Tolkien, Overrated?

[TuryScrema]

In my life I have never encountered a more detailed or broadly designed multiverse than LOTR, and the core STORY itself I enjoy; but that's where my enjoyment ends. I hate Tolkiens writing with a passion so great, that I failed a test in high school because I refused to read his books. I very nearly swore to never see the movies, until I was informed the dialogue had been completely redone.

 

[ENKC]

I have read LotR and found it to be achingly disinteresting. I have read my share of long books in my time, but none which I considered so dull. Perhaps I just found it hard to be impressed by ZOMG HELMS DEEP when I liked to read about the battles of Alexander and Hannibal. They defeated more dudes in single battles than Sauron did in his lifetime.

Yes, I know the battling was only one aspect. I'm just saying that for me I found it hard to consider the scale of the stories as truly 'epic' by comparison to actual history.

 

[Nexoram]

I'm a pretty big fan of fantasy yet I hate the Lord of the Rings books and most of Tolkien's other books. To many of my friends who are also fantasy fans this is like blaspheme and I have on quite a few occasions had to defend my opinion in heated argument form.

My problem with Tolkien is I feel that he draws things out, especially descriptions. Also he has gone so in much detail that it kind of ruins the experience for me. It's one thing to develop you're world but there is such a thing as over developing it. It makes it so the reader is less involved in the telling of the story, you can't even think about what the rock looks because he has already spent half a page describing it.

How do you feel about Tolkien? What other writers do you feel are overrated and why?

Edit: I'm not refuting Tolkien's contribution to fantasy as a genre In fact I have admitted that he was a major influence to many of the best authors of our time.

Grim i agree with you 100%, I've read The Hobbit and all three books of the main LOTR trilogy but i couldn't get into it because of the huge boring bits of detail Tolkien puts into them. Most writers would probably provide 1-2 maybe at most a paragraph of detail about something or somewhere but Tolkien pushes the limit to an entire page. The hobbit I found alright but the rest of the LOTR series, i had to literally force myself to read on because I hoped i would eventually like it. (I didn't) As for the movies... who didn't like them?

 

[tintaman]

+1 Internets to the person who mentioned Beowulf, was definitely one of Tolkiens bigger influences. As to the OP? Despite the fact that LOTR is probably one of my favourite books, I can see your point. Personally I love overly descriptive writing (Peter F Hamilton, Tolkien, Charles Stross etc.) but that's just because I'm a bit weird, it's certainly not for everyone. Overrated though? By his fans maybe, but that's the same for...well pretty much everything that has fans.

 

[GrimTuesday]

+1 Internets to the person who mentioned Beowulf, was definitely one of Tolkiens bigger influences. As to the OP? Despite the fact that LOTR is probably one of my favourite books, I can see your point. Personally I love overly descriptive writing (Peter F Hamilton, Tolkien, Charles Stross etc.) but that's just because I'm a bit weird, it's certainly not for everyone. Overrated though? By his fans maybe, but that's the same for...well pretty much everything that has fans.

What I'm talking about when I say overrated is he is often held up as the epitome of fantasy writers even thought they are plenty who are better at crafting a story than he is. Yes he was a spectacular world builder but his stories suffered because of it.

 

[The_Echo]

I tried reading The Hobbit once upon a time. I got to the dwarf party (were they dwarves?) and got so bored I think my brain started to leak out of my ears. I was not a big fan of the pacing. Oh well. I was never too interested in Middle Earth to begin with.

Yeah, Tolkien definitely impacted the world of fantasy literature in a big way, but to me personally, I don't find it all that great.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I still think The Hobbit was a better read, I thought LOTR was much harder to read.

 

[binvjoh]

DEMS FIGHTIN WORDS BOY!!!
OT:I absolutely adore Tolkien I've read everything by him and The Silmarillion is absolutely my favorite piece of literature.Everything about his world and what he's done with it just fascinates me.

You could stand reading Silmarillion? I only lasted like three pages.

 

[Rararaz]

To be honest I think that the Lord of the Rings films have contributed to Tolkein's books being approached from a less literary angle than it should be as it is a book and one that was written 70 years ago. It is fine to not enjoy any piece of work but to suggest that Tolkein was overrated because you do not enjoy his writing style is a ludicrous statement. Tolkein does not have "pacing" issues, he simply wrote in a very descriptive style that due to people seemingly having shorter attention span comes in for critisism that it should not.

I have read LotR and found it to be achingly disinteresting. I have read my share of long books in my time, but none which I considered so dull. Perhaps I just found it hard to be impressed by ZOMG HELMS DEEP when I liked to read about the battles of Alexander and Hannibal. They defeated more dudes in single battles than Sauron did in his lifetime.

Yes, I know the battling was only one aspect. I'm just saying that for me I found it hard to consider the scale of the stories as truly 'epic' by comparison to actual history.

Just checking because I am confused, are you saying that a book's "epic-ness" is judged by how many people are killed in it?

 

[Ampersand]

Yeh, I love Tolkiens books and even I know that he's over rated. It's just because he's the one fantasy writer that people who don't normally read fantasy novels actually know about. It probably has something to do with the hole, hugely successful movie franchise thing.
It's not a mystery.

 

[ENKC]

To be honest I think that the Lord of the Rings films have contributed to Tolkein's books being approached from a less literary angle than it should be as it is a book and one that was written 70 years ago. It is fine to not enjoy any piece of work but to suggest that Tolkein was overrated because you do not enjoy his writing style is a ludicrous statement. Tolkein does not have "pacing" issues, he simply wrote in a very descriptive style that due to people seemingly having shorter attention span comes in for critisism that it should not.

I have read LotR and found it to be achingly disinteresting. I have read my share of long books in my time, but none which I considered so dull. Perhaps I just found it hard to be impressed by ZOMG HELMS DEEP when I liked to read about the battles of Alexander and Hannibal. They defeated more dudes in single battles than Sauron did in his lifetime.

Yes, I know the battling was only one aspect. I'm just saying that for me I found it hard to consider the scale of the stories as truly 'epic' by comparison to actual history.

Just checking because I am confused, are you saying that a book's "epic-ness" is judged by how many people are killed in it?

Of course not. I had thought I even spelled that out. It's a matter of scale. LotR is supposed to be a breathtaking epic, and yet I found little in it that approached real events from history in that regard.

 

[Rararaz]

To be honest I think that the Lord of the Rings films have contributed to Tolkein's books being approached from a less literary angle than it should be as it is a book and one that was written 70 years ago. It is fine to not enjoy any piece of work but to suggest that Tolkein was overrated because you do not enjoy his writing style is a ludicrous statement. Tolkein does not have "pacing" issues, he simply wrote in a very descriptive style that due to people seemingly having shorter attention span comes in for critisism that it should not.

I have read LotR and found it to be achingly disinteresting. I have read my share of long books in my time, but none which I considered so dull. Perhaps I just found it hard to be impressed by ZOMG HELMS DEEP when I liked to read about the battles of Alexander and Hannibal. They defeated more dudes in single battles than Sauron did in his lifetime.

Yes, I know the battling was only one aspect. I'm just saying that for me I found it hard to consider the scale of the stories as truly 'epic' by comparison to actual history.

Just checking because I am confused, are you saying that a book's "epic-ness" is judged by how many people are killed in it?

Of course not. I had thought I even spelled that out. It's a matter of scale. LotR is supposed to be a breathtaking epic, and yet I found little in it that approached real events from history in that regard.

Apologies, my bad in that case.

 

[The Cheezy One]

He created his own world. If you had to describe everything in your country, it would be a touch drawn out, wouldn't it?
If you think that it is too austere, go for The Hobbit. It is basically LotR lite.

But worldbuilding alone, one could argue, does not necessarily make a great novelist.

There are plenty of great writers who set their stories in their own neighborhoods, and there are many very creative minds and world builders who would never get a novel through any publisher because they do not understand how to tell a story.

Now, of course Tolkien is not an extreme case, but a good example to illustrate how worldbuilding and storytelling are not necessarily reliant on each other. I agree, the world he created is amazing and he himself has displayed more interest in building that world rather than telling a story within it. Unfortunately, there is neither a good market nor huge prestige in writing mere descriptions of worlds, so he had to embed it in a story.

And the story, again, well, is not the best thing ever written in Fantasy. Is it entertaining? Sure. Is it interesting? Yeah. Is it influential? No doubt. However, the story takes the back seat with the world riding shotgun. That is something one has to keep in mind. Tolkien was a brilliant world builder, but an average storyteller.

I am re-reading the LotR as we speak write.

The thing is, it isn't a story, but a Chronicles. It describes the events of a small group, heading east to destroy a trinket. The story takes a back seat to the world, because the world is so much bigger.

But I agree, making your own world does not make you great - but there is making your own world, and there is creating it. Lloyd Alexander, writer of the Prydain chronicles - most famous for the animated film the black couldron, based on a crush of 5 of his novels. He made his own world, but, after the inevitable comparison with Middle-earth, it is quite badly written, despite having a very fast (By Tolkiens standards) and interesting plot. There is so little description of the world, I have no way of knowing where the characters are, how many people are involved in a fight or how far apart places are. As long as you are awake enough in LotR, you will always understand where they are and where they are going.

But there is another comparison that hits the Worldbuilder from a completely different angle - Terry Pratchett. A genius among men - he creates a world by providing very little description, and letting our minds fill in the rest. Because everyone knows what Colon looks like, and everyone agrees with the general description - but very rarely is he actually described - just a fat local bobby - but everyone knows what a fat local bobby should look like, so it fits so well, because - well, let me put it this way:
Tolkien expands our minds to fill in his world, but Pratchett adjusts his stories to fit in our minds perfectly. Which is better? Can one be better than the other?

I am really enjoying this! I very rarely get literary discussions
/swirling brandy in a glass

 

[Tharwen]

You forget that the books were written in the 30s/40s, when words were valued almost as much as currency.

Almost any book written before about 1960 will contain descriptions almost as long as a... really long thing.

Also, the genre has been flooded with writers since he first published the series, so his ideas don't feel original. Still, if you don't like his writing style, I won't try to make you read them. Read what you want.