The Lord of the Rings

[Anonymous No.17956583]

Is this worth the hype it gets? I just finished the hobbit, and I’m about to begin this.

[Anonymous No.17956587]

>>17956583
He sneezed Finnish mythology over English frustrations.

[Anonymous No.17956594]

>>17956583
Is it up to the hype? Depends on who you listen to. If you’re listening to all the fantasy spergs who clamor over this because it’s the only half decent thing they’ve read in their lives, then you’ll find it to be overrated. If you’re just looking for a peak comfy time story, you’ll enjoy yourself quite a bit.

[Anonymous No.17956614]

I read it twice when I was like 8-14

I can't imagine ever reading it again t b h . Zero interest

[Anonymous No.17956628]

>>17956594
Good. I wasn’t expecting a masterpiece. I just want to read a solid comfy fantasy novel.

[Anonymous No.17956693]

>>17956583
Don't hurry through it.

You might enjoy the audiobook version by Phil Dragash.

[Anonymous No.17956752]

it really depends on how interested in the subject matter you are. for a lot of people I think it definitely wont live up to the hype. the silmarillion is pretty kino though and im honestly surprised its not more popular than LOTR because it has a lot more going on in its not as focused

[Anonymous No.17956799]

I started reading it this weekend. I'm maybe 150 pages in. The Hobbits met Strider, and are off to find Gandolf. Much further than when I last tried to read it about 15 years ago.

I am enjoying it, I just wish Tolkien wasn't so slow starting the story. And he wasn't so fond of prattling on about, essentially, inconsequential (at face value) stuff. That's, funnily enough, part of the book's charm. I prefer the Hobbit

[Anonymous No.17956810]

If you are going into it expecting something like some other fantasy novel you will probably not enjoy it. By the standards of modern fantasy and sci-fi, LOTR is quite strange. It's very melancholy, it's very slow and meandering, there is a lot of singing and poetry, and the action sequences do not take up a lot of the book.

Go into it like you are approaching a "normal" book. Don't expect it to hit beats. Expect to dwell in the world for a while. Enjoy it. You will like it.

[Anonymous No.17958123]

It's one of those rare things in pop culture actually worthy of all the praise it gets and more. Every page is good.

[Anonymous No.17958144]

>>17956583
You can just skip fellowship altogether. Two Towers even. Just read Return of the King. Mostly the end. Otherwise just watch the movies.

[Anonymous No.17958251]

>>17958144
Is this bait?

The book is one of the few that's simultaneously the best in its genre, and also the best selling/most praised. Very rarely does this happen, especially lately. The last time it happened in the music world was with the Beatles. Most of the time it's the chaff that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Beautiful world building and a masterful command of the English language. Some find his prose a bit slow to get into and a bit boring, but give it a chance. There's multiple passages that give me chills. My personal favourite is the last few paragraphs of the muster of Rohan in the return of the king.

"In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face. All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen. ‘You cannot enter here,’ said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. ‘Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!’ The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. ‘Old fool!’ he said. ‘Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!’ And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade".

I don't read much fantasy anymore, mainly history and philosophy, but I'll always love the lord of the rings.

[Anonymous No.17958275]

>>17956583
yes it's based

[Anonymous No.17958306]

It's one of the few times where a book is simultaneously the best in its genre, and the most praised. It doesn't often happen (the Beatles is another example), the most popular normally appeals to the lowest common denominator. Tolkien's command of the English language is masterful and when that's combined with his incredible world building you get a masterpiece.

My personal favourite passage is the last few paragraphs of the muster of Rohan in the Return of the king.

In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face. All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen. ‘You cannot enter here,’ said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. ‘Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!’ The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. ‘Old fool!’ he said. ‘Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!’ And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

I don't often read fantasy anymore, mainly history and philosophy. But the lord of the rings will always stand out as one of my all time favourites, I think I've read it 6 times.

[Anonymous No.17958409]

>>17956583
>Is this worth the hype it gets?
If anything, it doesn't get enough of it.

[Anonymous No.17958419]

>>17958306
>I don't often read fantasy anymore, mainly history and philosophy. But the lord of the rings will always stand out as one of my all time favourites, I think I've read it 6 times.
It's also perfect for a lad/lass like you, since it has all of that.

[Anonymous No.17958439]

>>17956583
Read LoTR as something like a travel memoir with a plot about a great evil in the background. In my opinion the joy of the book isn't the struggle with Sauron, but the fact that Tolkien writes in a way that makes it feel like he's actually visited the places, and is telling you about it after the fact. Read for the world, not the plot.

[Anonymous No.17958441]

>>17956693
Only upon subsequent "readings", LOTR should be experienced by actually reading it the first time around and really absorbing the book and all its contents. Immersing yourself in the world, pondering Tolkien's musings and standing in awe of it all.

[Anonymous No.17958801]

The LOTR gavebirth to the subgenres of "high fantasy", or the grandest, shinier kind of fantasy available. I'd say that it cant be too bad.

[Anonymous No.17958869]

>>17958251
>>17958306
Are these copypastas or something. OP here.

[Anonymous No.17958880]

>>17958869
No, some /lit/izens actually put effort into their posts and write more than the 200 character limit.

[Anonymous No.17958926]

>>17958801
>high fantasy
The distinction between 'high fantasy' and 'low fantasy' is murky at best–some distinguish the two by the amount of magic present in the story, and the role the magic plays–if there is a lot of magic, and it is widely used and very prominent in the world, then the story is considered 'high fantasy' whereas if magic is very mysterious and rare, and not widely used, it is 'low fantasy.' This is a problem, however, because that means that The Lord of the Rings would, in some capacity, be considered 'low(er) fantasy' because, while magic is very present in the world, it is very old, and very mysterious.

Some people use the tone of the story to distinguish it–if the story is very heroic, and features some force of 'good' against some force of 'evil' then it is 'high fantasy.' If it is more morally questionable or complex, where the heroes are not exactly very heroic, or the motives for their actions stems from some internal emotion, like greed, or lust for power, then it is 'low fantasy.'

[Anonymous No.17958962]

>>17958926
The second way of defining high vs low fantasy is clearly superior. As use of mere magic could involve itself in a number of fantasy genres. High fantasy needs a hero, and the plot mostly follows as some kind of quest. Magic is too narrow of a defining item to really provide the overall difference between subgenres.

[Anonymous No.17959050]

>>17956583
LotR is much better than the Hobbit. It reads less like a children's novel although not by a whole lot. Still, they are books to be enjoyed by all ages who like fantasy.

[Anonymous No.17959235]

>>17958926
Anything less than just viewing it as a spectrum always results in autistic debates over semantics.

[Anonymous No.17959955]

>>17956693
>audiobook version by Phil Dragash.
Good stuff. I've listened through it about 4 times in the past year

[Anonymous No.17959969]

>>17958441
>LOTR should be experienced by actually reading it the first time around and really absorbing the book and all its contents
Guarantee most zoomers started with the movies

[Anonymous No.17960770]

>>17956628
its a masterpiece at being comfy tho. sort of like Miyazaki t b h

[Anonymous No.17960790]

>>17958439
right, its a travelogue

[Anonymous No.17960801]

When did you start realizing that LOTR was stuffed with Christian/Catholic symbolism?

[Anonymous No.17960850]

>>17959969
I did as well because my father showed them to me when I was a little kiddo, but that doesn't ruin anything, and in fact it only makes the journey of reading them more rewarding once you realize just how much more there is to them that the movies, no matter how good they were, never possibly could have portrayed.

[Anonymous No.17960874]

>>17960850
It's actually really interesting to think about how reading the books generates different feelings than watching the movies.

For example, everyone knows about the charge of the Rohirrim in ROTK. In the movies it's amazing, but the scene in the books is at a whole other level.

[Anonymous No.17960876]

>>17960801
Once I realized that there's also a lot of Norse mythology in it, as well as other mythologies in general. Christian symbolism is just one of many Tolkien used.

[Anonymous No.17960908]

>>17960874
I actually loved all the quiet stuff in the books, the conversation between Treebeard, Merry and Pippin was so good, as well as all the Shire stuff on subsequent reading once you realize their function and just what a stark contrast they pose to the rest of the places in Middle-Earth the further you read. There's just so much that enriches the books and makes them a one of a kind experience that knowing all the broadstrokes doesn't ruin shit.

[Anonymous No.17961329]

>>17960876
>as well as other mythologies in general
What else is in it?

[Anonymous No.17961415]

>>17961329
Greek and Roman but it’s 99 percent Norse

[Anonymous No.17961424]

>>17961415
I've never noticed them. Anything in particular you're thinking of?

[Anonymous No.17961506]

>>17961329
German

[Anonymous No.17963045]

Yes

[Anonymous No.17964117]

>>17958869
No, but my WiFi is extremely bad because I'm at sea. So the first reply apparently didn't go through and didn't save as a draft. I repeated it again, sorry

[Anonymous No.17965460]

>>17956693
>Phil Dragash
Robert Inglis is better imo.

[Anonymous No.17965563]

The best thing about the books is how huge the world feels, my favourite part is beginning where the hobbits travel from the Shire to Bree.