/lit/ - Literature

what narrative? its basically just characters traveling from one place to another.

>interrupts his weak ass plot by unleashing pages of shit poetry at the end of every chapter
he hates you as the reader

>>19851746
the story isnt about the fellowship its about gollum and the ring
frodo is actually the least important character imo

>takes 9 chapters to get from Hobbiton to Bree

>>19851749
>goes on a schizo meltdown and burns the ending of his magnum opus before starving himself to death
Gogol was a bigger troll than you give him credit for

The Hobbit and LOTR are kids' books. This is the crucial fact that adults analyzing and critiquing the work so seriously miss out on.

>>19851760
i hated the first book, so it's alright by me. my penguin edition has sections of the second part, and i found those scraps to be better than the whole of the first

>>19851767
I agree with the hobbit but to say that kids would read lotr and actually get through it is kinda silly. i get zoomers aren't a proper analog but even in 1960 i wouldnt expect a 14 year old to be able to pronounce some of the elven names in that book, let alone understand the meaning behind the legendarium in general
It's really a story about growing up. The shire is infancy, bombadil is adolescence, barrow downs is tweens, Bree is teens, weathertop is late teens, rivendel is early twenties then so on and so forth until the end

>>19851783
Huh, I found it the other way around. The second part had so many abrupt stops and starts that I had to rationalize it as some sort of postmodern hellscape where one scene picks up partway through an existing scene.

>>19851809
i like it for the plot that could have been. it's not complete, sure, but i was encouraged by the vision of him becoming an honest farmer and learning from the landowner's brother.
the plot that was delivered for the first part was just disappointing.

>>19851820
>>19851809
Hey fags this is about LOTR

>>19851751
Wish it was longer

>>19851835
YOV ARE VNDER RVSSIAN OCCVPATION

>>19851844
that's what she said!

>>19851851

>>19851854
Nice anon, thanks for some nostalgia it's been a long time

>>19851794
I read LOTR in elementary school. Would the average kid today be able to get through LOTR? Nah, of course not. But Tolkien wrote with educated upper class British people in mind, the kind of kids that might grow up to go to Oxford where he taught. And they're still children, even if they could be expected to get through LOTR.

>>19851885
Do you have any evidence that Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings with educated upper class British children in mind?
I thought the whole point of writing The Lord of the Rings was to prove that there was a demand for fantasy among adults

>>19851885
>he thinks reading dostoyevsky makes him an adult
>as he spouts off like a petulant child
pottery

Tom Bombadil is based as fuck, anyone who dislikes Tom is intellectually inferior. This cannot be argued.

>>19851794
I read the hobbit and LOTR in the fifth grade. Are kids today just retarded?

>>19851716
Based Tom.

>>19851794
I read it when I was 10, and then a few times more as a teenager. It's a great book for kids and teenagers, even if there were stretches that were boring me, but I was a total bookworm so I plowed through. You don't have to know how to pronounce the names, or understand the legendarium to enjoy this book, you're making a bullshit point there unfortunately.