/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4475243]

80 pages in. This is fucking terrible. Does it get better? Is LOTR better?

[Anonymous No.4475249]

Terrible how? Better how? Vague opinions are worthless for advice.

[Anonymous No.4475257]

>>4475249
The prose is bad in every sense. It's pretty obviously a children's book. It has nothing to offer besides "this happened, then we went over here, and this is happening". Dialogue is really cheesy and hard to get through.

[Anonymous No.4475260]

>>4475257
>It's pretty obviously a children's book

Guys, I think he's on to something here.

[Anonymous No.4475265]

>>4475260
I knew it's a book for children. Now I know firsthand. But even things like Toy Story which are for children can be enjoyed by adults. This book even reads like a child wrote it.

[Anonymous No.4475266]

>>4475257
What is your idea of books with prose that is good in every sense? Recommend, man

[Anonymous No.4475275]

>>4475266
I'm not turning this into a debate over my favourite books. Point is, Hobbit reads like shit and was clearly intended to be read aloud to children. It's just too simple. It's the kind of story you learn to write in gradeschool.

I'm not going to go get the book to quote specific examples but chances are if you're in this thread you've read the book yourself.

[Anonymous No.4475285]

>>4475257
>reads a book written for children
>THIS SHIT SUCKS IT'S LIKE A BOOK FOR KIDS
Truly, your insight is formidable. I look forward to your piercing review of the Chronicles of Narnia.

[Anonymous No.4475289]

>>4475275
I have read the book. I finished it last night. I stayed up until 3am to finish it so that means I read 100 pages yesterday, and they flew by because I was so into it.

I sort of see where you're coming from about the prose being childish. But I don't think it's 'fucking terrible', just simple and whimsical. It's not that bad at all.

[Anonymous No.4475290]

>>4475265
>This book even reads like a child wrote it.
And just like that, I can't take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.4475292]

>>4475285
I've read Narnia. It was much better.

[Anonymous No.4475297]

>>4475292
I'm with this guy >>4475290
You're definitely a troll.

[Anonymous No.4475304]

>>4475289
Okay I was exaggerating. I was just so hyped to read this after finishing ASOIAF and it's been hailed as like... the modern fantasy bible. You can imagine my disappointment when the first 30 pages is just a bunch of dwarves eating.

[Anonymous No.4475308]

>>4475304
>after finishing ASOIAF
oh here we go

GRRM fanboys shit talking Tolkien because muh grit.

[Anonymous No.4475323]

>>4475308
Don't turn this into a flame war.

I just praised Narnia a post above so obviously "grit n grime" isn't the issue.

[Anonymous No.4475349]

>>4475243
OP I totally agree and have felt like a /lit/ outcast for so long. It's massively overrated and so is LOTR. It is not in any way shape or form good literature. It's average fantasy garbage; poor prose, convoluted narrative, shit characterization and low brow themes. I really don't know why /lit/ spunks over Tolkien so much.

[Anonymous No.4475358]

>>4475243
I never really got over the childish of the book and when he introduces one or two dwarfs at a time was just obvious and annoying and there were more things like that during the rest of the book.

I would probably suggest that you read it in a more relaxed way, maybe in a hammock or with some cognac ( or whatever you drink ).

[Anonymous No.4475366]

>>4475323
You praised Narnia over it because you're a troll. You complain about simplistic writing that gives you nothing and praise a book you can finish in an afternoon because of how devoid it is of substance.

So Tolkien simply describes events? At least you get events. Narnia goes from waiting in a train station to exploring a ruined castle in less than two pages. You'd think traversing a continent would be an adventure, not a paragraph.

[Anonymous No.4475367]

>>4475366
>a book you can finish in an afternoon
You can finish all 7 Narnia books in an afternoon? Impressed.

[Anonymous No.4475373]

>all these plebs calling Tolkien's prose bad
I'd love to see good examples of prose from you people.

[Anonymous No.4475374]

>>4475243
I'm right there with ya, OP. I disliked his writing immensely, and I gave up at around the same point. I don't know if it gets better and I've never read LotR because I hated The Hobbit, but I thought it'd be comforting to know that someone shares your opinion in just about the same exact way. It seems like a way older, less good (yes), high fantasy version of Redwall

You can't always trust /lit/; sometimes, they likes /shit/

[Anonymous No.4475376]

>>4475367
Easily. They require absolutely no effort or thought to read. You can breeze through the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe in 90 minutes because Lewis writes like he's afraid of taking root if he spends more than a paragraph on anything.

[Anonymous No.4475379]

>>4475376
So your afternoon is what, 10 hours long?

Anyways. Narnia and Hobbit isn't a fair comparison because Hobbit is one book where as Narnia is 7. Even if the prose is equally shite, Narnia is bound to have a greatly fleshed out world and narrative because of its length, something the hobbit doesn't have. LOTR and Narnia is a more apt comparison but one which I can't participate because I haven't read LOTR.

[Anonymous No.4475381]

You know OP, I love the Hobbit.. you know why? Because it's childish, it's not dead serious. You know what's fun about it? It's a pleasant read without any dark elements like ASOIAF and other fiction. It's light, it's fun, it has lyrics embedded in the story. If you don't like it, sure, don't like it, but don't bitch about it because other people like it.

[Anonymous No.4475383]

>>4475381
>don't bitch about it because other people like it.
Never did. Never said I didn't like fun either. I said I didn't like simplicity to a fault.

[Anonymous No.4475387]

>>4475379
>Narnia is bound to have a greatly fleshed out world and narrative because of its length
This has to be a troll.

[Anonymous No.4475403]

>>4475387
Narnia had a terrific world and sense of universe I don't know what you're complaining about.

[Anonymous No.4475415]

If you're reading The Hobbit and expecting Nietzsche, you will be let down.

Tolkien was a linguist and philologist. Aside from studying Germanic languages, he spend big part of his life constructing an artificial language. If you know something about linguistics, you can imagine how exciting that idea is.

I don't know much about it, but I think he started writing The Hobbit without any expectations. He wrote it because he wanted to write about the merry little fucks, dragons and orcs.

But it was a success and he was asked to write more, and that is how LOTR came to be: he seized the opportunity and used LOTR as a background to implement the languages he created.

At this point it probably became an obsession (not in a bad sense) and Silmarillion was inevitable.


Yes, The Hobbit is childish and it's not a literary masterpiece, but the complexity of the world, the mythology and the characters create a feeling of recognition. If you read Silmarillion, The Hobbit and LOTR, you will now and then stop and realize: "Wait, I know this place! This is where X happened so long ago!"

It's filled with this shit. The Hobbit is a great book for children.


Take it or leave it. There's a difference in saying "I don't like it" and "It's fucking terrible".
You're being disrespectful.

[Anonymous No.4475428]

>>4475415
Like when the hobbits are leaving the Shire in The Fellowship of the Ring and they stumble upon the three stone ogres. You realize that it's improbable but they are indeed the three ogres from The Hobbit.

Shivers run down your spine as you bathe in the nostalgic contemplation of being an old fuck: "I've seen some shit."

[Anonymous No.4475448]

Prose doesn't need to be complex to be effective. One of the charms of the Hobbit is that it's simple, childish, and frankly a joy to read. You shouldn't go into it expecting anything like ASoIaF because it was primarily intended for children and so displays a sense of whimsy and comedy. The dialogue I guess could be considered cheesy, but I like to think of it more as a sort of comedy of manners in how Bilbo is unable to turn away the dwarves and Gandalf as they basically destroy his home. I can't remember the exact pace of the book so I'm not sure how far 80 pages in, but it does get pretty exciting around the time the goblins show up.
I'd say stick with it until the riddling contest, OP. If you're still not a fan after that, you're not obliged to finish it by any means. Just try to go in a little less cynically.

[Anonymous No.4475449]

>>4475415

The Silmarillion was only "inevitable" in the sense that the 60s Tolkien craze, immediately followed by Tolkien's own death, demanded its publication. Most of the material in it actually originated before The Hobbit, let alone LotR, and although Tolkien continued to edit it basically up till he died, the base story of the Silmarillion is what Tolkien originally wrote as background to his constructed languages anyway. The Hobbit is a story for his kids, connected tenuously to the Silmarillion by odd name-drops here and there: Gondolin, the Necromancer, and so on.

In fact, Tolkien wanted to publish the Silmarillion following the success of The Hobbit. He got shot down because the Silmarillion is a big confusing book in an unusual style and his editors wanted something with more hobbits in it. You can guess what happened after that.

OP is just trolling if he thinks the prose is bad though. Tolkien, as usual, is economic and precise with his words and perfectly captures the sense of a tale being retold without his patronizing and matter-of-fact tone ever becoming wearing.

[Anonymous No.4475465]

>>4475349
>tolkien is bad BECAUSE he got ripped off often later
The guy that did it first cant be considered generic, thats common sense

[Anonymous No.4475469]

>>4475257
>It's pretty obviously a children's book

And a very good one at that.

I'd say it can easily run the gamut of being for a child right through to young adult and still be enjoyable.

There's nothing outrageously bad about it for the adventure he was trying to tell.

[Anonymous No.4475473]

>>4475358
>and when he introduces one or two dwarfs at a time was just obvious and annoying

It was lighthearted, slightly humorous a very nice way of gradually introducing his guests to the host.

[Anonymous No.4475478]

>>4475257
I disagree. I've read quite a bit of it in English (thirteen years after reading the hungarian translation), and it beats almost everything out of the water. The prose rolls off my tongue and it has the powerful rythmic feeling of a tale being told.

[Anonymous No.4475499]

>>4475257

[Anonymous No.4475515]

>>4475304
So you're telling me you read 5 books, 4000 pages in length, was so hyped that you looked upon a book that generally takers a modest reader 5 hours to finish...and you stop after 30 minutes of reading to complain about it?

Are you fucking serious? 30 pages and you're complaining. That's two ASOIAF chapters in length.

The book is about an adventure and world discovery. Maybe you should stick to murder mystery or shit to keep the buzz from ASOIAF going.

[Anonymous No.4475559]

bombo

[Anonymous No.4475578]

It's not terrible, it's just alright though and nothing amazing. I think it's better than Lord of the Rings though.

[Anonymous No.4475627]

>>4475448
Thank you

[Anonymous No.4475640]

>>4475515
Can you recommend some fantasy more in line with ASOIAF or perhaps a great murder mystery then ?

[Anonymous No.4475650]

>>4475640
Read Valerio Massimo Manfredi.

Yeah, a historical fiction writer whose main language is Italian who does some pretty good writing on the inner workings of such historical figures like Alexander, Caesar etc.

[Anonymous No.4475794]

>>4475465
I never said that. I didn't say he was generic I said he's overrated.

[Anonymous No.4475811]

>>4475794
Define overrated.

[Anonymous No.4475816]

you really have to read it while you're young for it to have an impression on you. if when you read about elves and think 'fuckin elves. they're everywhere these days' instead of 'what the hell is an elf' then it's been spoiled.

[Anonymous No.4475839]

>>4475811
Widely considered as having more talent, and producing better work, than he ever really had or did. As a writer Tolkien was very average at best. The reason he's considered great is that he invented a genre and is still the greatest example of that genre. It doesn't make it good lit simply because it's original.

[Anonymous No.4475846]

>>4475839

>invented a genre

Well, I can tell you must be an incredibly well-informed and intelligent individual.

[Anonymous No.4475853]

>>4475839
>The reason he's considered great is that he invented a genre

Every time

[Anonymous No.4476009]

>>4475846
>>4475853
Ok so if it wasn't Tolkien that invented fantasy as we know it today who did. I'm going to preempt some crazy answer like Homer or Gilgamesh - not fantasy, mythology. For all intents and purposes Tolkien ushered in fantasy writing as we know it.

[Anonymous No.4476041]

>>4476009
George R R Martin

[Anonymous No.4476077]

>>4476009

William Morris, George MacDonald, and Lord Dunsany were all fantasy authors that strongly influenced Tolkien. Tolkien did not "invent fantasy writing as we know it". He was a participant in a tradition of fantasy-writing that descended from the Gothic fiction of the 19th century. Please learn the background of what you are talking about before you make sweeping judgments of it.

[Anonymous No.4477856]

What I really like is how happily the elves sing in the hobbit.

None of the engrished anime songtrack the fangirls write.

[Anonymous No.4478033]

>does it get better?
No
>is LotR better?
its not juvenile like hobbit
it is another kind of bad