Lord of the ring Books are kinda boring.. sorry to say it.

[BrianDavion]

Skip the poems. .

agreed. the poems don't really need to be read. you're not gonna miss anything if you skip em

[Lohi]

It's not comparable to typical fantasy or science fiction or mystery books you see today that are all action and excitement. His writing style is a bit different, but not unusually so compared to other sorts of literature out there. There's plenty of fine literature that's far more boring in comparison I think.

[Malachi108]

I pity the OP...

[CountHossula]

O_O

are you a reader in genral?

[Nymphonic]

I love the books. I have read them once a year since I first read them in the mid 80s. I've also skipped the boring poems once a year since the mid 80s.

Sam forgetting that he had a rope while on the top of that cliff cracks me up everytime. "I ought to be hung on the end of one as a warning to numb skulls." Even now I'm laughing thinking about it!

[ArtemisNoir]

I think the other thing that needs to be remembered is that Tolkien was coming out of a literary era where much of the writing was very detailed and novels tended to be far longer than they are now.
Given that most of the "entertainment" we see today caters to ADD teens of all ages.. it's hardly surprising that the OP and people like him/her find LOTR "boring." I suspect they'd find most work of the period uninteresting.


I also can't help but wonder if we have a troll at work... either that or somebody who enjoys the sensation of fire singing their tender parts.

[BIGeyedBUG]

I've frankly always thought that the story is excellent but the writing is absolutely terrible. Tolkien was NOT a very good writer. He got so concerned with fleshing out the world that he forgot that its the relationship between the characters and the reader that matters the most. He forgot that he didn't need to explain such deep detail because the readers imagination would fill in most of it. Its quite sad really.

Ha, ain't opinions grand? Personally, I think Tolkien's writing is far from flawless, but I'd never say that leaving insufficient room for the reader's imagination was one of his weaknesses. The quantity and quality of detail has much the opposite effect, as far as I'm concerned. Do all the stars in the sky leave no room to imagine the vastness of space?

Well, you might give "Bored of the Rings' a try. It's much shorter and has very few poems.

Fact: Everyone who despises or delights in LotR must read BotR.

[doctowhofan]

meh. I smell Tom, Bert and William here.


Try the audio books. Less reading. I think they have them in an abridged version.

[doctowhofan]

I think the other thing that needs to be remembered is that Tolkien was coming out of a literary era where much of the writing was very detailed and novels tended to be far longer than they are now.
Given that most of the "entertainment" we see today caters to ADD teens of all ages.. it's hardly surprising that the OP and people like him/her find LOTR "boring." I suspect they'd find most work of the period uninteresting.


I also can't help but wonder if we have a troll at work... either that or somebody who enjoys the sensation of fire singing their tender parts.

If Tolkien tried to have them published today, they would never have seen print. He does everything wrong for a modern publisher POV. Thank Stanley Unwin for having his son be the critic on "The Hobbit." See what we know about books these days.

[8skyfaller]

I love the game and movies and I am trying my best to like the books. Last time I read them was 20 years ago in middle school.

But the books soo far are boring. Im in the middle of fellowship of the ring.

too many long boring poems and too much lore and names of stuff thats irrelevant.

please dont take this personally..

I was just wondering if others agree or feel the same way?

Part of the joy about LOTR is not only what happens, but how it is written. His use of the English language is beautiful, his imagery potent.

And despite being a luddite, he showed thru these books a sense of life that cannot be denied. The diminishing of the Eldar, the uttermost West, the Mystery of mortality, the doom of Arwen's and Aragorn's love, etc. Timeless sentiments, profound circumstances, and (IMO) subversively humanistic.

I first read LOTR when I was 19. I found it boring, too. I read it again at 19 years later, and now I can barely stand to read any other work of fantasy fiction. Perhaps you might have a better time re-reading it later, in the fullness of time.

[CountHossula]

When I was a kid, I read War and Peace. And then I tried reading Lord of the Rings. Just could not get through it. Fell asleep.

It's very dense writing. He packed a whole lot of detail in it.

I read it later as an adult and if not enjoyed it, at least appreciated the effort he put into it. The Hobbit is a much better read though. And don't even think about the Simarillion.

I think the Tolkien Estate needs to hire William Goldman to make a "Just the Good Parts" version of it, like The Princess Bride*.


*And yes I know he actually wrote the whole thing and it was a gimmick but I would still love to see this.

You probably found the Hobbit to be an easier read as it was originally written for kids :P

[BellusDuFenna]

meh. I smell Tom, Bert and William here.


Try the audio books. Less reading. I think they have them in an abridged version.

I'm listening to the unabridged audio books right now, while on my commute to and from work. Since it's a one hour trip each way, I get through a lot each day, roughly a chapter a day.

[Northwoods]

The problem is that you watched the movies first - it's never a good idea to watch the movies before reading the book it's based off of, as movies tend to condense the story, and you're left with basically reading a long, drawn out version of a story you've already been told.

It likely wouldn't have made a difference. At one time descriptive writing was in vogue; The author would paint a landscape in the reader's mind with his words. That's no longer the case. What people are accustomed to today are action movies. Publishers know this and push books that read more like movie scripts: less depth, less exposition, all action. The sad truth of it is that The Lord of the Rings, as we know it, would never be published in today's market. Were a publisher to even consider it, they'd have an editor shred it, cut out much of the side stories and poems, and likely trim it to a single, fast-paced novel.

The OP is simply a reflection of the modern, mass-market tastes.

[Meijha]

I understand the OPs point. There isn't a lot of action by today's standards. Tolkien tells the story in multiple voices as parts of the story are recorded by different people with different speech patterns. Some of those voices are annoying at times.

There are parts of ROTC that I find hard to slog through. The language doesn't flow, for me, in these parts of the story.

I personally love the books because of the lore and the history but I also absolutely understand the OPs position.

Also, just because someone doesn't particularly like a book that you like does NOT make that person stupid; it just means they have a different opinion.

Agree totally. My husband is a huge Tolkien fan, and while I enjoy the books they will never be my favorite fantasy series.

Well, you might give "Bored of the Rings' a try. It's much shorter and has very few poems.

BotR is a great read, just thinking about it is making me giggle. Gonna have to go home and read it!

It likely wouldn't have made a difference. At one time descriptive writing was in vogue; The author would paint a landscape in the reader's mind with his words. That's no longer the case. What people are accustomed to today are action movies. Publishers know this and push books that read more like movie scripts: less depth, less exposition, all action. The sad truth of it is that The Lord of the Rings, as we know it, would never be published in today's market. Were a publisher to even consider it, they'd have an editor shred it, cut out much of the side stories and poems, and likely trim it to a single, fast-paced novel.

The OP is simply a reflection of the modern, mass-market tastes.

At one time reading was in vogue, unfortunately now a fairnumber of the teenagers I come into contact with seem to hardly know how to read/write English at all. I am very thankful that my husband and I were adamant about instilling a love of books in our son. (Who has read the Hobbit and Ring trilogy once or twice as well!)

[mjk47]

Well, you either like good literature or you don't. Nothing wrong if you don't, nothing right if you do. If we all had exactly the same taste, bookshops would be much more boring places.

[Winnower]

I would like to recommend to you the Gormenghast series.

After trying to read it, you will find Lord of the Rings and the Simarillion both to be just full of action and excitement. To say that the writing style is dry would be like saying "there is little air on the moon".

Or you could go read Imagica which is even longer than LotR.

It is not an exaggeration to say that over 95% of all modern fantasy exists because Tolkien wrote the books he did. Saying that LotR is boring is kinda like saying that Shakespeare is full of cliches. Shakespeare *is* full of cliches, he is the source of them.

It helps if you enjoy linguistic studies, I will admit, but it's not necessary. Yes, I am a self-described fanatic, and I'm biased, I know it, I had read the hobbit over 100 times before I was 14, and I made 100 times of LotR before I was 30.

Winnower
(anyone for a quick game of Empire of the Petal Throne?)

[Gladgilrian]

OMG, this Tolkien dude was such a noob writer. No boobs, no aliens, no machine guns, no explosions, what was he thinking?

I first read The Hobbit in 6th grade, class assignment, and still thank that teacher to this day. I read the trilogy when I was 16ish and never found it boring at all (and yes, after the first read through I started skipping the poems). The Silmarillion is Tolkiens' masterpiece and puts the whole series in historical context.

The OP is the reason that Asimov is mostly known for I, Robot and not the Foundation series.

[Thalian39]

If Tolkien tried to have them published today, they would never have seen print. He does everything wrong for a modern publisher POV. Thank Stanley Unwin for having his son be the critic on "The Hobbit." See what we know about books these days.

Is it just me or is it a profoundly sad thing that Tolkien's works might someday be considered "tripe" by future generations because they are so ADD and have such a short attention span? They should require every future generation from this point forward to completely "unplug" for a few weeks, once a year, like cyber-detox. I'm glad I grew up in the 70's where computers took up entire rooms and playtime meant getting fresh air, and not picking up a controller or mouse. ROFL.

-sigh-

As for the OP, Fellowship of the Ring is a BIT more less action-packed then Two Towers & Return of the King...I'd say keep giving it a try (if you can) till halfway through Two Towers.

Thal

[Brandon_Blackbird]

The first memory I have of Tolkien's books was trying to read the Silmarillion when I was 14 or 15. It didn't work out so well. I can't remember exactly when I started reading the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, but I now read them at least once a year. Certainly my appreciation for them and ability to read them has grown as I have grown older. I should try the Silmarillion again one of these days.

[DelgonTheWise]

I've re-read the series a number of times and love it as a whole (currently reading Silmarillion). That said, I've always found the Sam+Frodo book of the Two Towers drags a bit. Different strokes for different folks.

[Berephon]

I love the books. I have read them once a year since I first read them in the mid 80s. I've also skipped the boring poems once a year since the mid 80s.

Sam forgetting that he had a rope while on the top of that cliff cracks me up everytime. "I ought to be hung on the end of one as a warning to numb skulls." Even now I'm laughing thinking about it!

I beat you. I read The Hobbits and the Lord of the Rings in four days when I was eight (including all the "boring" poems -- and be thankful . . . we've been able to reference some lore that we might not have been able to otherwise because it was referenced in those boring poems ) in 1981 and have read them twice a year every year since then (though I'm starting to slow down . . . I think my brain cells are beginning to evaporate.) The level of detail that brings these books to life is amazing, Tolkien's grasp and use of language is phenomenal (certainly better than any contemporary author), and the sense of reality and continuity is unparalleled. No other author in the speculative genres has ever succeeded nearly as well at doing what Tolkien did (and I am beginning to doubt ever will, given the immense amount of frankly awful writing that's being lauded by critics nowadays.)

[Nostro44]

I first read The Hobbit & LotR in my teens and have re-read them a number of times since. I only read the Silmarillion once though - found that a bit tedious - probably as it has no real story line. Anyway, you can't please all the people all the time. In this forum you're bound to find a high percentage of people who like the books but it's no problem if you don't.

Now I think of it, it's probably about time to read LotR again....

[Berephon]

I first read The Hobbit & LotR in my teens and have re-read them a number of times since. I only read the Silmarillion once though - found that a bit tedious - probably as it has no real story line.

Yeah, I recommend any Tolkien fan to slog through the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales at least once, but expect them to be very dry, as they are written as histories rather than stories, and more informational than entertaining. I use them mainly as research resources now, as they do tie up some loose ends. I did actually enjoy the unabridged audio book version of the Silmarillion, however . . . it really helped having a human voice relating it.

EDIT: I should note that I am not decrying these works . . . they lend a much greater depth to the world, and I highly recommend them. Reading these enhances the LotR experience, as the relevance of some things that don't initially seem relevant in LotR becomes clear. Just saying that they are a difficult and dry read.

[sirwillow]

Sadly threads like this tend to bring out the elitist in a lot of the Tolkein fans, even if they don't realize it. I've loved Tolkiens writings since I was in third grade- which means longer than many of these posters have been alive. I love the depth, the detail, and everything about them. However, I also realize 2 things- they are not easy simple reading. And there are long stretches where nothing happens and there are just a number of people talking- especially in the Council in Fellowship of the Ring. That Council, and how long it is, stymies a LOT of people. And it doesn't mean they are illiterate, stupid, or otherwise as some here are implying. It means that a lot of people find such a long discussion with no action boring- and that's ok.

It's often the same ones that struggled in history classes or other similar things, where the details and interrelationships of time/ date/ place or people to each other get confusing. It's ok to be that way. In fact, it's actually far more normal than all of us who cherish and practically drool over all the little detail and minutiae of the books.

So OP, don't feel bad. However, I would also strongly encourage you to keep reading. It does pick up again and moves much better once the council is over and they get moving.

[chuimon]

Some of the issue is that current society deals with books differently than it did years ago. In the mid nineteenth century, Charles Dickens was a wildly popular author - but people did not sit down and read 'The Adventures of Oliver Twist' or 'David Copperfield' in one or two sittings, they were monthly serials that published a chapter or two at a time. Reading a section of the story and then waiting a month to find out what happened next kept interest up and boredom down. Also, radio and moving pictures were not available so less competition for the public's attention. Think of the anticipation and hype about the next movie in the 'Twilight' series and it is understandable.

Professor Tolkien wrote more in the style of authors like Dickens than in the faster paced style of Kipling. Perhaps if the OP limited himself to one or two chapters a week with time in between for things to sink in and settle, it might be different. Perhaps not.