Young Writers Society

I agree with backgroundbob, the actual presence of a female heroine was quite a significant step in fictional history. Given that the time this book was written, the main comparing characters were the Bronte sisters and Jane Austin who used femineity as an object rather than placing a woman in a mans world, as Tolkien had done with Eowyn.
Tolkien was writing of a time in history (though of course fictional) that was supposed to have occurred during the middle ages, and so female heroines, especially ones bearing arms, were much more a rarity.
Take a look at Hemingway, not only did many of his novels not contain female leading roles, some of them didn’t even contain female characters.

That aside, what perhaps draws most people to the Lord of the Rings is so many fundamental elements of the fantasy world that was not spawn completely from his imagination but the imagination of the human race throughout our history. The common misconception is that Tolkien re-invented elves as tall graceful beings, whereas before they were squat, Santa’s helpers. The case was that years ago elves were these tall, beautiful and ethereal creatures that controlled the woods and were feared by commonfolk. Tolkien spent years creating the mysteriousness that surrounds Middle Earth, he created a world that just as we begun to know it, it was already dying; the elves were leaving and conflict had finally given away to peace.

It's also 50 pages of Tom Bombadil.

Tom Bombadillo-illo.

I have read the entire series at least five times through, the Silmarillion once, and the Hobbit...I've lost count. The thing about LOTR is that it requires concentration. Some people don't have that kind of attention span, and I guess that's okay. You have to really want to know what's going on to figure it out. I was already thoroughly interested when I read them the first time because i had heard a radio production of LOTR and seen the cartoon movie of the Hobbit.

I have read the entire series three times. I never found them difficult to read. I was a bit bothered that there weren't a lot of female characters, but if you put the story into context with the real world at a similar level of developement, there really wouldn't be a lot of female adventurers and heros. And as everyone points out, it is a woman who sticks it to the Witch-King. They only things about the books I was not too keen on were Tom Bombadil (who's part took to long and whos speech was irritating) and all the songs. I basically skipped over the songs the first time I read the book. Oh, and Tolkein starts a lot of sentences with prepositional phrases and doesn't seperate them from the rest of the sentence with a comma. That is just a peeve of mine. I think I have problems.

For those who are bothered by how much describtion he uses and how long he takes to establish the fantasy world and history, remember that he is one of the fore-fathers of the Fantasy genre. THe people reading it didn't have a background to help htem understand what the creatures and races were all about. Someone had to tell them. The fantasy writers that have come after haven't had to do as much work, because Tolkein did it for them. Anyway, I liked the books and will probably read them again.

Terry Goodkind explained it pretty well. To paraphrase, he said that he uses his books to creat characters and their interactions, as well as to persuade people to his point of view (which happens in any book, regardless of intent). He is not writing to create a world and just have his characters explore it. This is, in effect, what Tolkien is trying to do- he created a world, now he wants to show it to you through adventures of a group of people. So if you like discovering every little detail of a new world, you'll like LOTR. If you like action and interactions of different people and groups of people, you'll like books like Terry Goodkind's better. I prefer people to worlds myself. The movies eliminated the longwinded descriptions by turning it into visuals, letting them focus a bit more on the characters, which is why more people seem to like the movies than the books.

I just love everything about Lord of the Rings. Everything. including Tom Bombadil. i read the epic in Yr 7 over a period of 2 days (i was suspended at the time, so i had nothing else to do) and i couldn't get enough of it. I wrote a somewhat brief message on the Book Review forum about why Tolkien is great, so go and check it out- i completely support Erethor.

Oh and i thought i should ask- Where do you guys live? I realise that may sound stalker-like, but, I mean i've been hearing some ppl say that certain books are banned in their schools. Whats with that? I live in Australia and as far as i know- no books are banned here.

Canada. Also, I'm amazed that you read them in two days! It took me nearly three weeks for one(but then, there were things in between). And to everyone who supported Tolkiens work in some way(and I read them all) you all proved your points well, and Background bob puts the realization of opressed women in the lotr, and how Eowyn comes out for them(and of course other women in the span of Tolkiens myhtology as we know it!) quite well. And of course Hawk's add on. I too found Bombadil a little irritating(the first time), but it's amazing that one of the most nonsensical and essentially last 'fun' thing to be in the epic, can be so shunned by those who are 'into it' . And last, to Bobo I say-I think the entire course of Tolkiens mythology, does a good job of delving into inter-racial relations quite well (dwarves and elves etc. etc.)\

Keep those messages coming!(I'm happy!) And to all fans of Tolkiens works, please don't hesitate to join the MiddanGaerd Usergroup, although I plead you CONTRIBUTE!

I used to avoid LOTR like the plague because, well, to be honest, epic fantasy bores me. I used to like it, but then...I dont know. I got sick of wading through three or more books just to find out what happened, LOL. So anyway, despite the pushing and prodding of a friend of mine, who started reading Tolkien's books at the prodigously young age of eight or so (we're talking BIG READER here), I refused to read it until the first movie came out, when I kinda thought, eh, might not be sooo bad. I found Tolkien heavy-going...I have to say, I have never read a more detailed writer, and to be honest, I prefer people to...you know. Worlds and languages and stuff, LOL. But recently I've had to get a copy of the trilogy for university (I'm doing a course on Myth and Fantasy in fiction...mmm) and I've started to think he's not so bad. I've found that with a lot of books actually. They can be really hard to get through the first time, but like with sports and stuff (OK, with running and swimming, at least) if you push past that initial barrier you actually find that the second time, when you go back, it's really easy to read and you pick up stuff that eluded you the first time. It's awesome So I'd have to say I'm a convert LOL. Although I still approach with caution, and only when I have a lot of time on my hands...

You know, i dont think Tolkien is the most detailed writer I've come across, if you want detailed read Stephen King! My god that man can TALK! Within each of his novels are smaller novels about each and every character you come across. Now in some cases that may not be so bad, but with him...it's distracting, and when i get distracted i eat, which takes up even more time...

Bubblewrapped-Don't worry, I'm a convert to, but that is a whole other, long I might add, story!

Jigsaw-At least now we have some other median for complaints about description... And when I'm distracted, I stare into space...It takes alot of time... ......

Ha! Thank you for giving me yet another reason not to read Stephen King **shivers** I started reading Carrie last year, but GOD...ew. I'm not usually so easy to dissuade but the guy is CREEPY.
When I'm distracted, I tend to read, like, three pages while thinking about something else, and then suddenly realize I have no idea who so-and-so is or what the hell they're doing already. This also takes up a lot of time, as I have to go back and reread it all again

Ha! I used to have that same problem, except i didn't actually realise why i didn't know what was happening... Anyway it was eventually pointed out to me by a very grumpy leprecaun- it was actually a very ugly old man- and since then I pay close attention to what I'm reading. Oh and i totally know what your talking about when you say Stephen King is a Creep- that man is twisted in so many different ways *shudders*...he cant help but spew forth horrible accounts...

Did you know that Stephen King views his characters as actual, real people...weird.

Wait... you mean characters aren't actual people?

Weird...

Hey! Stephen King probably fondles butterflies on his spare time, for all you know! 'Normality' is one bound many of us are 'fraid to breach, take arms against this foul barrier I say! *babbles like an idiot*

Ok, this is getting slowly, but surely, off topic! Please, continue the discussion about why you find Tolkiens work too tedious, just right, or not enough.

But offtopic is fun! So is babbling like an idiot, which just happens to be a favourite pastime of mine. And just what do you mean by "fondles butterflies" hmmm, are you implying Stephen King indulges in Beastiality? Well, well, it's just another thing that's weird about S. King.
Weird. hehe
Weird is a funny word.
hehe...