[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 23 KB, 386x580, giftset1vol-cover-rsz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1011635 No.1011635 [Reply] [Original]

Should I read LoTR if I've already seen the movies multiple times?

I know the books have a lot more in them than the movies, but is there enough to keep me interested since I know all the major events?

>> No.1011638

No. It's not really an events-driven book.

>> No.1011666

Sure. Read them. The movies left out a lot of the major events.

Not the least of them the wights of the barrow downs.

Also, there's the language.

>> No.1011688

No. Read a Song of Ice and Fire and get with the program.

>> No.1011693

Yes.
They're good and if you like fantasy you should read them just to know your roots.

>> No.1011701

You're someone who reads for plot, I see. I think for someone who reads for plot, The Lord of the Rings is a pretty unsatisfying novel. There isn't a LOT of plot in the book - the rails along which events will run are established early on and after that it's just a matter of taking the scenic route to encounter the inevitable conclusion. Read the book, perhaps, to understand how totally wrong the films are as any kind of tribute to, or expression of, Tolkien's crypto-fascist rural Catholic mysticism.

>> No.1011724
File: 54 KB, 300x355, Tom_Bombadil_faggotry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1011724

Read it so you can meet Tom Bombadil.

>> No.1012651

Read it so you can at least say you've read it. It's slow as fuck and kind of fatiguing, but worth the trouble for the use of language and the detailing of the world. Once you get past the first book, or at least to the Moria bit, the pace gets easier to cope with. The Tom Bombadil bit is especially awkward and doesn't really fit in the larger story, and this was my opinion long before even hoping for decent movie adaptations.

>> No.1012657

yes. they are amazing books, though a lot of people don't like the pace or style. honestly though, the only truly slow part is before rivendell.

>> No.1012684

no, unless you're already a hardcore reader

its a fantastic world which is terribly written and bogged down by details. Love the movies, honor him as a forefather of modern fantasy, but its not a good read;

I respect the invention of automobile, but I don't want to ride around in a model T

>> No.1012734

The movies are awful. If you like the movies, you won't like the novel, in all probability.

>> No.1012745
File: 18 KB, 210x251, 1278815033785.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1012745

>>1012734

>the movies are awful

>> No.1012746

Only read the books if you especially liked the films. As others have said, there's way more detail and history in them.

If not, try reading the Hobbit which is much lighter fare.

>> No.1012747

of course.

>> No.1012758

>>1012745

No, they distort the ethos of the books appallingly.

>> No.1012769 [DELETED] 
File: 881 KB, 1568x724, 1276786301190.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1012769

*That's why It hought that you were saying thatI said it.

>> No.1012791 [DELETED] 
File: 292 KB, 472x321, 1280122718926.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1012791

Try Wittgenstein's Mistress by David Markson, it's pretty obscure and fairly unusual

>> No.1012816 [DELETED] 
File: 391 KB, 1464x540, 1280061184637.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1012816

Visual novels == cartoons == >>>/co/ or >>>/a/

>> No.1012834

to me, tolkien was more of a linguist then an author, he was too bogged down with words for my liking, good read, but not great storywise, the films cuts out all that bullshit, but both have their pros and cons

>> No.1012841

>>1012834
>implying Tom Bombadil was bullshit

>> No.1012849

>>1012834

To me this is just awful. The whole point of reading Tolkien, the reason why The Lord of the Rings is a novel and every imitation has just been product, is that Tolkien was most interested in what narrative provided the pretext for, not in the mechanics of storytelling themselves.

>> No.1014053

Did someone on this thread seriously refer to Tolkien's writing as "poor"?

>> No.1014057

Haha, what's this shit about "Tolkien's crypto-fascist rural Catholic mysticism"!? Tolkien's most obvious wellspring was Germanic mythology, despite his blushing attempts at stapling some Catholic references here and there.

>> No.1014067

>>1014057
No, his obvious wellspring was Norse mythology.

Runes, elves, dwarves, he even said it in the intro (or prologue? forward? whatever it was) in The Hobbit.

>> No.1014170

>>1014067
Uh, you're obviously unaware that Norse mythology is a subset of Germanic mythology. :/

>> No.1014196

>>1014067
lol

>> No.1014232

People who think Tolkien's writing is bad are those who have to have action constantly shoveled down there throat.