Standing the Test of Time

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby Tonyblack » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:25 am

I'll probably annoy a few people here by saying this, but I don't think Lord of the Rings has a lot of depth either. Sure it's an epic tale and mostly very well written, but parts of it are as boring as hell and almost totally pointless to the plot. I found it a lot harder to relate the characters with humanity than I do with DW books.

I'll go back to Swift here and say that his characters in Gulliver are far more recognisable as 'us' than Tolkien's. Tolkien has become dated in a relatively short time.

Having said that - I've only read LoTR once and I'm not in any great hurry to read it again, so maybe it's unfair of me to make the comparison. :P
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28922
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby inca » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:21 pm

Tonyblack wrote:I'll probably annoy a few people here by saying this, but I don't think Lord of the Rings has a lot of depth either. Sure it's an epic tale and mostly very well written, but parts of it are as boring as hell and almost totally pointless to the plot. I found it a lot harder to relate the characters with humanity than I do with DW books.


I totally agree with you - it is the exact reason Tolkien was on my mind.
(I do reread Tolkien occasionally though.) But whatever its flaws, it is still a classic. The impact of the book can't be denied and it is not fading into oblivion soon.

I also think books, stories, (but also movies and music) can deliver on many levels. Pratchetts books are great on parody and fun, with lots of teasers for mind and intellect. They have great insight in society. But they appeal less to certain emotions: I've never cried because two people loved each other so much, or sat and read with my heart rate up from tension. LotR on the other hand, I would qualify it more like a scenic walk, enjoying the views rather than the story. (And not even because they are so very well described but because they resonate somehow.)
There are all sorts of needs my mind has, some intellectual, some emotional, some other, and I feed them with different books and stories and music. And I think on all of them, there can be some classics that will stand the test of time.
inca
New member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:01 pm

Postby raisindot » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:40 pm

Tonyblack wrote:I'll probably annoy a few people here by saying this, but I don't think Lord of the Rings has a lot of depth either. Sure it's an epic tale and mostly very well written, but parts of it are as boring as hell and almost totally pointless to the plot. I found it a lot harder to relate the characters with humanity than I do with DW books.

I'll go back to Swift here and say that his characters in Gulliver are far more recognisable as 'us' than Tolkien's. Tolkien has become dated in a relatively short time.



Wow, still haven't seen the lightning bolt from JANus yet. :)

So maybe it's safe to say I totally agree. It's a great tale, but the characters have as much depth as flypaper, the dialogue is as stilted and wooden as the walking trees, and hundreds of pages consist of little more than geographical walking tours. It's like reading the lyrics of a 300-hour Yes album.
raisindot
Member
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby Sjoerd3000 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:43 pm

Tonyblack wrote:I'll probably annoy a few people here by saying this, but I don't think Lord of the Rings has a lot of depth either. Sure it's an epic tale and mostly very well written, but parts of it are as boring as hell and almost totally pointless to the plot. I found it a lot harder to relate the characters with humanity than I do with DW books.

I'll go back to Swift here and say that his characters in Gulliver are far more recognisable as 'us' than Tolkien's. Tolkien has become dated in a relatively short time.

Having said that - I've only read LoTR once and I'm not in any great hurry to read it again, so maybe it's unfair of me to make the comparison. :P


I agree :P Especially the first book is a bit boring :wink:
A poster outside one shop urged people to Dig For Victory, as if it were some kind of turnip.
User avatar
Sjoerd3000
Member
 
Posts: 8797
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:23 pm
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

Postby Tonyblack » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:46 pm

I could have happily throttled Tom Bombadil. :lol:
"Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to."
User avatar
Tonyblack
Moderator
 
Posts: 28922
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Postby ChristianBecker » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:16 am

Hey!
On with their heads! I'm the clown prince of fools
if you don't get the joke it's your loss
Love and laughter you see are the new currency
'cause greed's coinage is not worth a toss

Exile yourself to the unforgiving continent of Wraeclast!
User avatar
ChristianBecker
Member
 
Posts: 4137
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:21 pm
Location: Bingen

Postby Doughnut Jimmy » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:08 pm

Tonyblack wrote:I could have happily throttled Tom Bombadil. :lol:


Tom Bombadil is great, so there :lol:

I agree LOTR is not a character driven story although both Frodo and Sam have some moments of interesting character development, but the creation of middle earth as a complete world that you can visualise is brilliant.

I would also suggest that most of Pterry's characters are basically stock characters with very little development (exceptions probably Vimes and Tiffany)
"when the gods made sheep they must've left their brains in their other coat"
User avatar
Doughnut Jimmy
Member
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:51 pm

Previous

Return to Discworld novels

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests