[Astra]

Limaris said:

How sad that the (opinion, though mostly fact :-) I speak for those in the UK who voted LoTR to be the nations favourite book, out of all genres nonetheless!) greatest book ever written has been consined to a shelf that is rather neglected as opposed to being the centre piece of a room.

I would vote for The Lord of the Rings as the greatest book ever written.

There are many modern writers and lots of very interesting fantasy, however it cannot be compared with LOTR. You cannot compare any other work with this book. I have read so many interesting books/fantasy but I never come back to re-read them. I have re-read LOTR 4 times and I plan to do it again and again. I almost hate some chars in LOTR, bloody foolish hobbits who always win and powerful Nazguls (I am in love with them, look at my avatar, who is this guy? ) who always loose...but...but...I savor the details. I am in love with the language of the LOTR (you could learn to read in English just to read this book without translation!). Tolkien has created such complex and incredible world. Tolkien's "definition" of how much we should know about the Magic has become a standard for me (the less we know, the less we see its demonstration, the less we understand how it works (although sometimes it is frustrating), the better, it feels more like real magic).

Using the movie as an argument in discussion of LOTR is just too much for my liking. IMHO, the movie has very little to do with the real work of Tolkien. It is just a beautiful movie, nothing less and nothing more. I liked the movie until hobbits have arrived to Bree...at that moment I said to myself, what the heck!? Where is Tom Bombandil and River Daughter? Where are the Barrow-downs? I think I could rumble on and on...I will not. I see no point in discussing strong/weak points of LOTR in comparison with other fantasy works. Tolkien is sort of genius in Fantasy like let’s say C. Sagan in Astronomy.

Finally, this particular edition http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...0036670-0503135 is literally “the centre piece of a room.” While all my books are in new bookshelves with glass doors upstairs, this edition is on the shelf in the living room where everybody can see it. Each time I come to the living room to watch TV, I always see the book. Noone will ever surpass Tolkien.

P.S. I have known a guy from Germany, who used to start to read LOTR every year, in Spetember on Bilbo and Frodo birthday. He was very dedicated I have read the book only 4 times and I have also read the Silmarillion and the Hobbit and Unfinished tales only once. My point is that I am not crazy about Tolkien but I respect his work and I believe it is incomparable with anything else.

P.P.S. as about being unrealistic...hobbits resemble real humans. Real English guys that you can meet in a local pub in a small town or a village Not too bright, like to eat and drink, a bit lazy but generally a kind and friendly sort of folks

[Astra]

Danyah said:

Oh and Astra: Hobbits, Muslims, is there something you actually don't hate.

But hobbits were sort of stupid and cowards, how could they fool Sauron the Great? I was always on the Nazgul side.
IMHO only 2 guys from good side could withstand the Nazguls.
Maybe Legolas if he was of ancient breed of elves but I don't rtemember

Aragorn had a chance with a blood of Numeron in his veins and of course Gendalf, he was above any Nazgul because he was maiar.

Hobbits...they were disgusting from time to time. I disliked the relationship between Frodo and Sam. Why Sam called him Mr? I have read somewhere that Tolkien knew that some ppl will not understand it. I do not deem myself too bright, so ...well "hate" was a too strong word, but they were annoying quite often


as of muslims..well, I promise to reconsider my opinion when they stop bombing civilians in the USA, UK, Israel, Russia, Spain, and even other muslims (for example Egypt).

[Astra]

Danyah

do not try to provoke me :hand:
I will not discuss them anymore in this topic

I really like Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings.

[Astra]

You are right about "class issues" between Frodo and Sam. I don't like the concept. It was a matter of luck. If you were born to a rich family you had a chance to be educated, if you were not, you didn't have a chance and you had to work honestly in order to get a piece of bread. I respected Sam's self education much more than Frodo's. Frodo had everything in his life to be educated. He never worked hard in order to fend for himself. Sam had to toil and study at his free time. This deserves my respect.

Eowyn and Merry got the Witch King? Pure chance. While she was indeed brave and I liked her, except for her desire to marry someone who is socially higher than she, instead of somesone she could love (until Aragorn asked her to leave him alone), Merry was a dumb coward. He could not face the Witch King. He tried to hide. He was scared ****less. He didn't have balls to rise his head and come to a honest battle with the Witch King like Gendalf or Eowyn. He just used a moment when the Witch King was a bit distracted by Eoywin and pocked his sword in (2 against 1, very brave)...again lucky that Tom Bombandil has rescued his ass and has given him a special sword forged by elves. Hobbits were hiding behind the backs of their bigger friends all the time.

You never know whether Witch King would defeat Gendalf at Minath Morgul Gates. He thought he is capable, but Gendalf was maiar, infinitely more powerful than a toy of another maiar. Gendalf was tired but I personally believe Gendalf would prevail.

This is a poor excuse: hobbits were so useless because they have never faught in their lives and never held a weapon. Why? They were completely ignorant about the world around them, they didn't want to know what is going on around them, thanks to Rangers who were protecting them. They were too lazy to rise their asses and train themselves to use a sword for example. It is much better to smoke instead, let the big folks do the dirty job of defending them. After all, if one cannot defend himself or use any weapon, it doesn't make him hero if he dies trying to defend himself, it just makes him a weak person who never spent his time to prepare himself for the world and never learned how to defend himself and his friends.

Hobbits could withstand the power of the Ring longer than anyone else only becayse when the Ring was forget Sauron didn't know about their existance, so they had a natural resistance in their blood. It was not an accomplishment. Say when Eowyn could defeat an armed man, that was an accomplishment, because it was a result of hard work. It is like Legolas who was not afraid of dead spirits of men. Did it make him very brave? No way. Aragorn and Gimli, they were brave, because they faced their fears and conquered them.
I look at hobbits as useless and heavy luggage that others had to take with them as sort of safe box.

All in all, I did feel for them when they have returned to Shire. I liked the way they dealt with orcs and it was a hard moment when Forodo left Middle Earth. I think I knew how Sam felt at the moment.

By the way, why are you surprised that I like the book even if I dislike hobbits? That was my whole point, you may dislike some chars in LOTR you may dislike many other things about it but in the end you return to the book and start to read it again, while other fantasy works may have dozens of chars that you are in love with, but the moment you close the book you forget about them. I think that's where Tolkien's genius lies. He has managed to create a book that attracts you. Its world and races and history. He even managed to make you care and feel for chars that you dislike

[Werthead]

Yes, the relationship between Frodo and Sam was based on the relationship between a WWI officer and his batman. Not quite a knight-squire relationship, although there are similarities (friendship and affection, sometimes even as equals, but always respect from the 'lower-class' member of the pairing).

GRRM is showing a similar relationship building between Dunk and Egg in the ASoIF prequels, although that is more complicated because Dunk is Egg's hierarchal superior (Dunk is a knight, Egg his squire) but social inferior (Dunk is a hedge knight, Egg is a member of the ruling Targaryen family).

[Astra]

Sonnyboy Oh well, I can imagine if we were playing a role playing game based on LOTR, you would be either hobbit or ranger.....you know when I played, I was Morgul Mage Believe me every person who was behind the Society of Morgul Mages in this game loved LOTR as much as any player who has chosen to be a hobbit, or maybe even more

[Tsundoku]

Brys said:

Overanalysis? That just reminds me of Duh, Tell Us About The Rabbits, George

*rant*
Interesting diatribe. I'd take it much more seriously if he didn't reiterate ad nauseam his delightful intellectual snobbery. Reminds me of the Klanners he compares some readers to. But the irony would be lost on him, I think.

My apologies for not meeting your high standards of discourse. I have - from time to time - lamented my frustration at my inability to articulate my thoughts to my satisfaction, but I dare say you wouldn't either be aware of this, or care.

Carefully note I drew a distinction between analysis and overanalysis. Yes, it is subjective and I understand that. However, I was trying to draw a parallel with what _I_ perceived as "overanalysis" and the feelings it evoked in me as a captive student years ago. Or didn't you get that?

I dare say Hal Duncan enjoys analysing everything he reads to the level of The Bible Code. Good for him. I prefer not to, because sometimes I just like to be entertained by a fun story. I also like the odd "big explosions/fx bonanza" kind of megaplex pap for what it is, and if there is the occasional oblique reference in there to The Iliad (not impossible, merely improbable), I may just miss it first time out. Is that OK?

Also, perhaps standards of critical review have changed somewhat over the last ... what ... 40 years? It's like politics - stop trying to apply contemporary thinking and standards to dated concepts and works. Maybe that's the historian in me. 20-20 hindsight and all that.

Of course, this is just my simpleminded subjective view of your post in which you SEEM to compare me with the objects of Hals' venom. If I was too stupid to spot the implied praise instead, I deeply apologise and thank you from the bottom of my shallow, shallow heart.

I also find it amusing that Hal wrote his piece (and probably rewrote it a few times, as he appears to be a bit of a fanatic in that case, but I could be wrong) and obviously wasted so much time on it, he might not be aware that it comes across as a little ... disproportionate, and actually serves to add to the point of those he seems to despise - is the effort really worth it for what you get out of it? Considering his audience - maybe. Considering those he lambasts will never gain from it, I'd have to say no.
*/rant*

Apologies for grammatical errors, spelling, structure etc. I'm just not that much of a writer sorry. Perhaps I should do a course?



Cheers,

La Sombra, agrees that on occasion, a cigar might just indeed be a cigar, Sigmund.

PS - further apologies to all for the off-topic post.

[Astra]

Quote

Also, about Sam's education -- it was given to him for nothing by Bilbo.

Yes. However, Sam could just ignore it. Like the rest of the hobbits after a working day go to the inn and drink beer over there. He has decided to educate himself. Frodo could have both, he could study all day long then go to the inn and have beer with friends. Studying and working is much harder than just studying, thus I think Sam's accomplishment is more significant than Frodo's.
I cannot say I liked Sam more than Frodo. If Sam has accepted servant's role it is his problem. I almost liked Frodo, he had some nice traits

Eowyn&Merry: If Eowyn had a Rohirrim riding on the same horse, then it would be Rohirrim close to Nazgul. Nothing unusual (nothing unusual about courage of Merry that is. Of course there was a very slim chance that the halfling would be there along with a human woman to fullfill the prophecy, and it happened!).

Last but not the least: No hobbits in LOTR? No no no. They must be there to remind us about ourselves

[Brys]

Sombra said:

*rant*

....

PS - further apologies to all for the off-topic post.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to compare you directly to the objects of his vitriol in that diatribe, but I was trying to make the point that a lot of the time when we say that someone else is overanalysing, we're just ignoring their points rather than addressing them properly. Hal Duncan just puts it in a much more interesting way. The argument "reading too much into it" or "overanalysing" seems like a cop out to me.

[Morgoth]

*chuckles*

Makes me giggle every time

[Morgoth]

he probably burned them all

[Limaris]

I dont seem to be able to keep up with you guys, again another set of fantastic posts. I hope that I will have some time to site down and respond to them all. Keep going!!

astra i'm glad we are in agreement! :-)

[Tsundoku]

Brys said:

Sorry, I wasn't trying to compare you directly to the objects of his vitriol in that diatribe, but I was trying to make the point that a lot of the time when we say that someone else is overanalysing, we're just ignoring their points rather than addressing them properly. Hal Duncan just puts it in a much more interesting way. The argument "reading too much into it" or "overanalysing" seems like a cop out to me.

That's fair enough. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation and communication. Pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to ...

Back on topic, specifically Hobbits:
I always saw the Shire as Tolkiens' idealised pastoral existence, far away from worries about such terrible things as wars. Not isolated, just far enough away such that everything troubling you hear about is "over there somewhere". Which is why the end of the LotR brings it home to the hobbits, literally. I kind of saw this as Tolkien basically saying you can't escape the truly awful stuff going on - like the English (and other countries) villages where whole generations of young men were wiped out and the only thing left was a cenotaph. I think just from this virtually in isolation from the rest of the events of the book we can glean he wasn't exactly enthralled by war. What it says about his attitudes towards industrialisation, city migration etc is something for someone else more conversant with the books to describe.

Just my take. Probably wrong.

Back on the original question from Limaris:
They're too different for me. I prefer Erikson, because I find it a bit more accessible - contemporary. Sometimes Tolkiens' writing style becomes a bit overblown for me, especially in the FotR, where very little happens compared to the next 2. OK, I confess I loved the epic battle scenes, which Erikson also does very well - conveying a sense of scale and horror without turning it into a technothriller (bogged down in details a la Tom Clancy). I still enjoy LotR very much and it will always have a special place for me, but on balance I prefer MBotF, possibly because Tolkien set the modern standard that other subsequent authors have learned and extrapolated from, in SE's case to incredible effect. Perhaps if SE had written first as the old master and Tolkien was writing now, this discussion might be inverted?

Cheers,

La Sombra, is sometimes attracted to that kind of life (briefly) given what goes on in the world at large. But in the end I doubt I could completely escape it.

[Limaris]

Cheerleader my arse! If I find out who...they'd better run for it...I will quite simply fong you.