/lit/ - Literature

Subcreation

where do i start with the LOTR world?

If you can read at least 60-70 pages a day you'll probably enjoy it. If you are on of those idiots who "reads" only 20 pages a day you'll inevitably get bored and never finish it. I've read it twice in the last couple years, it's my #2 adventure novel. It also made me puke at how rushed and altered the movies were.

>>14917406
whats your number one?

>>14917393
absolute pure comfy
if you enjoy it, and want to know more, read The Silmarillion.
then read LotR again to pick up all the references

>>14917393
>>14917406
>>14917422
HOW THE FUCK DO I READ MORE THAN 40-50 PAGES AT A TIME?

t. ADD extrovert

>>14917436
i just read a chapter at a time. i don't like stopping in the middle of a passage.
LotR has plenty of breaks mid chapter too though.

>>14917446
I think I need a reading room.

>>14917450
don't we all

>>14917436
i hate myself for this too

>>14917436
When I think of stopping, instead of stopping, I don't stop. I was reading Pickwick Papers yesterday, finished about 60 pages and thought about calling it. Flipped ahead to see how long the next chapter was: 24 pages, where most chapters are about 10 pages or less normally. Kind of threw me off, didn't know if I felt like continuing or not. But I figured I would be more tired trying to read later than just continuing now, so I kept reading anyways.

>>14917416
It's not as traditional an "adventure" novel since it involves a lot of waiting and serving but as a "hero's journey" it doesn't really rightfully fit beneath most other categorization. But if we should classify Moby-Dick as something of an adventure novel, and I find I'd agree with that, then this definitely fits the bill.

>>14917479
Interesting. I've enjoyed Moby immensely. Can you compare your first reading of Moby to your first reading of LOTR, given its size?

>>14917484
Well I meant those thoughts in relation to the picrel I posted, but I could still answer your question somewhat. Moby has this thing where, the first quarter and the last quarter of the book are narratively predominant, but the middle is almost strictly philosophical or encyclopedic. It's not quite suited for every reader in this way. Whereas LOTR is fairly adherent to its narrative throughout and presents a very straightforward story, and at all times Tolkien is writing to continue advancing the plot. LOTR is more accessible in spite of its volume since the only "filter" is Tolkien's love of his geography, but if you don't let a couple of pages of environmental description weigh you down (and in many cases I wouldn't say it's uncalled for, the geography does play a significant roll in the fellowship deciding how the object of their goal is going to come about) then it reads very quickly and easily. One interesting thing I felt is that Tolkien's language starts out very simple and unassuming but in the third book as it builds up to the siege on Minas Tirith it becomes more grandiose and even religious in its syntax and stylization. It really assumes a lot of import and gives it an appropriate oomph at the most appropriate time. Just something I personally enjoyed, even though it was not so fluid prosaically during those moments, but they certainly were memorable. It made the movies feel like flanderized pulp action flicks in comparison.

>>14917479
>When I think of stopping, instead of stopping, I don't stop.
I did this when I was just starting reading, but now that I'm completely in it I read more for joy and genuine interest. I don't feel the need to push myself as much when I can just jump onto some vidya or meet some friends.

>>14917525
Thanks anon, very insightful. I will definitely go for a read in a couple of days when I finish my other reads.

>>14917393
Coercion.

>>14917525
You're right about the language changing throughout the books. A lot of people don't notice it while reading it but there is a steady decline in the amount of songs and poems throughout the narrative as the tension builds up and the atmosphere becomes more oppressive. The beginning is very happy go lucky and the ending is bittersweet even after their victories.

>>14917393
Unfortunately, your experience will never be as good as for someone who hasn’t seen the movies. Sinking into middle earth for the first time as a middle schooler reading the book is peak comfy. That being said, expect an immersive adventure in fellowship, slight lull in towers, and a pick up again in the return. I like the first book best desu. And if you love the trilogy you have to read the Silmarillion

>>14917533
Well yeah but my threshhold of "thinking about stopping" has grown dramatically as well. At first I pushed myself to read for 2 hours and had apprehensions even as early as 40 minutes. Now I read comfortably and don't have apprehensions for about those two hours, but the "pushing through" is for if I had intended to read for about 3 hours the entire day. Hence my objective there reading Pickwick to be about 100 pages: I was going to do it regardless, I was feeling kind of tired at around page 60 (2 hours), then just said fuck it and kept going. Glad I did though because that chapter (if you or anyone here has read it, it was the Pickwick vs Bardell trial) was actually the most fun and endearing the book had been for a couple hundred pages and it just flew by effortlessly. And then I read for another 40 minutes or so before bed.

Really when I mean push I just mean I have to push through exhaustion, because at such a point my eyes just feel bugged out and it's hard to focus on the words as well. I sometimes will even do a 15 min nap on the kitchen floor just because it's uncomfortable so I won't stay there for long, then resume reading again lololo

Why does this book achieve such levels of comfy? How did Tolkien manage to capture "home" in such a way?

>>14917401
If you've never read the Hobbit you could start there, its pretty quick read and would give you a nice introduction to middle earth. Then read LOTR and the appendix. From there if you are looking for more read the Silmarillion. It starts with Tolkien's creation mythology and leads all the way up through the Second Age when Isildur loses the ring as seem in the start of the Fellowship film. The Silmarillion is grand in scale and deeds compared to LOTR but it less narrative driven and reads more like a history book.

If you want to continue after the Silmarillion you'll mostly be reading unfinished and partially completed works compiled by his son Christopher.

>>14917975
He poured his heart and soul into this work. It was a true act of love and that can be felt in the finished product.

>>14918042
>He poured his heart and soul into this work. It was a true act of love and that can be felt in the finished product.

Film only fag here. I can sense that, even if its a "butchered film version". One of the reasons why I wanna see the actual source material and the actual story itself has grabbed me to the point where I hate reading overly descriptive things.... yet i'm drawn to it. Like the ring itself lmao.

If I decide to start with The Hobbit, please heal my mind from expecting it to be what the movie is to the original LOTR films. Is the tone of it childish as the film suggests or ? (I'd assume not.)

Didn't Tolkien steal from the Finns?

>>14918074
The films have a few key fuckups but are ultimately a grand work of art in and of themselves. The best written movies I have ever watched, Jackson et al understood Tolkein's attention to detail especially re language and dialects and shit and it really shines in the movie. Everything is very eloquent but Elves talk a little differently than men, but Aragorn talks more like elves, and the hobbits talk a little different too. Etc

>>14918082
Why did Tolkien steal from the Finns? He copied everything from Kalevala

>>14918074
As for the hobbit, yeah it's more juvenile than LOTR. Tolkien intended it as a children's book. Just pretend that abortion of a film series never happened and read it. It's a nice introduction to LOTR that you can probably finish in a couple days.

>>14918088
>shakespeare stole from various legends and stories
>milton stole from the bible
>dante stole from the bible
>virgil stole from roman legend
>homer stole from oral tradition
must I continue?

>>14918074
I quite like the LOTR films and saw the films before I ever read any of the books. My main gripe with the films is the portrayal of Aragorn. In the films he is somewhat unaccepting of the fact that he's Isildur's heir and heir to the throne of Gondor. In the books he's much more at ease with that and actually embraces it.

I like the Hobbit films less but they are still somewhat enjoyable to be. The tone of the Hobbit is childish, it was originally written for a child. I'm not sure how they justified making a barely 300 page kid's book into a trilogy.

>>14918074
I watched the films as a kid, enjoyed them because I didn't know any better or have a frame of reference, read both The Hobbit and LOTR twice each in the last two years, and recently tried to watch the films again mid-reading, and frankly, I tapped out of the first LOTR movie half-way and didn't want to continue. It blew me away how poorly translated the movies were from the books after a period of sitting in a personal vacuum for 15+ years and watching them "anew" again. The Hobbit films are especially egregious butcherings meant for 15-year-old Instagram audiences. There were so many invented scenes and attempts to be action-oriented to appeal to modern audiences that it just made me cringe perpetually throughout. And they gave my boy Beorn absolutely no love. For a fairly integral character to the story, a single 10-second cameo during the battle of the five armies is undeniably criminal.

Now the tone of the books is not childish at all, it's just that the writing is of a more simplistic level and the telling of the story is much more expedited. But the content is still superb.

>>14917479
>When I think of stopping, instead of stopping, I don't stop.
Wizardry.

>>14918134
Character development is not exactly central in the books. I think the intent was to make the Aragorn claiming the throne more dramatic. I think it works in the context of the films but I get why it would irk you.
The elves coming to helms deep is what pisses me off the most because it totally shits on a central theme, that the elves are leaving middle earth and that the defeat of sauron is really victory for the men of the west and a final atonement for isildur's sin. The whole point is that the elves wont help as a group, man is on his own, even if individual (and extremely powerful) elves do render aid a few times (elrond, glorfindel, and galadriel).

>>14918169
I agree, the elves coming to helm's deep was lame. I also dislike the way they handled the end of the battle of Pelannor fields with the CGI ghost wave of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. Much less satisfying than in the book where the dead men only helped them attain the ships and Aragorn with the reinforcements from southern Gondor joined with the Rohirrim to win the day.

In addition to that the omission of The Scouring of the Shire was a little disappointing. I completely understand why they did it, but that was such a great aspect of the story.

>>14917422

Comfy is how I would describe it also. Especially the first part of Fellowship where they are mostly rambling through the Shire/Eriador is relative safety, the Black Riders only appearing sparingly.

The sequence after crossing into Buckland, chilling at Fatty Bolgars house, then going under the hedge into the Old Forest is an example of this.

>>14918134
The importance of Aragorn as heir of Isildur to the unity of Men is completely missed in the film. Anduril is his proof of identity; a symbol that shows the kings of Gondor have returned. Convincing the dead men of Dunharrow to help him was not the point of its reforging.

I still like the films for what they are, but they miss so much nuance, and change so many important details for no real reason. It's not surprising to see that the script writers have made zero films of any real interest after LotR (or before).

>>14918134
>I'm not sure how they justified making a barely 300 page kid's book into a trilogy.
$$$$$

>>14917393
Currently re reading it myself for probably the 12th time at least. You are in for a work of imagination which in all likelihood will, in a couple of centuries' time, be placed alongside the works of Dante and Milton for its religious/mythological profundity, not even memeing. Not everyone enjoys reading it though, to each their own. And it is tonally different from the films.

>>14917591
>slight lull in towers
I disagree. I consider the two towers to be the best. Held deep, the tale of helm hammerhand, the return of Theoden from near death to returning as king of Rogan and awakening to the evils that have creeped into his land, even return of the king doesn't compare for me. I like all 3 parts, but the first half of two towers is the high point for me

>>14918879
>Held Deep
>king of Rogan
I'm assuming autocorrect but that's still hilarious

>>14918879
>King of Rogan

>Bro I think these new Uruks are like, half orc half man?
>Jéomer, pull that up
>I mean, it's entirely possible
>Yeah, they eat man-flesh apparently
>I wonder what man-flesh tastes like. Nah I wouldn't eat it though
>You ever eaten orc? Well, exactly.
>Hold that horn up closer to your face bro
>Did you hear about Grima spiking my niece's mead? Yeah they had a falling out.
>You know in the Shire they all smoke herbs in pipe and stuff. Yeah I know. A buddy of mine showed me all about it, you wanna try some?
>Nah bro I never heard about the Dunlanders smoking their own shit. Is that real? Sounds pretty racist man. Jéomer you hear about that?

And so on

>>14918936
Lmao

>>14917393
Fuck tonnes of poetry and song verses.

Too many boring descriptions of landscapes. Otherwise a pretty comfy series of books.

>>14919350
I found all the descriptions boring as a kid but as I keep reading it again as an adult I actually love the way Tolkien evokes the landscape and everything. Not meaning that as an insult, I'm just saying.

>>14918893
>>14918936
Auto correct fails me again, guess I just need to turn it off

>>14919501
Nah it's funnier this way. Any ESL brainlet who can't parse out what it was that you meant to say needs to get off of the Anglonet anyways

>>14919347
Not at all. They just stand out to you because you're a brainlet who feels threatened by poetry

the ring? stolen from wagner.

>>14919650
Pseud take bro. I bet you know nothing about Wagner or Tolkien.

>>14918042
Would reading silmarillion before LOTR work? Will having the mythological background elevate the experience or demystify it?

>>14918079
>>14918094

Well, He took inspiration from all over. Finns, celtic, Germanic, Christian.

Also why did you euros steal the wheel?

>>14917401

>>14917525
You're really good at zeroing in on what's interesting and appealing about a writing style.

>>14919955
For me a neat order to read in goes
>Silmarillion --> Hobbit --> LotR --> Unfinished Tales
HOWEVER if you are new to Tolkien I would always recommend Hobbit first, then LotR, THEN Silmarillion. Do that for your first reading and things will unfold properly for you. It's the order of publication too.

Everything is described as "grey" in the first book for some reason.

>>14917399
fpbp

haven’t read it in 10 years but I remember a lot of landscape descriptions

>>14921224
The landscapes are important though. It basically dictates their course and strategy the entire way, when every odd is stacked against them. The safe passage to Rivendell is important; the navigation of the mountains is important; the nature of Lothlorien is imporant; the routing of the wastes is important. And Tolkien rarely goes on at length about environments but for the purpose of showing-why rather than simply telling-of.

>>14918079
A bit. The world is created through song, and Turin Turambar suffers a fate identical to Kulvero. There may be other similarities, but I don't know the Kalevala well enough.

What edition do you guys own? Do you like it?

>>14921868
Also, from a POV standpoint, this is a book told by people who are walking through vast landscapes. Some of that is going to get translated into the prose.

>>14921903
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/0007525540
It has textbook-quality paper and about 40 or 50 illustrations, and a ribbon bookmark which I always love when I have the option. Coming from a cheap set of mass-market paperbacks, I feel like it's worth it. But then again it was a Christmas gift to myself so I was willing to spend extra.

>>14922734
That looks really nice. I'm currently reading these 50th anniversary hardbacks, but have many other copies I've collected over the years.