I don't get it.
I'm on the two towers now. Overall, they've been fine. Pleasant, even. There is much to be desired on the sentence level, as it's plain and seems allergic to any abstraction, but it's serviceable. That said, my lord, the structure of this 2nd part is absurd. Whereas novelists hundreds of years prior figured out that you can tell two stories simultaneously, building the suspense of one part before cutting to the a chapter in the other, Tolkien, apparently, missed the memo. Instead, he tells 240 pages of the Aragorn lot and then switches to 200 pages of Frodo and Sam. This is not enough to hate the book, but while so much thought was placed into the world, only a whiff made it towards the actual writing, leading to a bland read through. I had no idea that the movies can actually supplant the books for those only ever casually interested in his world. If you're very into them, then I guess, yes, you might get more from it.
>>24709787>Instead, he tells 240 pages of the Aragorn lot and then switches to 200 pages of Frodo and Sam.And? Segmenting parts of the book for different characters is fine.
>>24709739Why would you be reading Lord of the Rings when you can listen to Wagner's Ring Cycle?
>>2471041020 rings > 1 ring, simple as
>>24709739It's a story of a desperate quest for good in the face of overwhelming evil/odds. All throughout the book the characters acknowledge the unlikelihood of their succeeding, yet they do it anyways because a little hope is better than total despair. Even at times certain characters do succumb to despair. Yet despite the unlikely odds and with many serendipities, Frodo and Sam do manage to destroy the One Ring. There are several parts when Frodo and Sam are in Mordor and just by chance aren't captured by orc guards. It's all about a little hope & good in the face of great, evil power. It's literally a tale of biblical proportions.
>>24709739You're not supposed toOriginally it was laid out as just different stories as part of one big adventure but as >>24709787pointed out, that's not done.
>>24709787they're two separate books. Each book in the trilogy is actually two books combined for some reason.>There is much to be desired on the sentence leveloh, you don't get it
>>24709787You're not smart
>>24710616I've seen 6-volume sets of the book. Kinda cool for collectors I guess.
>>24709787Based and correct. Ignore tolkienfags OP, they're mentally deranged and treat this overhyped fantasy like a religion
>>24710343Exactly what I said. It's fine. Not good, certainly not great. Strange that the supposed peak of a genre has large parts that are only fine.>>24710616I do get it. Held against any author in the canon, he falls short. I would say most of the writing so far has been describing landscapes, and not in any innovative ways. He's matter of fact to a fault, which I suppose is a fine thing when you think about the average reader of the series. I think if the style has been at all adventurous, the books wouldn't be praised because the normies couldn't have found it as easy to follow. Kind of a cowardly choice, there. >>24710690Yeah, you got me. Why don't you make the best counter argument you can and everyone here can decide if you're smart?
Science fiction far outstrips fantasy., it always has.
>>24710954>Strange that the supposed peak of a genre has large parts that are only fine.It really isn't the peak, lol. I like Lotr but a lot of authors after Tolkien one upped him.
>>24709787sounds like you have bad memory and couldn't remember the previous 200 pagesskill issue
>>24711122I have no problem remembering it, it's just a terrible way to deliver a story. Why cant Tolkienfags concede anything about the faults of the books
Am I the only person in the world who read the iron tower trilogy first?
>>24711122200 pages of worthless nature description is quickly forgotten since it's non-essential information.
