WarriorPrincess

Actually I didn't know that, so thanks for telling me! Frankly I'm not surprised, as the style is so different from a normal narrative storytelling perspective that I should have guessed that that was the case. Taken in that light, I can see myself rereading them to explore the connections as opposed to the story, which is why I read them to begin with.

redskull47

I'm not a big fan of the songs either--in the past I've also skipped them, but when I re-read the books earlier this year, I made myself read them. I probably won't do that again.

I do love the books, but there is one thing about Tolkien's writing style that drives me crazy--he will devote page after page describing in excrutiating detail every twig and stone the Fellowship walks past, yet when it comes to a big event in the story (like Gandalf's vs Balrog) he spends literally 2 short paragraphs describing that. Not much of a "reward" for slogging thru the slower parts.

Giantrobo

I read them after seeing the movies and I must admit it was like reading the Bible. It wasn't easy. However, I may read them again

The Hobbit was the easiest for me.

stinkeye

I read them when I was little, then reread them after the movies, and I have to admit I think the films enhanced my enjoyment this time around. There is a lot of stuff I think the movies got right that I didn't care for in the book (Like giving most of the Tom Bombadil theme to Treebeard/Gandalf. I'm of the opinion that the Bombadil character/thread is the most distracting in the book.). And, no matter how much Tolkein denied the story is any sort of allegory for the real world, the parallels are applicable to us (as in most any good adventure yarn).

ytrez

I read the Hobbit & liked it. Read Fellowship & it was okay. Started Two Towers & got bogged down in the history of the tree creatures and finally had to give up. I simply couldn't take any more! Thank goodness for movies! And I've never abandoned a book in preference to a film version before.

adamblast

That's about what happened to me, too, except I've always thought I should try them again. I bought a nice new set when Jackson was filming... I hope I can start in a few weeks. (I've had no free time at home for the past several months, reading the trilogy has been the "light at the end of the tunnel" for this project...)

I did recently listen to the 13 hour BBC radio-drama version (1981) and loved it... Coincidentally, Ian Holm (Bilbo in the movies) voices Frodo in the radio show... Now I'm listening to the audiobooks as a precursor to reading them myself... (All of these are available from the usual retail and non-retail computer sources...)

Shady12

I read these suckers in 6th grade and don't remember it being a hard read then... I read them again about a year later... I've always loved things though like history...and to me I think part of what I liked was the big complicated world with it's own detailed history and all that other stuff and made me like it that much more. I think my favorite part from what I remember was reading the history timeline at the end of ROTK. My wife read it last year after getting into the movies..and she hates reading..and she breezed through it.

IanH

I'll admit it is a tough read compared to most modern novels. Its taken many many years of re-reading and seeing Peter Jackson's vision to really appreciate Tokiens world. And like many others, it has been one of the most rewarding books I've ever read and I go back to it constantly.

It really is one of those books I can open anywhere and get reabsorbed all over again. I discover new things every time I reread it.

I also can't recommend the word for word Audio-CD/tape of LOTR read by Rob Inglis more highly; for commited LOTR fans and those who are having a hard time getting through the book. Go to the public library and see if you they have any copies. If not try to get it. Its worth every penny. In many ways it is better than reading LOTR on your own and watching the movies.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...4&fmt=AU&itm=3

smirnoff

I enjoyed reading them the second time more than the first. Particularly because I understood it all alot better.

Rivero

It's a bit hard to get into at the start, what with all the names, locations and maps, but once I got past The Council of Elrond it was smooth sailing until the end. An incredible piece of work.

Ephemeral_Life

Fellowship is a bit rough at the beginning mainly because Tolkien had NO idea where he was going with the story - it is more like The Hobbit (i.e. written for kids). But it picks up fairly quickly. I thought RotK was by far the best book (or books - since there are six total that just happen to be bound in three volumes).

BizRodian

My girlfreind said she had problems because Tolkien kept describing sleep, and it made her fall asleep.

I always thought that was kind of funny.

Kaffe_02

I couldnt read them fast enough they were like candy for my mind.

mndtrp

Like most people, once I read the poems and everything once, I kind of skipped over those parts. I also tend to skip over the Bible-ish parts (x, son of xx, son of xxx, who was married to x-1, etc). It can be a long read, especially when trying to figure out where everything and everyone belongs in the grand scheme of things.

Other than those parts, I really enjoy the stories. I'll read them about every 5 years or so, and is almost a rite of passage with my family. We have a set that has been passed between pretty much everybody: aunts, uncles, grandparents. I hope to pass them on to my children someday, once I have one or two.

MrBob

I've read the series 3 or 4 times, through out middle and HS. I never had any problems with reading them. In fact I would go through them pretty fast. Of course I caught on pretty early, and liked the fact that Tolkien was writting these books more has a history book for the middle earth, then as a novel.

djmont

I tried the series years ago and didn't really care for it. Haven't really felt like taking the time to go back either. LOTR is definitely a challenging read, not always for the best reasons, either. But for those who dig it, it's king.

Reading is one of the most personal of entertainment experiences, which is one of the reasons it's so fascinating to discuss books; every sees them in different ways and has different feelings and reactions.

JAA

Wow! Very profound and well-stated.

RayChuang

I think what makes The Lord of the Rings somewhat difficult to read are two issues:

1. The storytelling style is so unlike most modern novels. Especially in the case of The Two Towers, where we have a split narrative situation, which can often confuse serious book readers.

2. Tolkien's penchant for minute details can bog down readers for those not used to that style (it's similar to what Tom Clancy does with his novels).

But still, I like LoTR because its imaginary world is so well thought-out that you feel like you are in that world.

Tracer Bullet

If you think The Lord of the Rings is a hard read, you should go pick up a copy of A Dead Man in Deptford or Finnegan's Wake.

starseed1981

I had difficulty reading the trilogy. Mainly because Tolkien got so wrapped up in creating his own universe that it became hard to identify the narrative alot of times. I did finish them, but still feel that the films are more efficent in getting the main story across.

wlmowery

I have to chime in as a Tolkien book fan and PJ movie lover.

The key to remember is focus and intent. As mgbfan earlier stated, for Professor Tolkien LOTR was an exercise in Anglo-Saxon mythos development and linguistical analysis. It is, given that source of focus and intent, no surprise that to many the books tend to be a difficult, slow or even boring read. The intent behind LOTR is not the story, per se, but the culture, history, geography, linguistics, sociological analyses and other elements of the universe and how the story, which is in truth very elemental in nature, fits within that fixed construct. In effect, the universe is the focus, the story merely exists to give Tolkien a reason to explore the universe he's constructed. It is quite evident that linguistical studies and the evaluation of cultural mythos was the goal. It is a very different type of approach than what we are used to in most novels.

The films, meanwhile, are all about the story, with the culture and the universe (so accurately protrayed by Jackson and company) providing the backdrop upon which the story proceeds. The films are much more approachable and, for lack of a better word, understandable to modern entertainment seekers. What is lost at time in the films is that sense of connection to a greater story, a sense of the mythos overwhelming the current events. While PJ does a good job at slipping some of the mythos back in at opportune times, any extensive exegesis of the mythological underpinnings of the written works within the tight constraints of the film would have been disasterous, at least in my opinion.

CaptainMarvel

I STILL can't get through these books.

Tolkien may very well have pioneered the high fantasy genre, but his writing still tends to be prolix, IMO.

I started reading fantasy books in middle school, and by high school I'd read dozens (with R.A. Salvatore being one of my favorites). I didn't realize it then, but nearly all took (or outright stole) the conventions Tolkien established. But most played around with them and added their own flair. Later on, that made trying to read Tolkien painful... even though he was the brain behind many of these ideas, from my perspective his work seemed unoriginal and bland compared to the derivative works that were MY originals.

And good god, how many pages can you spend describing how Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are running and running and running....?

Shady12

I think that's why I liked the LotR so much..because of the history and everything else. History and geography were my favorite subjects in school. Always have liked looking at maps. Combine all that with a map to always look back at..glossary and everything else.. Made it all very interesting to read. I think everyone would agree that anything interesting is easy to read. Anything you aren't interested in is hard. I always hated math so I never could do well in it because I didn't try hard enough. If I'd liked it I could have done very well but didn't have the willpower to make myself. Now if I read a fantasy book or series, I've figured out if it doesn't have good world building and a extensive history and world and rules and maps and all that good stuff I can't get into it at all because it won't bring my imagination alive.

mgbfan

But don't you lose respect for the authors who have done nothing but borrow/steal everything from another writer? I realize that when you read the stuff, you were unaware/ignorant (take your pick) that their work was lacking in originality, but looking back, haven't you lost your respect for them?

It's kind of like an athlete that you admired, but you later found out was cheating (Giambi/Sosa/Ben Johnson). The accomplishments are just tainted. All respect and meaning is lost.

CaptainMarvel

Sure, I lose respect for the writers as people, but I've never enjoyed/disliked a book on the author's merits... only on the material's merits. The author's originality does nothing to change my enjoyment of the material.

I'd be fine if all material (written, musical, whatever) was attributed to "Anonymous", so long as I had some way to tell (other than the author) if it would be something I liked. I honestly would rather not know who wrote something, all other things being equal.

Sports (like you mentioned) are entirely a different matter... those are founded on the principles of fair play and competition. Books aren't that way to me.

Originality does serve a purpose... if Original Writer gets a book published and I read it first, then Unoriginal Writer (who riffs off OW's work) had better make his twist on the story damn enjoyable, or I'm just reading a rehash.