StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who here is a fan of the Tolkien Middle Earth fantasy universe?

I have been ever since I first read The Hobbit back in 8th grade and then promptly proceded to read the rest of the series. I currently have The Silmarillion, but have yet to get around to reading it.

I have yet to read his work. Someday, though......

I've been a Tolkien fan ever since I've read a Russian translation of the Hobbit in the fifth grade.

The Lord of the Rings books were one of the books I used to learn English.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I was a very, very mild Tolkien fan before the movies. The movies rejuventated my interest in his stuff.

I was a fan from the books, nothing rabid but books I enjoyed nonetheless.

Haven't read the books yet. I won't until the last movie comes out. Then I will. heh. The two movies so far, are awesome.

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Haven't read the books yet. I won't until the last movie comes out. Then I will. heh. The two movies so far, are awesome.

You will be in for a surprise.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I am a fan of Middle Earth, but I hate what his son has done with the franchise since the Silmarillion.

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Haven't read the books yet. I won't until the last movie comes out. Then I will. heh. The two movies so far, are awesome.

Once you've read the books the movies become crap. Or you'll just hate the books.

I've really liked the books since I read the Hobbit in second or third grade (kid you not, my teacher wanted to read it to the class in fourth grade and borrowed the book from me to use). Read the trilogy, liked it. Silmarillion's too dense for me at the moment, since it reads so much like portions of the Old Testament, and that's my current field of study. Play and work should not be similar.

I hear a lot of shit from the rabid fans who were expecting something different from the movies. Oh well. Hopefully, I will be more surprised than confused. Although, by the time I get to reading the books, I will at least have FotR and TTT on DVD and by the time I get to the end, I'll have RotK on DVD. Woo. My biggest question though would be is the trilogy books. they had one book originally didn't they? If so, is it better to grab that and trudge through the thing, or just get the seperate books? Hell, I'll read it both ways. heh.

Read the books when I was 12.
A big fan, needless to say.
The movies are great, everything I hoped they could be.

Master of Ossus wrote:I am a fan of Middle Earth, but I hate what his son has done with the franchise since the Silmarillion.

To my knowledge all he has done is publish his father's notes and fragments created over his adult life. I rather liked reading the various versions that Tolkien created along the way. I particularly liked the little myth about the Valar being introduced to time.

DG_Cal_Wright wrote: My biggest question though would be is the trilogy books. they had one book originally didn't they? If so, is it better to grab that and trudge through the thing, or just get the seperate books? Hell, I'll read it both ways. heh.

It's not really a trilogy, that is, three separate and complete stories which can be put together to tell a bigger story. It is just a very long novel. The publishers were afraid it would be a flop. They were afraid that no-one would want to buy or read such a big book. Paper was expensive. So, they split it into three volumes hoping that smaller, less expensive books would be easier to sell. Tolkien was not initially pleased with the idea, but it gave him more room for his appendices.

It makes absolutely no difference whether you read it in one or three separate volumes. Smaller volumes are easier to hold. I would think that one volume in paperback would either have very tiny print or be so thick that it would fall apart very quickly. If you want to buy it, one volume would ultimately be cheaper, unless you get some fancy "collector's" edition.

Johonebesus wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:I am a fan of Middle Earth, but I hate what his son has done with the franchise since the Silmarillion.

To my knowledge all he has done is publish his father's notes and fragments created over his adult life. I rather liked reading the various versions that Tolkien created along the way. I particularly liked the little myth about the Valar being introduced to time.

All Tolkien's son did was gather up his father's notes, stories, maps, etc., and arrange them properly. He hasn't screwed with it at all...

I'll go against the grain and say that Tolkien is an overrated writer. Yes, he wrote a memorable story with mythic reach in LOTR. But you have to wade through a lot of shit to read it. Tell me there aren't sections in LOTR when you wish he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story.

Darth Wong wrote:I'll go against the grain and say that Tolkien is an overrated writer. Yes, he wrote a memorable story with mythic reach in LOTR. But you have to wade through a lot of shit to read it. Tell me there aren't sections in LOTR when you wish he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story.

A few parts dragged, yes. But there are parts like that in every book.
They did not detract from the story at all.

Darth Wong wrote:Tell me there aren't sections in LOTR when you wish he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story.

Honestly, no. If you think Tolkien's bad, try Dickens. In fact, there are a few things I wished he had descibed in more detail.

Pre-movie die-hard Tolkien fan. Don't like the movie. Tolkien's books are the A&O.

Been a Tolkien fan since I read LotR in the third grade.

Darth Wong wrote:Tell me there aren't sections in LOTR when you wish he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story.

There aren't sections in LOTR that would make me wish that he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story. Infact I think that he could have described a few things in even greater detail.
What really pisses me of is authors that do describe "things" (characters, surroundings Etc.) poorly.

I read The Hobbit as a 5th grade reading assignment. I read it in only 4 hours, much faster than my classmates Then my brother got it as a present for his 15th birthday. Naturally, I seized the chance. Last year, I saw FOTR(DVD) and loved it. I also saw the Rankin-Bass versions of the Hobbit and The Return of the King, but that's another story. "Where there's a whip, there's a way..."

Darth Wong wrote:I'll go against the grain and say that Tolkien is an overrated writer. Yes, he wrote a memorable story with mythic reach in LOTR. But you have to wade through a lot of shit to read it. Tell me there aren't sections in LOTR when you wish he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story.

I'm going to have to agree with DW here. I think the story is good and all the details Tolkein put into his world are great but when I read this series back in junior high I stalled out in the TT and didn't read the rest of the story for awhile. I like the FotR and RotK quite a lot but parts of the TT were boring. I found the LOTR ripp-off The Sword of Shannara much more entertaining at around the same time (although I liked the first two follow up books in that series more than tSoS)..

I should probably re-read them both and see if I change my mind since it has been awhile.

What I've sort of found interesting is how some people love the Simarillian. I've tried twice and found it extremely boring. There are some parts which pertain directly to the Hobitt and LOtR which are interesting but the rest is very snooze inducing. Considering my degree is in History & the Humanities that's pretty bad. I've read an awful lot of dry stuff and found it interesting but for some reason this didn't work for me.

Still, I think that it's cool that he built such a strong foundation for his mythological world but that doesn't necssarilly make all of it great entertainment on it's own.


I am hopefull that after the LOTR movie trilogy is done that they do go ahead and do some live version of the Hobitt. I liked the idea of a mini-series so the story can be complete but I think they could do it in a movie. The cartoon version from years ago is pretty good and it is extremely short.

Darth Wong wrote:I'll go against the grain and say that Tolkien is an overrated writer. Yes, he wrote a memorable story with mythic reach in LOTR. But you have to wade through a lot of shit to read it. Tell me there aren't sections in LOTR when you wish he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story.

I see your point. That's why, in my indoctrinated days I was into Narnia(WTF was I thinking?!). And I still can't stomach the Silmarillion. That book was like the Old Testament, but not as much gore and no murdering maniac god.

I read the entire LotR "trilogy" just before I went to see the first movie. Before that the book had been sitting on my bookshelf for a couple years, almost untouched. Pretty much the only things that bothered me in the books were some of the horrible songs. I love the movies as well.

Soon after I had finished reading LotR, I bought the Silmarillion, but I haven't managed to start it yet.

Darth Gojira wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I'll go against the grain and say that Tolkien is an overrated writer. Yes, he wrote a memorable story with mythic reach in LOTR. But you have to wade through a lot of shit to read it. Tell me there aren't sections in LOTR when you wish he would just stop describing every fucking little thing in excruciating detail and get on with the story.

I see your point. That's why, in my indoctrinated days I was into Narnia(WTF was I thinking?!). And I still can't stomach the Silmarillion. That book was like the Old Testament, but not as much gore and no murdering maniac god.

Hell, yes!

Beside that the poems were also quite boring in all the books.