NationStates Jolt Archive


J.R.R Tolkien

The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 16:18
So, which books do you like and why?
Aust
30-05-2005, 16:22
All of them.
Makatoto
30-05-2005, 16:23
I'm going to be geeky and point out the first three on that list are volumes of two books of the Lord of the Rings each.
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 16:23
All of them.

Even Return of the King? I didn't really like that one.
Kuffara
30-05-2005, 16:25
I think its hard to pick a single book. Tolkien was a fanatical genius, and a little obsessive compulsive if you ask me. His books are gold but can you imagine all of this information and more just popping into your head? Like who the leader of the Dwarves was in a little corner of the world in the First Age (the trilogy occurs in the Third Age...I think) and the names of his advisors...and children..and their children, etc. Thats why the movies were so good, they had so much gold to work with.
Cabra West
30-05-2005, 16:26
Even Return of the King? I didn't really like that one.

I love it. Whenever I finish it, it makes me want to start right from the begining again
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 16:27
I think its hard to pick a single book. Tolkien was a fanatical genius, and a little obsessive compulsive if you ask me. His books are gold but can you imagine all of this information and more just popping into your head? Like who the leader of the Dwarves was in a little corner of the world in the First Age (the trilogy occurs in the Third Age...I think) and the names of his advisors...and children..and their children, etc. Thats why the movies were so good, they had so much gold to work with.

That's why the poll is multiple choice. You don't have to pick one book in particular.
The Mindset
30-05-2005, 16:27
I don't particularly enjoy Tolkien's writing style. Loved the movie adaptations, but despised how dry the books themselves were.
Kuffara
30-05-2005, 16:28
That's why the poll is multiple choice. You don't have to pick one book in particular.
Ok, I was just saying.
Gronath
30-05-2005, 16:28
I'm going with The Silmarillion. It's not the easiest book there is, but the immense amount of lore it adds to Arda is incredible.
Ph33rdom
30-05-2005, 16:29
Smith of Wooton Major & Farmer Giles of Ham were both good. The Hobbit is more fun than the Trilogy and the Trilogy is more fun than The Sim.
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 16:29
I love it. Whenever I finish it, it makes me want to start right from the begining again

I can understand why people love it, but for me I feel Tolkien started to run dry whilst writing it.
Huldah
30-05-2005, 16:30
Tolkien was definitely a genious. His writing was so detailed. He wrote as though he were recounting events that he had personally witnessed. I can't even imagine what other fantastic tales we would have if he had lived longer.
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 16:35
I can't even imagine what other fantastic tales we would have if he had lived longer.

They would probably just be the same story but the Lord of The Rings, but from a different viewpoint. And "Arwens' Guide to Firm Thighs"
Quorm
30-05-2005, 16:39
I'm going with The Silmarillion. It's not the easiest book there is, but the immense amount of lore it adds to Arda is incredible.
I agree wholeheartedly. It took me about 5 years to get down to reading it, but once I did i thought the Silmarillion was fantastic. It's the sort of book you have to read slowly though - you have to let the stories engross you.

Of course I checked all of the boxes except the last one - Tolkien didn't actually write any other Middle-Earth books himself did he? I thought all the others were compilations done by his son after his death, so I've never read any of them.
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 16:42
Of course I checked all of the boxes except the last one - Tolkien didn't actually write any other Middle-Earth books himself did he? I thought all the others were compilations done by his son after his death, so I've never read any of them.

I wasn't sure, so I just put it in anyway. Better "There is no other books I know of" than "You forgot about suchandsuch, you idiot!"
German Nightmare
30-05-2005, 16:53
I should like all of them but haven't read them - yet. (I know, I know, I should have...)
Mythotic Kelkia
30-05-2005, 17:00
I thought Lord of The Rings was the best book/collexion of books I'd ever read - then I read the Silmarillion... Absolutely amazing and beautiful work. It just totally puts the whole LotR world into this huge, much wider context that really changes the way you see it. Literally fantastic, but also very good :p
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 17:01
I should like all of them but haven't read them - yet. (I know, I know, I should have...)

That's a surprising confession. I thought nearly everyone would have read at least one.
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 17:12
This is a non-post purely for the purpose of bringing attention to the thread.
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 17:13
As is this one.
Suicidal Librarians
30-05-2005, 18:22
I like The Hobbit best. Probably because there isn't a movie based on it. I saw FotR, TTT, and RotK movie before I read the books, therefore I was disappointed when I read the books. They were still good, but after seeing all the war and the action of a movie a description of a battle in a book just doesn't measure up (for me anyway).
Suicidal Librarians
30-05-2005, 18:50
bump
RightWing Conspirators
30-05-2005, 18:54
I have been an avid Tolkien fan since about the age of 6 when I read the Hobbit and then the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

I love everything about how Tolkien writes, how intricate every part and person of the world he created really was. That's where I was sad that the movie kinda did face value things to the characters, but I also had to understand that there was so much information and so many details to take into place that it was impossible to do anything deeper, unless the movie was to be like 6 hours a piece.
The Noble Men
30-05-2005, 19:01
I like The Hobbit best. Probably because there isn't a movie based on it. I saw FotR, TTT, and RotK movie before I read the books, therefore I was disappointed when I read the books. They were still good, but after seeing all the war and the action of a movie a description of a battle in a book just doesn't measure up (for me anyway).

The Hobbit was brilliant, I agree. Just for the line:

What is in my pocket?

The rest of the book was good too, even if it was a kiddie book with poor narration.
Stupendous Badassness
31-05-2005, 03:42
I like The Hobbit best. Probably because there isn't a movie based on it. I saw FotR, TTT, and RotK movie before I read the books, therefore I was disappointed when I read the books. They were still good, but after seeing all the war and the action of a movie a description of a battle in a book just doesn't measure up (for me anyway).

There was a movie based on the Hobbit! It's by Fox or somesuch. 1970s or around there, animated. Not too bad, actually, although the look of the goblins and so forth is a bit different from the trilogy.
Ashmoria
31-05-2005, 03:47
ive never liked anything but the hobbit and the trilogy.

i wanna know if those "lost tales" boods edited by his son are any good. has anyone read them? are they worth the bother?
NERVUN
31-05-2005, 03:50
I'm going to have to join the tribe of can't pick one, love them all.

And I just finished Lord of the Rings (10th reading or so) and now you've all made me want to read it again damn you all to Mordor!
Potaria
31-05-2005, 03:55
The fucking lot of them, damnit!!
Haloman
31-05-2005, 04:06
In my opinion, Tolkien > Shakespeare

Tolkien actually spins complex plots; Shakespeare bullshits his way through them.

I remember reading The Hobbit, finishing it, and then starting it all over again. Good book, good book.
Azanunya
31-05-2005, 04:59
The Silmarillion.
Far and away the best of the best.
The histories of the realms and individuals make for some of the most emotional reading I have ever encountered.
Just started it again the other day for the umpteenth read. :D
Saudbany
31-05-2005, 05:17
Everyone that's read the hobbit knows that although its related, the plot is completely independent and its good enough to stay as a book. I remember reading it for for 8th grd, and it was a blast.
Garabedian
31-05-2005, 05:44
the books are ok, not great. The books are slightly hard to read and his style doesn/t impress me much. Please dont kill me.
Suicidal Librarians
31-05-2005, 15:25
There was a movie based on the Hobbit! It's by Fox or somesuch. 1970s or around there, animated. Not too bad, actually, although the look of the goblins and so forth is a bit different from the trilogy.

Ugh! That movie doesn't count.
Suicidal Librarians
31-05-2005, 15:27
the books are ok, not great. The books are slightly hard to read and his style doesn/t impress me much. Please dont kill me.

I agree. The books were still okay, but I would have liked them better if he had created a different mood for the books. I would prefer a darker, more intense mood, like you got in the movies. I just didn't feel much suspense from reading the books.
Harivan
31-05-2005, 15:29
I'm a huge tolkien fan so i like them all
Eriadhin
31-05-2005, 15:38
I love all of his work! He is a genius and I hope to be as good a writer as he...someday. I even enjoy just immerging myself in the Appendices! LOL it had a LOT of info. I love the history and the depth. I have yet to read the Silmarilion but plan to (it is on my bookself waiting).

I like his style, very verbose but very interesting. (Though my first read through it was hard to make it out of the Shire...but it was still awesome)
Suicidal Librarians
31-05-2005, 15:58
:D bump
Of the underpants
31-05-2005, 16:37
I'm going to be geeky and point out the first three on that list are volumes of two books of the Lord of the Rings each.

I'm going to be even more geeky and point out the fact that Tolkein originally intended it to be only one book, but the publishers (KILL ALL PUBLISHERS DEAD RIGHT NOW THE BA****DS) decided they'd make more money and piss everyone off more by putting it into three sections, then make it two parts, etc.
Of the underpants
31-05-2005, 16:49
I agree wholeheartedly. It took me about 5 years to get down to reading it, but once I did i thought the Silmarillion was fantastic. It's the sort of book you have to read slowly though - you have to let the stories engross you.

Of course I checked all of the boxes except the last one - Tolkien didn't actually write any other Middle-Earth books himself did he? I thought all the others were compilations done by his son after his death, so I've never read any of them.
Smith of Wooten Major, Farmer Giles of Ham, Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Roverandom...Tree and Leaf (to a certain extent, though that was an essay and really based on reality, but his intention was to design a mythology for England as it doesn't have its own mythology, only stolen ones - interesting fact, King Arthur is NOT as most people think an English Legend, its a Welsh one, Robin Hood's really French I think, and Merlin is certainly Welsh.....and the Holy Grail is believed to be on the Welsh coast.)
Swimmingpool
31-05-2005, 17:55
I like all of them, and my favourite is the Silmarillion. "Aldarion and Erendis" from Unfinished Tales is one of my favourite short stories ever.
Guitar Muzic
31-05-2005, 17:56
*is complete and totally LOTR and Tolkien freak* I checked them all of course..... :D
New Watenho
31-05-2005, 18:26
I think its hard to pick a single book. Tolkien was a fanatical genius, and a little obsessive compulsive if you ask me. His books are gold but can you imagine all of this information and more just popping into your head? Like who the leader of the Dwarves was in a little corner of the world in the First Age (the trilogy occurs in the Third Age...I think) and the names of his advisors...and children..and their children, etc. Thats why the movies were so good, they had so much gold to work with.

I have three words for you. Frank Herbert - Dune. He was completely obsessive too: his fiction-world is detailed comparably to Middle-Earth, in some ways. In some others it isn't. It was Tolkien's scary, scary devotion to utter background, a great deal of which was totally irrelevant to the actual series, which takes him out of Herbert's realm. Herbert's background is always directly relevant to events in his storyline; it's just that his storyline goes incredibly deep to include such detail.

It's like Tolkein created a Universe and put a story in it, whereas Herbert had a story and created the Universe around it, but such that the Universe was comparably detailed. That's how it feels to read the Dune series, anyway; I don't know the truth of the matter.