Too Much Exposition

[Anonymous No.22106324]

I've been without internet these days and only my music streaming service worked, so I've been listening to The Fellowship of the Ring audiobook for the past days. I've must've heard about 4-5 hours worth of the audiobook, and only got to the part where Frodo awakes in Rivendell.
But it is unbearable how much exposition there is, Tolkien could not write a sentence without explaining who the father, grandfather and place where the grandfather fucked the grandmother of the character. When I write (of course, I am not and never will get close to Tolkien's writing), as per /lit/ advice even, I always tend to minimize exposition and have the reader discover the backstory, etc. With the character (if it is first person) or explain only the minimum to understand the story, with further exposition being made trough dialogue. What you guys think?

[Anonymous No.22106336]

LotR is not a blockbuster movie or a YA book, Tolkien writing at a leisurely pace is not a flaw.

[Anonymous No.22106344]

"Rules" like this are for redditors who suck eachother's cocks in restrooms through little holes. It just makes midwits who have the potential not to be midwits stagnate as midwits because they go everywhere with a bunch of retarded reddit paint swatches seeing if things pass the "no passive voice" and "too much exposition" test. LOTR has enchanted generations of childrens and adults and is deliberately written to match certain forms of storytelling, like all Tolkien's work. It's always possible that there are infelicities in his work but trying to suss these out by applying a template devised by some pseud redditor who should be executed is not the way to find them, that comes rather from decades of developing the necessary level of taste for having idiosyncratic preferences and opinions. Only someone like Borges is allowed to critique Tolkien for having "too much exposition" and even then he has to qualify it and nobody cares anyway.

[Anonymous No.22106355]

>>22106324
>>22106336
>>22106344
>Writers like Tolkien take you to the edge of the Abyss and point out the excellent tea-garden at the bottom, showing you the steps carved into the cliff and reminding you to be a bit careful because the hand-rails are a trifle shaky as you go down; they haven’t got the approval yet to put a new one in.
>The great epics dignified death, but they did not ignore it, and it is one of the reasons why they are superior to the artificial romances, of which Lord of the Rings is merely one of the most recent.
>The sort of prose most often identified with “high” fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies. It is soft
>Moderation was the rule and it is moderation which ruins Tolkien’s fantasy and causes it to fail as a genuine romance. The little hills and woods of that Surrey of the mind, the Shire, are “safe”, but the wild landscapes everywhere beyond the Shire are “dangerous”. Experience of life itself is dangerous. The Lord of the Rings is a pernicious con- firmation of the values of a morally bankrupt middle class. Their cowardly, Home Counties habits are primarily responsible for the problems England now faces. The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob — mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence — the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom “good taste” is synonymous with “re- straint” (pastel colours, murmured protest) and “civilized” behaviour means “conventional be- haviour in all circumstances”. This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil — but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure — because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders — if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we’re told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can’t be all bad.

[Anonymous No.22106371]

>>22106355
What a non-sensical, pretentious review.
>>22106344
Writing needs to be tuned, is not in rules, it is because what I've written in the past had too much exposition and bored me, even. I'm talking about the fact of the overexplanation of the story. While it fully immerses you in the world, it takes too much to advance too little.

[Anonymous No.22106405]

>>22106355
Shit take. Totally missed 99% of what lord of the rings is

[Anonymous No.22106439]

>>22106371
>>22106405
LOTR is the anti-epic
A kiddiefied, sanitised "epic" with prissy catholic values. It's precisely why E R eddison called tolkien and his novel "soft", and he was right
Tolkiendrones will seethe

[Anonymous No.22106921]

>>22106355
>The little hills and woods of that Surrey of the mind, the Shire, are “safe”, but the wild landscapes everywhere beyond the Shire are “dangerous”. Experience of life itself is dangerous. The Lord of the Rings is a pernicious con- firmation of the values of a morally bankrupt middle class. Their cowardly, Home Counties habits are primarily responsible for the problems England now faces.
Did this tard even read the book? The little guy ends up saving the world whilst another guy unites the land together. Nothing about that is cowardly or morally bankrupt. How do you get out that Frodo or the other hobbits were cowardly?
As to the modern politics reference, you can write this crap but they don't justify it and I don't believe it either.
Micro level, the shire needs protecting, macro level middle earth needs protecting. Both heroes accomplish this.

[Anonymous No.22107410]

>>22106921
It is literally morally bankrupt
The great epics end with their heroes dying. The great epics have their heroes as manly, fighting men
Tolkien's "epic" is that of a fat 50 year old man who doesn't do any fighting and instead gets off scott free at the end and gets to live forever
It's an anti epic
Real epics glorified war, valor, bloodshed. They were anti liberal, anti modernist, even if they were written by christians they reinforced pre christian, heric values
Tolkien's is the opposite. Tolkien demonises war for wars sake (unlike the actual anglo saxons) and chooses to show a bunch of fat lazy gluttons as his ideal society

[Anonymous No.22107416]

Frodo should have died at the end

[Anonymous No.22107478]

>>22107410
>>22107416

But Frodo more or less dies, he is permanently effected by the ordeal and ends up going to valinor/heaven on earth to recover, he doesn't have a happy life after. Frodo fights for his life against the corruption of evil, the fighting isn't done with a sword but in the heart.
How is that in any way anti epic?

[Anonymous No.22107489]

>>22107478
>But Frodo more or less dies, he is permanently effected by the ordeal and ends up going to valinor/heaven on earth to recover, he doesn't have a happy life after. Frodo fights for his life against the corruption of evil, the fighting isn't done with a sword but in the heart.
He lives forever
He doesn't die
>How is that in any way anti epic?
Did you ignore the rest of my post?
LOTR is in no way an epic
It is the anti epic

[Anonymous No.22107497]

>>22106324
I agree with you. Way too much description about the setting and direction. Half the book is literally just "the hobbits wound the hill, up the valley, wade through ford, through the gale, rested underneath the forest, wound the hill, up the valley..."
is crazy how repetitive it is but Tolkienfags can't take criticism well.

[Anonymous No.22107742]

Does the hobbit has as much exposition?

[Anonymous No.22107745]

>>22106324
100% disagree, but some narrators talk frustratingly slow, you could try speeding it up to 1.25 or 1.5x and see if that helps.
You also need to keep in mind that not only are you essentially reading a book about walking, but Tolkien embodies that with his writing style, the journey is the destination. If his writing style is filtering you then it most likely will not get better so you should try something else.

[Anonymous No.22107796]

>>22106324
go read gay erotica or something if you want less exposition

[Anonymous No.22108055]

>>22107410
>>22107489
>lives forever
No he doesn't. Valinor doesn't make mortals immortal. Only the elves are immortal there. Frodo still dies there.

[Anonymous No.22108117]

>>22108055
I don't give a shit about what you tolkien worldbuilding nerds state
For all intents and purposes he lives forever. he does not die tragically or valiantly like the heroes of actual epics do

[Anonymous No.22108124]

>>22108117
So?

[Anonymous No.22108130]

>>22106324
>audiobook
lmao, lol even.

[Anonymous No.22108137]

>>22108124
So LOTR is not an epic in any way
It's winnie the pooh masquerading as an epic

[Anonymous No.22108155]

>>22108137
Ok

[sage No.22108184]

>>22108137
I just looked it up. He's right. LoTR is not an epic.
>epic. noun. a story that includes the main character dying tragically or valiantly like the heroes of actual epics do

[Anonymous No.22108232]

>>22108184
Cope tolkiendrone
It is winnie the pooh

[sage No.22108253]

>>22108232
Winnie the Pooh was written by A. A. Milne. The Lord of the Rings was written by J. R. R. Tolkien. A. A. Milne is not J. R. R. Tolkien. They're different people. A. A. Milne was born 1882. J. R. R. Tolkien was born 1892. A. A. Milne is 10 years older than J. R. R. Tolkien. A. A. Milne died in 1956. J. R. R. Tolkien died in 1973. J. R. R. Tolkien lived longer than A. A. Milne.

[Anonymous No.22108705]

>>22108184
> The Illiad and the Odyssey aren't epics according to Angloid word technicality.
I hade anglo-saxons so much it's unreal.

[Anonymous No.22108722]

>>22106439
> noo you can't enjoy things
> homer and dante and cervantes and melville and all my other ebin novels were deleted as soon as LotR was published

[Anonymous No.22108729]

>>22106324
>listens to audiobooks
>admits it on /lit/

[Anonymous No.22108732]

>>22106355
>that Surrey of the mind, the Shire
Fucking Surrey? Absolute catastrophic fail.

[Anonymous No.22108747]

>>22108253
>tolkiendrones are this pedantic and autistic
LOTR is the equivalent of winnie the pooh
Childish and banal
>>22108705
The illiad and odyessy have books inbetween them missing, so the death of achilles is not included
Every other epic has their hero die or go away tragically at the end. From el cid to roland to beowulf to arthur, even samson, all the heroes die or face tragic endings
not with tolkien
his cuckservative brain cannot allow for actual heroism so in the end all the good guys will and get off scott free, evil is defeated forever, our main character, who is not a warrior but a wimpy hobbit, goes and lives forever
It's an anti epic
>>22108722
LOTR is an anti epic, an epic with all the epic parts removed and santitised, instead replaced with prissy catholic morality

[Anonymous No.22109111]

>>22108747
So you're telling me that if a story hits every checkbox for an epic and the hero doesn't die in the end, it's not an epic? That's the fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Anonymous No.22109134]

>>22108184
Source: your ass.
>>22108705
Calm down, he's a retard. The Iliad and Odyssey are the definitive epics.

[Anonymous No.22109139]

>>22108747
>The illiad and odyessy have books inbetween them missing
They weren't even books in their original form, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.22109148]

>>22109111
>>22109134
>>22109139
Nitpicking, tolkiendrone retards
LOTR will never be an epic
It's the product of a prissy cuckservative catholic who did not understand the culture and mindset of the anglo saxons

[Anonymous No.22109176]

>>22109148
>Nitpicking
>muh epic heroes have to dies

[Anonymous No.22109183]

[Anonymous No.22109196]

>>22109183
WE WUZ DÚNEDAIN N SHEEIT

[Anonymous No.22109493]

>>22109111
>if a story hits every checkbox for an epic
LOTR hits almost none

[Anonymous No.22109515]

>>22108184
Low-effort b8

[Anonymous No.22109521]

>>22106355
Moorcock's review is alright, but Edmund Wilson's one is even better, if you look it up online it's literally just shitloads of LOTRfags coping and seething over it and writing dozens of paragraphs trying to refute it

[Anonymous No.22109563]

Haven't read LOTR yet, currently rereading the hobbit. I notice that Tolkien hints at the real world quite a bit in the hobbit. Is this unique or do the other books do the same?

[Anonymous No.22109567]

>>22109563
It's unique

[Anonymous No.22109568]

>>22109183
It's even worse. They race swap their race swaps. Gandalf is shown as black and Asian. It's like they had a quota of what races had to be hit and it's kind of h8lariousm

[Anonymous No.22109574]

>>22109568
Gandalf has always been biracial in the book going by his titles, "Gandalf the White" and "Gandalf the Grey". It's not far fetched to believe that "Gandalf the Rice" and "Gandalf the Hood" also exist.

[Anonymous No.22109577]

>>22106355
>Marxist review of traditionalist literature
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.22109699]

>>22106324
Men aren't good authors. They can be pretty boring. They love frikkin' journeys.

[Anonymous No.22109701]

>>22109699
YWNBAW

[Anonymous No.22109730]

>>22109699
The books with the highest quantities of conversations and general socialfaggotry were written by men, I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.22109964]

You are listening to the Rob Inglis version, correct? You're not a faggot I assume.

Fellowship between Gandalf's long explanation to Frodo and entering the Old Forest is peak comfy reading in all literature.

[Anonymous No.22110235]

>>22109577
>LOTR
>traditionalist
AHAHAHAH
Tolkiendrones are delusional
>>22109176
You have never read an epic

[Anonymous No.22110241]

>>22109183
> the age of men is over

[Anonymous No.22110719]

>>22110235
neither have you, I'm sure you've read plenty of translated epics thoughever

[Anonymous No.22110821]

>>22110719
>neither have you, I'm sure you've read plenty of translated epics thoughever
I've read epics in my native language
unlike you

[Anonymous No.22110838]

>>22106439
>sanitised "epic"
Honestly, what does this mean? I hear this all the time but only from people who seem to want to feel smart and dignified because they've read the classics. Uh oh, a book written closer to modernity has all the same themes and motifs but doesn't require translations and ancillary study, my intellectual superiority it being threatened!

[Anonymous No.22110847]

>>22106439
>sanitised "epic"
Honestly, what does this mean? I hear this all the time but only from people who seem to want to feel smart and dignified because they've read the classics. Uh oh, a book written closer to modernity has all the same themes and motifs but doesn't require translations and ancillary study, my intellectual superiority is being threatened! People say things like it's not a 'genuine' epic but always fails to elucidate on what makes something genuine.

[Anonymous No.22110871]

>>22110847
>Honestly, what does this mean?
It's sanitised
>Uh oh, a book written closer to modernity has all the same themes and motifs but doesn't require translations and ancillary study, my intellectual superiority is being threatened! People say things like it's not a 'genuine' epic but always fails to elucidate on what makes something genuine.
No, there are fantasy books written before and after LOTR that are closer in tone to the real epics than LOTR will ever be
Like the worm ouroborus and the broken sword

[Anonymous No.22110880]

>>22110871
>No, there are fantasy books written before and after LOTR that are closer in tone to the real epics than LOTR will ever be

>People say things like it's not a 'genuine' epic but always fails to elucidate on what makes something genuine.
No, there are fantasy books written before and after LOTR that are closer in tone to the real epics than LOTR will ever be

Point in case.

[Anonymous No.22110886]

>>22110871
>People say things like it's not a 'genuine' epic but always fails to elucidate on what makes something genuine.

>No, there are fantasy books written before and after LOTR that are closer in tone to the real epics than LOTR will ever be
Such as? Point in case.

[Anonymous No.22110887]

>>22110880
>Point in case.
LOTR has none of the values of real epics
I'm not going to spoonfeed you, but anyone with knowledge of actual epics and sagas knows that LOTR is no substitute
There's the main fact that the epics glorified war and fighting for its own sake, while LOTR is anti war

[Anonymous No.22110890]

>>22110887
>There's the main fact that the epics glorified war and fighting for its own sake,
Lol

[Anonymous No.22110901]

>>22110890
>Lol
They did though
read the illiad or beowulf or the song of roland

[Anonymous No.22110902]

>>22110887
>LOTR isn't a substitute for epics
who cares, it was never supposed to be

[Anonymous No.22110909]

>>22110887
>I'm not going to spoon-feed your I'm only going to assert my position as true because it is okay!!!
>Epics = war good
hrm

[Anonymous No.22110914]

>>22110902
It was
Retard
Tolkien intended it as an "english epic"
Which is retarded becaue england doesn't need an epic, because the epic in question has no connection to england (unlike every other epic, which has a connection to its mother country), and because it fails as an epic

[Anonymous No.22110944]

>>22110887
too retarded, here's a free (You)

[Anonymous No.22111246]

>>22110914
Didn't you JUST make a post complaining about how it's full of english catholic ethics and values? Log off bro

[Anonymous No.22111263]

>>22108747
this guy didn't die

[Anonymous No.22111267]

>>22111246
how do you expect to get to the mind of someone who likely says "christofascists"? Giggles

[Anonymous No.22111332]

>>22108117
Frodo fades away into the pages of history, which is a fulfilling and suitable end

[Anonymous No.22111433]

>>22111267
>how do you expect to get to the mind of someone who likely says "christofascists
I never said this
You're a cuckservative papist
seethe more

[Anonymous No.22112475]

>>22110235
>this faggot is still here

[Anonymous No.22112484]

>>22109964
For me, it's when Frodo, Sam and Pippin are hiking through the Shire.

[Anonymous No.22112489]

>>22110235
I've read the epic faggotry that is your posts.

[Anonymous No.22113060]

>>22106324
Imagine Tolkien as an excited autist that spent years nay decades creating a world complete with languages and genealogies, and then who used his excessive knowledge of past stories combined with his own humble storytime tellings to his son as material in which to lead the reader, for a time, into another dimension and you might start to realize why so many are willingly drawn in.

[Anonymous No.22113196]

>>22110235
Irrespective of whether or not LOTR is traditionalist (it is, lol) I think we can all agree that "Marxist reviews" is going to be some dumb faggotry.

[Anonymous No.22113197]

>>22113060
Just reading his works is pretty inspiring for lore building.

[Anonymous No.22113199]

>>22110821
Icelandic?

[Anonymous No.22113232]

>>22106324
Tolkein didn't write LOTR to be listened to as an audiobook, so you're not really digesting or consuming it as intended, it would be like reading a movie script and wondering why it's so boring and dull.

[Anonymous No.22113240]

>>22113199
English

[Anonymous No.22113245]

>>22112475
>>22112489
keep on enjoying your winnie the pooh tier fiction, tolkiendrones

[Anonymous No.22113266]

>>22113232
LOTR could definitely be digested as an audiobook (from someone who has read it many times) but it would have to be a good narrator and a lot of the Audible narrators are shit.

>>22113240
The only English-language epic I'm aware of is Beowulf.

[Anonymous No.22113279]

>>22113245
Will do. Don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way out.