Well, I tried to watch LOTR.

I think this is a bit harsh. You are reading them through the lens of modern writing with is much simpler in style. For example, Lovecraft is very difficult to read yet beats the hell out of King, even if it may take more of an investment to get through Lovecraft.Writing styles have become more streamlined and with a different kind of pacing. That is what chokes Tolkein for modern readers. If one is used to reading different paced books, especially older authors like Lovecraft, Dickens, Melville, then Tolkein will not seem "less" than modern fantasy at all.I think he does have some flaws, indeed I prefer Moorcock's Elric series, but I think Tolkein holds his own against most modern fantasy, as long as one does not mind the older style of writing.My guess is it would still get a hurrah, with press saying epic and harkening back to older fiction writing. Indeed I'll bet there'd be plenty of fantasy nuts who'd love it just because it was written in a seemingly older style... like right out of middle earth.If you have not made it through the second book, I encourage you to read them again. Then again, if you don't enjoy the odd pacing of older writing (with long words and side details) you still may not like it. I think it helped that since last trying to read the series, I got hooked on Lovecraft (which are short), and made my way up to epic size old writings such as Moby Dick. By now I am used to reading them like modern writing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I loved those books as a kid but I tried to re-read them as an adult and found them very turgid.

Holmes, the book was completed beforeit was submitted to a publisher. It was the publisher's choice to sp

I don't think it's just the older style of writing. Having read all three books umpteen times, I found that though the story itself is beautiful, epic and inspired, Tolkien stifled it in the writing. It's overly ponderous, too descriptive... essentially he doesn't put enough life into it, which may turn off many modern readers. I remember trying to read it the first time when I was only 13 or 14, and I gave up because I found it so boring in comparison to my usual fare.That said, I think the Silmarillion is one of the greatest books ever written. And I loved every minute of the movies.

But it's possible for contemporary writers to affect that older style of writing without boring the pants off the reader. As an example I offer Steven Brust's "Phoenix Guards" books, a set of fantasy novels written in a faux-Alexander Dumas "Three Musketeers" style. Both gripping and charming. Or the Lemony Snicket novels. I love Jules Verne and H. G. Wells, so it's not that I can't stand the earlier writing. And it's possible for modern writing to be too fast-paced, and skimp on the details (Clive Cussler, I'm looking in your direction.)But Tolkien just doesn't do it for me, but to say so apparently brings all the fanboys out of the woodwork, or something.

There's that word again. "Fanboys"; how nice...You risk the next step up from the whuppin' stick...The shakin' cane.Fear it.

Oh, yeah. I say one of those at the local pothead store. You turn it upside-down and all the seeds fall to the bottom and sound like rain.How soothing!

Poorly done ?! lousy effects ?? Terrible costuming ? Sounds like you are in need of glases. Sure the transformation from book to script could have been done differently. Thats a matter of taste. But A book can't ever really be compared to a film. You spend how long time with the books ? A couple of hundred hours.But the technical stuff could hardly have been done any better. In fact no film before this one has put so much efforts into models and costumes and computer effects.
Thats why the film won Oscar for best visual effects. They are simply outstanding. Seriuolsy watch the scene with the Balrog. I can watch that over and over again I took 7 years to make these films. I cannot even think of anyone on this earth besides Peter Jackson, that has both the compassion, the sheer determination, skill, strategic planning and the will to use more than 7 years of his life to make this film possible.
Maybe you live in a different universe

I agree with your suggestion. Even though I am what crash disparagingly calls a "fanboy", moreover, I would recommend anyone attempting to read The Two Towers to simply skip all of what Tolkein refers to as Book IV (all of Frodo's adventures with Gollum could be distilled into a third or less of the prose Tolkein wastes on what is really very slow reading). With the possible exception of the character development inre Faramir (and the differences between him and his brother Boromir), all of the really important bits occur in Book III. Return of the King is much better paced, although even here there's too much time spent on the agonizingly slow - and over-detailed - trek of Frodo and Sam through Mordor.

Here! Here! Even though from a fandom standpoint there were parts that had me chewing the carpet (I had the same problem with Jurassic Park, for that matter - the book was MUCH better), the sheer technical magnificence of the production was worth watching (and re-watching).

Not sure if that discounts anything I said. You may have become a more demanding reader.In any case, my experience was the opposite. Just goes to show how taste is one of the most subjective of all things and is hard to break down into factual explanations.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhmmmmm, I'm not sure where you were going with this. My guess is that it was to be spread over three books rather than one large book.The writing was not all one sitting and I think there is reason to cut Tolkein some slack on when he threw in Aragorn being the King. I agree with Ned that it could have used a better editor, which is what should have happened between submission and printing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Welllll to be fair, you weren't just saying he doesn't work for you, you were making an objective statement that he was not that good a writer and LOTR would be thought of as bad if it had come out today. That slams those that do like it today.I have no problem with people saying anything doesn't work for them. Taste is totally subjective and there is no accounting for it.I see I have already made a mistake in trying to account for it in my own small way.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, you're right. Didn't mean to move the goalposts like that.As near as I can tell, as objectively as anyone can be about judging art, Tolkein is not a compelling writer by today's standards. Again, that shouldn't be taken as "Tolkien isn't a great writer", but rather, as indicative of how the fantasy novel has advanced in the last 50 years.Yes, he doesn't do it for me, but my larger point is that, compared to the field of fantasy literature today, Tolkein wouldn't do it for the majority of fantasy fans if the historical context of his books was removed.

I thought you were implying that Fellowship had been written, submitted and published before Two Towers was written, etc. I was just putting my geeky point of fact that is was completed before it was submitted and it was an editorial choice to split it into three volumes. That's all.