[ 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: 29 KB, 250x419, 23453436.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19539202 No.19539202 [Reply] [Original]

Holy fucking shit this is boring. I'm nearly 200 pages in. The little faggots just met Aragornin the Prancing Pony. Does this shit get any better and is it worth reading because FUCK this book is boring as SHIT up to this point. The barrow-wight part (and to a lesser extent the Tom Bombadil part) was more interesting because of the dream-like nature of those passages and the pretty effective horror aspect. Other than that this book is "they walked over a hill" 1000x in a row intermixed with twee british period tv-drama dialogue... "oh dear I couldn't possibly presume to have tea before you have some first my daerest friend oh dear me old boy...."

People love these books so much. It must get better. Does it get better?

>> No.19539322

>>19539202
>I want ACTION and I want it NOW!!! There must be no time for REST!!!
holy shit I can't even say filtered because you're way beyond that
but yeah they do cross the black riders and exchange blows two or three chapters after that.

>> No.19539337

>>19539322
I don't read "action" at all. I don't need action. I need anything interesting at all.
>then there was a hill
>dearest me let us have some tea but oh dear tomorrow we've got to head over the hill
not interesting. not worth reading.

>> No.19539353

>>19539322
If the dialogue gave a sense of the characters, if I had any reason to care about the characters, if there were even BASIC VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CENTRAL CHARACTERS, really if Tolkein would say anything about the characters other than elongated descriptions of their family trees, it would also help a lot. There's just so little of substance in this book and I'm so far in I have to wonder if the entire trilogy is a massively overrate pile of shit that normies just like because it never goes over their heads.
>dey wen ub hillll
>me know about dat

>> No.19539366

>>19539353
>There's just so little of substance in this book
100% filtered, it's amazing.
You need to go back

>> No.19539367

americans are a disease

>> No.19539373

>>19539353
>if the entire trilogy is a massively overrate
How can LOTR be overrated when it's the father of modern day fantasy? For virtually every nufantasy series (i.e. anything in the last 50 years), literally all of the tropes, character archetypes, and even fanastical races are pulled straight from LOTR.
LOTR is only "boring" to you because you've seen the story retold over a hundred times by inferior copies "inspired" by it

>> No.19539374

>>19539366
>>19539367
At least make arguments or give any examples of anything worthwhile that's appeared in this text up tot he point I've reached. If you have these strong opinions about it, surely you've read it thoroughly and often and can give me many strong examples.

>> No.19539377

>>19539202
Calm down, Lord of the Rings was just a meme series.

>> No.19539382

>>19539373
I've hardly read any fantasy actually.
>how can it be overrated if it's influential
Being influential and being good are independent dimensions.

>> No.19539385

>>19539382
How is LOTR good you say? The unprecedented worldbuilding, the loveable characters, and a memorable story.

>> No.19539405

>>19539385
>unprecedented world building
Impressive, neat, not necessarily good writing.
>loveable characters
see>>19539353
Tolkein says almost nothing about the characters and the dialogue presents them as absolutely one-dimensional, paper-cutout, children's-book characters.
>memorable story
So far barely any story at all other than "they went here and there and ate food a lot and sometimes there were scary horses at night". I'm sure the narrative as a whole is good by the end of the trilogy but I don't really want to read that much if it proceeds at the pace it is now. The lack of any concern for developing actual characters bother me a lot more than the lack of plot though.

>> No.19539418

>>19539202
Tolkien is bad, news at 11, there are many better fantasy writers that wrote before him

>> No.19539423

Yeah it's no game of thrones or drzzit novel, but it's ok

>> No.19539425

>>19539418
Please recommend some of the best. I seem to agree that Tolkien sucks so maybe i'll like your favorites better. Not so related but I'm currently reading Paradise Lost and I love it but it's pretty slow going because of how elaborate the language is.

>> No.19539470

>>19539374
lol no, it's obvious you're the one who needs to get a grip burgerfaggot

>> No.19539477

>>19539470
>lol like no way mannn like everyone says it's great man like i don't need to say anything mannnn like it's just OBVIOUS you're wrong and I'm right because like just google i man like everyone agrees with me
Wouldn't be at all surprised if you hadn't even read LOTR. Normie incarnate.

>> No.19539481

>>19539202
Retard, imagine how we felt. Those who've read this before the fucking PJ abomination came. Do you understand now how it was to see this kind of text turned into some action-packed vapid fast food shit?

>> No.19539493

>>19539481
If the whole story is as boring, full of irrelevant information, and bereft of exploration of character as what I've read so far, then yes, I can imagine what it would be like for the level of autistic no-life who would actually like such a book to see it adapted as hollywood poo. You must have been very upset. Book fucking sucks though (unless it gets better. I'll probably force myself to finish at least the Fellowship before saying fuck the whole thing).

>> No.19539494
File: 31 KB, 520x478, smug_terence-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19539494

>>19539477
>>19539470

>> No.19539519

>>19539367
4channers are cancer

>> No.19539684

>>19539425
Gods of Pegana by Dunsany, the Worm Ouroboros by E. R. Eddison, the short stories of Clark Ashton Smith (start with Dark Eidolon)

>> No.19540349

Based OP.
If you haven't already, read Hobbit, and put LOTR aside for now. Hobbit is much more compact and less pretentious. LOTR gets going after a while, the beginning is absurdly slow at first, and there are some sort of interesting characters later (mainly Gollum), but it's obviously better to get the essence of the writer's style before investing weeks into his biggest novels.
The Tolkien shilling you see on /lit/ is done either by "trad" larpers, or by /sffg/ leaks. Either of them can be disregarded, as you can see ITT they have no actual arguments.

>> No.19540940

I’ve never met anyone who really liked LOTR irl and wasn’t a fat smelly geek. Thus I refuse to read the books.

>> No.19540983

are you a woman?

>> No.19541042

>>19539202
I just started reading hemingway, just learned a greek was shot by an arrow. 10x more interesting.

>> No.19541215

>>19539202
Lmao no it gets worse, the third book is the worst because the two hobbits in mordor is 200 pages of walking and nothing happening

>> No.19541224
File: 130 KB, 1024x885, 1634362590610.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19541224

>>19539405

>> No.19541450

>>19541224
Tom Bombadil is pretty cool. Granted.
>>19540349
Already read the Hobbit in preparation for reading LOTR. Definitely less dragging than LOTR but the whole thing was really kiddy which I was expecting because I knew it was written for kids. Was hoping for LOTR to be less twee and kiddy but so far at least the hobbits all being a bunch of pansy little faggots makes it feel like I'm still reading a children's book.
>>19540983
Of course not you retard.
>>19541215
If I cared about the characters at all it would be easier to read that they walked here and there. Maybe I'd care about the characters by then but form the thread I don't hold out much hope I'll like the books enough to continue. I'll probably finish Fellowship and decide then.

>> No.19541947

Clearly it isn't for you. Put the book down and don't pick it up again.

>> No.19542158

>>19539405
I've heard it abridged, and it seems fascinating enough. The only problem is that the story is stretched over THREE FUCKING SHITTILY PACED BOOKS. I tried to trooper through myself, and I never made it through past the first book. Even the Tom Bombadil parts felt like an eternity, and I somewhat liked the bloke. I love the ideas Tolkien has in his world-building, but LOTR feels like a history textbook with the gimmick of being a narration. Some shit you'd read in school in an alternate reality.

>> No.19542186

>>19539202
Filtered. You’re too stupid for a 100 year old book lol

>> No.19542205

>>19541450
I was the same way. I got filtered by Fellowship as an early teen. I ended up reading the Silmarillion on vacation and made it through that easier than Fellowship. But once you get a bit deeper in, it really starts picking up. Second and Third books are such massive improvements its not even funny.

>> No.19542226

>>19542186
I'm reading a fucking 400 year old book right now and it's way better than LOTR in every way.

>>19542205
I've read most of the Silmarillion and I found it easier than LOTR. Maybe because I find his world interesting and wasn't expecting any kind of satisfying narrative. At least Silmarillion focuses on major historical happenings so there no time for Tolkien to write "they walked up a hill" as many times as he'd like. Is it possible I read the entire Fellowship and think it's basically shit but will still like the other two books?

>> No.19542227

>>19539202
zoom zooms must die

>> No.19542249

>>19542227
not a fucking zoomtard

>> No.19542253

>>19542226
>I'm reading a fucking 400 year old book right now and it's way better than LOTR in every way
No one believes you read

>> No.19542254

>>19542226
Hilariously, I had just finished reading Paradise Lost when I started the Silm because I wanted that "Creation of the world and its fall" shit again.
>Is it possible I read the entire Fellowship and think it's basically shit but will still like the other two books?
Tbh I think its shit until you get to the Fellowship setting out. And the other two books are amazing, they really don't drag on at all and feel like real novels, I would highly recommend you to keep pushing.

>> No.19542268

>>19542254
Heh yeah I'm reading Paradise Lost for the same reason I guess. I like creation of the world mythology. Thanks anon, seems like we have similar taste so I will keep reading but if the other two books suck I'm gonna be mad at you.

>> No.19542272
File: 170 KB, 1207x838, laughing turtle.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19542272

>>19542186
>>19542227
>>19542253
lmao fantasytards can't even deal with the reality that OP isn't as retarded as they are, how unexpected

>> No.19542297

>>19542268
I don't think you'll be disappointed. Its about expectations. The idyllic shire slowly falling away and the onset of the action is a lot better when you frame it as such. I definitely enjoy the fellowship more on re-reads.

>> No.19543436

>>19539202
Actually without a soul.

>> No.19543451

>>19539202
Tolkien is the unrivalled master of making reading enjoyable and pleasurable. If you can’t enjoy Tolkien than I just don’t know what to say.

>> No.19543536

>>19543451
Are you British? I find his dated British Downton Abbey speak annoying.

>> No.19543672

>>19543536
I’m Australian.

>> No.19543673

>>19542186
>100 year old book
>Publication date 29 July 1954

Illiterate poser detected. kys

>> No.19543915
File: 172 KB, 1400x2133, bored.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19543915

You're not the first to notice. This was published in 1969.

>> No.19543931

>>19543915
americans are anti-art, more news at 11

>> No.19544126

>>19543931
>lotr art

lol

>> No.19544403

>>19539202
Underage spotted

>> No.19544674

>>19539470
Embarrassing.

>> No.19544681

>>19543931
>lotr
>art
You're trolling right?

>> No.19544781

>>19539202
If you don't like it, don't read it. Are you dumb? I enjoyed all of it. Atmosphere is perfect. Tolkien knows exactly what he's going for and is not at all awkward or a bad prose stylist, as some claim, they simply don't like what he's going for. If you know historical lit, you will enjoy it.

>> No.19544786

>>19539382
Nothing that is good about Tolkien is adopted by nu-fantasy because they don't get it.

>> No.19544999

>>19543451
Tolkien is boring, get over it. His books have no depth. He gets lost in masturbatory world building, describing streams and roads and whatnot, but it all crumbles down really fast because his worlds are empty and his characters are no different from said streams and roads. They serve merely as a decoration.

>> No.19545820

Tolkienfags are so insufferable, especially when they from 4chan.

>> No.19545834

>>19539202
People who meme fellowship of the ring are high. It's the worst of the 3. That's not to say it's bad. It's just not as good as the Return of the King or the Two Towers. Theoden awakening from the spell over him is one of the best parts

>> No.19545842

>t. Filtered midwit

>> No.19546176

Have you first read the Hobbit? I personally would recommend. It's a children's book. Sounds like you would hate it.

>> No.19546959

>>19546176
I did read the Hobbit first. It was terrible mostly. Beorn is a cool character. It also got more interesting towards the end when war was threatening to break out over the treasure. Mostly a stupid kids book. Was hoping LOTR would be better. So far, no better.

>> No.19547158

>>19544126
>>19544681
Found the mutts