hold our attention as it clearly does with many others? is what the thread is about.my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
No, unfortunately not. I'm not a literary critic or in any way able to explain what makes one book "good" and another "bad" - I just have to fall back on the philistine's classic cop-out, "I know what I like". The best I can suggest is that I like books where the author can convince me (and I don't necessarily mean by logic, emotional manipulation will do fine) to have empathy for the characters. In LOTR I can empathise with the "little people caught up in grand events" theme; in other books (Catcher in the Rye as mentioned above) I have none at all for the protagonist (see? I can use long and literary words if I want ;-) ), and I found it really boring as a result.
I suppose I was being a bit sarcastic, but I am surprised by some of the things that surprise people. Sorry if that surprises you. I guess I was taking aim not so much at the OP, but at the commonplace "I don't like this book/film/rider/groupset so there must be something wrong with you if you do" mentality that tends to show up in so much discussion, particularly in internet forums.
And as for "aimed at teenage boys, computer programmers and heavy rock fans" that's remarkably prescient of Tolkien considering he started writing it a long time before any of those things were invented.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:I read it as a kid - thought it was OK, remember liking the earlier part of the book but finding it dragged a bit when it moved onto the more macro scale battles and what have you. It's aimed at teenage boys, computer programmers and heavy rock fans though isn't it so maybe we just aren't the target market.
Quite enjoyed On The Road but I was a student at the time - not sure i'd like it now - Catcher In The Rye - thought it was an easy enough read but didn't really see what the fuss is about.
Ummm... LOTR was written in the 1940s, so I don't think it was 'aimed' at computer programmers or heavy rock fans... 0 -
bompington wrote:And as for "aimed at teenage boys, computer programmers and heavy rock fans" that's remarkably prescient of Tolkien considering he started writing it a long time before any of those things were invented.
Beat me to it!0 -
It captures the feeling of the 40's beautifully.
England was totally alone and up against the might of the Dark Lord (Hitler), with little hope on the horizon.
Against the odds, and with the help of allies, we won through.
Even the Nazgul shriek when they dive (Stuka!).0 -
bompington wrote:And as for "aimed at teenage boys, computer programmers and heavy rock fans" that's remarkably prescient of Tolkien considering he started writing it a long time before any of those things were invented.
When were teenage boys invented ?
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
The 50s. Before then the idea of teenage boys as a separate demographic didn't really exist.0
-
It does sound odd to me that the OP doesn't like either the books or the films, but thats because I did and whilst I hate the over use of the word would use it to describe it as an "epic".
But each to their own and I understand what the OP means as there are films out there I have watched that I just don't get on with, nothing wrong with the story, genre, acting I just don't care for them.
To be fair the book is quite a hard read but as bernithebiker said it was written a long time ago and in a different style to today's books.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
If you ask my old man he will tell you that teenage boys were invented in the fifties, due to the fact that up until then when you got to thirteen you had to get a job to help out the family like he and all his mates had to do.Tom Butcher wrote:bompington wrote:And as for "aimed at teenage boys, computer programmers and heavy rock fans" that's remarkably prescient of Tolkien considering he started writing it a long time before any of those things were invented.
When were teenage boys invented ?"Let your life rule your job, not your job rule your life"
Born to ride, forced to work.0 -
bompington wrote:The 50s. Before then the idea of teenage boys as a separate demographic didn't really exist.
It was 1940s the term came into use - during WWII
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
I'm sure I read somewhere years ago that Tolkein was interviewed and specifically stated that he made no intentional parallels between LOTR and WW2. In his donnish way, he seemed a bit puzzled by the suggestion. I read the book a few times when I was a lad (after several attempts) and it's OK. I would say that it's only once you understand that Tolkein was a prof of Old Norse etc that you see what he was up to. He certainly wasn't trying to write a blockbuster novel, and that would explain why some people find it heavy going.bernithebiker wrote:It captures the feeling of the 40's beautifully.
England was totally alone and up against the might of the Dark Lord (Hitler), with little hope on the horizon.
Against the odds, and with the help of allies, we won through.
Even the Nazgul shriek when they dive (Stuka!).Ecrasez l’infame0 -
I read LOTR first in my teens, and loved it. Then I read it again in my 20s and loved it.
Then I watched the movies, and they inspired me to re-read the book, and to my surprise I couldn't get into it.
I think it's because I have a lot less time these days to fully absorb myself in a big complicated book, and I'm also a lot less patient.Is the gorilla tired yet?0 -
BelgianBeerGeek wrote:I'm sure I read somewhere years ago that Tolkein was interviewed and specifically stated that he made no intentional parallels between LOTR and WW2.
Yes, if anything his experiences in WW1 were more influential:
"The crucial chapter, ‘The Shadow of the Past’, is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels...It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead."BelgianBeerGeek wrote:He certainly wasn't trying to write a blockbuster novel, and that would explain why some people find it heavy going.
"As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."
(quotes from his Forward to the 2nd edition of LOTR)0 -
I never tried the books but really hated the films - sat through all 3 to keep the wife happy but I've drawn the line at The Hobbit. I've never been one for these fantasy type stories for some reason.
On a similar theme (films everyone except you seem to like, not that the films are remotely similar!) I've never managed to find anyone else who hates The Matrix like I do.0 -
ChrisAOnABike wrote:I read LOTR first in my teens, and loved it. Then I read it again in my 20s and loved it.
Then I watched the movies, and they inspired me to re-read the book, and to my surprise I couldn't get into it.
I think it's because I have a lot less time these days to fully absorb myself in a big complicated book, and I'm also a lot less patient.
you might be on to something there.
you need patience to read these books/watch these films that would expla...oh can't be bothered to finish this sen my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
I started reading the books one summer holiday from Uni back in the '80s - my volume had about 1300 pages from memory and I got about 850 in and thought " who gives a sh1t" and never finished it. Then, when the films came out, my young son wanted to see them and I thought I'd better read it so I could explain the stories to him. So I read all the books one after another and I got to the end and thought " who gives a sh1t". Having said that I really enjoyed the first film, quite enjoyed the second and thought the third was pants.0
-
I read it in one go. Took a while. After the unfortunate incident involving my motorbike and a reversing car I had 7 weeks in hospital and nothing else to do except breathe and try not to hemorrhage too profusely. The girlfriend of the day brought it in. An unforeseen side effect was that I began to believe it was reality. Happy days.0
-
I also just cannot get into LOTR, i've tried watching it several times and everytime i end up just turning it off!0
-
It gets worse, i can't get into them either, and i thought i was all alone!!bompington wrote:HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
It's just been discovered that not everyone likes the same books and films! The world will never be the same again!All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
I have never tried to read the books or see the films. I think it's because the geeky tw@ts at my school were into it.0
-
LOTR is not an easy read, to read it properly takes a while as you have to pay attention. It won't be for everyone that's for sure. I liked it though and really like the movies.
But hey, if we all liked the same things the world would be really boring
0 -
Pross wrote:I never tried the books but really hated the films - sat through all 3 to keep the wife happy but I've drawn the line at The Hobbit. I've never been one for these fantasy type stories for some reason.
On a similar theme (films everyone except you seem to like, not that the films are remotely similar!) I've never managed to find anyone else who hates The Matrix like I do.
The only good thing about any of the Matrix films is Monica Belluci. I wind my mate up by saying its Tron in leather coats."Let your life rule your job, not your job rule your life"
Born to ride, forced to work.0 -
You can broadly sort people into three camps with LotR.
1) Those who don't get either the book, or the film.
2) Those who enjoy both
3) Those who think the book is the bible and that Peter Jackson should be burnt at the stake for the blasphemy that is the films.
I'm in the second group, but as a self-confessed geek who used to play D&D and wargames etc, I do have many friends who are very much in the third group. Much fun to wind them up, currently favourite is to refer to Tom Bombadil as 'that musical interlude in Fellowship which Jackson thankfully spared us'.0 -
dynamicbrick wrote:You can broadly sort people into three camps with LotR.
1) Those who don't get either the book, or the film.
2) Those who enjoy both
3) Those who think the book is the bible and that Peter Jackson should be burnt at the stake for the blasphemy that is the films.
I'm in the second group, but as a self-confessed geek who used to play D&D and wargames etc, I do have many friends who are very much in the third group. Much fun to wind them up, currently favourite is to refer to Tom Bombadil as 'that musical interlude in Fellowship which Jackson thankfully spared us'.
Same here i enjoy both and as you and i also came from that D&D MERP background.As with most things i have found it depends on your mood or situation at the time and the willingness to let go,i have enjoyed both books and film but i doubt i will read the books again as i feel i don't need to and as to the films i need about 3-5 years before i watch them again as i will remember too much.I see people read and watch films over and over again within short spaces of time but i just can't do that and enjoy it.0
