To GtG

PY

Pydro

2015-01-11 01:33 UTC

#1

I was starting to re-read the Lord of the Rings, and I found a paragraph in the forward that I wanted to share:

JRR Tolkien:

The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short.

DO

Donner

2015-01-11 01:46 UTC

#2

Very well put.

SI

Silverleaf

2015-01-11 01:49 UTC

#3

Tolkien was a man who needed a much more ruthless editor. Longer =/= better.

GR

Greywind

2015-01-11 02:09 UTC

#4

Too many things were glossed over that should have been dealt with in more detail.

SI

Silverleaf

2015-01-11 02:26 UTC

#5

And far to many things that should have been skimmed over were described in loving and excruciating detail. I spent a good part of those books thinking, "This is irrelevant, get on with the freaking story!"

PH

phantaskippy

2015-01-11 03:11 UTC

#6

The story is irrelevant. Go take a walk and yell at things.

AR

arenson9

2015-01-11 16:55 UTC

#7

Different people like different things, of course.

I often read a book in a sort of a hurry -- 'What happens?!', I want to know. The first couple times I read LotR, then, I skipped over much of the descriptive text and pages of lyrics. Even so, one of the things I ended up enjoying the most was the sense of being embroiled in a vast world. A significant portion of my enjoyment came from the journey, not the destination. In a later reading I forced myself to slow down and really read every passage. Well, I tried, but didn't always succeed.

SP

Spiff

2015-01-11 19:29 UTC

#8

Did you guys really just respond to Tolkien's "haters gonna hate" speech by hating on LOTR?

RE

Reckless

2015-01-11 19:44 UTC

#9

Well, as we all learned from Shut Up and Sit Down, SotM isn’t actually a game…so maybe Sentinels is actually a novel for haters?

SI

Silverleaf

2015-01-11 19:56 UTC

#10

I didn't exactly hate, just expressed surprise that Tolkien's opinion on the length of the books is pretty much the exact opposite of mine.

PH

phantaskippy

2015-01-11 23:46 UTC

#11

So I'm guessing you are a Dickens fan?

SI

Silverleaf

2015-01-12 06:49 UTC

#12

Nope. I don't hate Dickens, but I think that's a way off being a "fan".

NI

Nielzabub

2015-01-12 07:00 UTC

#13

"A Christmas Carol" at the very least is actually a pretty short book and not that hard to read. I blasted through that in about a week or so.

GR

Greywind

2015-01-12 11:31 UTC

#14

That long?

NI

Nielzabub

2015-01-12 13:59 UTC

#15

I do most of my reading at work, and average roughly one book a week.