Which is better, the movie or the book? I've only watched the movie and I'm thinking about reading the book. The only Tolkien book I've read is The Children of Hurin, which I didn't particularly like. But I'm willing to give his others a try - I like the concept of Middle Earth. I've heard that LOTR is the only or one of the few books than pales in comparison to the movie. Comments?
Despite the snow,
Despite the falling snow.
The books are infinitely better. Visually, the movies were very stunning but they weren't great adaptions, there was so much left out and twisted. I would highly recommend reading the books. The Children of Hurin is told in a different style, it's more like a history book being part of The Silmarillion which is very much a history book, a recounting of myths and events from the creation and early years of Middle-earth, LOTR is quite different. It's written as a more traditional novel. And if you do decide to read it, the first half of the first book is a little slow, just stick with it, it does get better.
the luminous grass of the prairie hides
feet lovely and still as sleeping doves,
porcelain bones strong enough to carry a life,
but weighty and unmovable
As black Dakota hills. ~ Riesa
The movies, despite being in many ways, technically brilliant, are far inferior to the book due to the inclusion of various cliched, Hollwoodised, sententious banalities, which would allow the audience to 'relate' *snore* to the characters etc etc, etc, and various other rather pointless digressions to Tolkien's original work.
LoTR is written in a completely different style from The Silmarillion, from which much of CoH is, or was, pinched. It is, in many ways, a very enjoyable read, and is my favourite book of all time, though any such thing is subjective. If you have not read the Silmarillion prior to reading CoH, then it is no surprise that you don't like it, as the Silmarillion is central to understanding CoH. LoTR is written in a variety of different ways; see Idril's post above.
The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov
human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert
Do yourself a favor and take a trip to your library and borrow the audio books for LOTR. I've listened to mine three complete times and still love them. I think all three books take up about 3 X 16 (48) cd's.
I think leaving out Tom Bombadil from the movie was a big mistake. He is one of the coolest characters in the books, imo.
Cheers,
Doug
“The air was soft, the stars so fine, the promise of every cobbled alley so great that I thought I was in a dream.” -Jack Kerouac
The movie, at roughly 100 pages an hour in progression, it goes by a lot faster. Seriously though, besides from cinematography, neither the movies or the books really offer much.
The appeal of the movies seems to be graphics, and the New Zealand scenery. The appeal of the novels seems to be the 'escapist' alternative reality, which people deem more interesting than our own world. Neither are really true examples, in my opinion, of much artistry, but only loads of thought.
Tolkien's prose is boring, archaic, and too detailed. He gives family trees where names will do, and he draws portraits where names will do. His plot is primarily borrowed, as is much of the lore on his 'Middle Earth'.
The movie has the advantage of being a movie, and because of it, one does not need to listen to Tolkien's rambling in the back of their head, but they do need to watch the movie drag out. It has great moments mind you, and an excellent soundtrack, but it really loses much with each watching, and is quite limited.
As for the fallout Tolkien books, all I can say is, people have way too much time on their hands, if they can get through not just Lord of the Rings and love it, but also 500 page commentary about the history of Lord of the Rings.
At first, I didn't like the books; but there is no denying their success. When I saw the movies, several years later, I had to re-evaluate my position. After a more thorough appraisal I have to admit that the story itself has legs. I just didn't like the way Tolkien told it, or his prose style. To my thinking, the movies are better because they avoid Tolkien's prose but retain the plot and characters intact.
JBI, I've heard you mouth those same generalities about Tolkien before. Since you are such a champion of the close detailed reading, I was hoping you could offer a few examples to go with your analysis. If you could enlighten us, I am still open to being persuaded. Much appreciated, in advance. -mt
"So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
"This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
Feed the Hungry!
I'll see if I can, being that I have no copy of the text at my home, and I am leaving tomorrow, but I will search excerpts and see if I can dig anything.
O.K., just flipping through Wikiquote, I'll stick some passages from the first book which stood out to me as mediocre.
'The black horses can see, and the Riders can use men and other creatures as spies, as we found at Bree. They themselves do not see the world of light as we do, but our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are hidden from us: then they are most to be feared. And at all times they smell the blood of living things, desiring and hating it. Senses, too, there are other than sight or smell. We can feel their presence — it troubled our hearts, as soon as we came here, and before we saw them; they feel ours more keenly. Also,' he added, and his voice sank to a whisper, 'the Ring draws them.'
There is still hope,' he said. 'You are not alone. Let us take this wood that is set ready for the fire as a sign. There is little shelter or defence here, but fire shall serve for both. Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, and fear those who wield it. Fire is our friend in the wilderness.'
* Eh, what?' said Tom stirring up, and his eyes glinting in the gloom. 'Don't you know my name yet? That's only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the Little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'
'Eh, what?' said Tom stirring up, and his eyes glinting in the gloom. 'Don't you know my name yet? That's only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the Little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'
Still round the corner there may wait
A new road or a secret gate,
And though we pass them by today,
Tomorrow we may come this way
And take the hidden paths that run
Towards the Moon or to the Sun.
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with weary feet,
Until it joins some larger way,
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.
I am not made for perilous quests. I wish I had never seen the Ring! Why did it come to me? Why was I chosen?'
'Such questions cannot be answered,' said Gandalf. 'You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom, at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you must therefore use such strength and heart and wits as you have.'
He wandered in loneliness, weeping a little for the hardness of the world, and he journeyed up the River, till he came to a stream that flowed down from the mountains, and he went that way. He caught fish in deep pools with invisible fingers and ate them raw. One day it was very hot, and as he was bending over a pool, he felt a burning on the back of his head, and a dazzling light from the water pained his eyes. He wondered at it, for he had almost forgotten about the Sun. Then for the last time he looked up and shook his fist at her.
But as he lowered his eyes, he saw far ahead the tops of the Misty Mountains, out of which the stream came. And he though suddenly: "It would be cool and shady under those mountains. The Sun could not watch me there. The roots of those mountains must be roots indeed; there must be great secrets buried there which have not been discovered since the beginning."
So he journeyed by night into the highlands, and he found a little cave out of which the dark stream ran; and he wormed his way like a maggot into the heart of the hills, and vanished out of all knowledge. ...
... All the "great secrets" under the mountain had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated the light more: he hated everything.
------------
Hope those are enough quotes to prove my point. Examine each of them as quotes, and tell me what do they say. And also note the language used, which is so barbarically unrealistic in speech patterns that it is frightening.
Had I more time I could give you better quotes and examples, but I do not have my book in front of me, and I am leaving tomorrow, like I said, so won't really have time to flip through the books.
My two cents worth: the books are much better, although I am a self-proclaimed everything-LOTR-related geek. The movies are great--imagine how much greater, then, the books must be. HOWEVER I must warn you that the common complaint about Tolkien is that he is unbearably wordy at times. Being somewhat wordy myself in my writing, I can't say that Tolkien's rambling is particularly noticeable. Unfortunately most of my friends disagree with me.
Edit: come to think of it, you may like LOTR since you like V for Vendetta. (That's a terrific book and movie) Vendetta is dramatic and elegant, as is LOTR
Last edited by andave_ya; 06-23-2008 at 11:22 AM.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
Cipher, what I did was read 'The Hobbit' first. To me, it was detailed, but not as heavily detailed as 'LOTR'. And you need it in order to fully understand 'LOTR', so you should start with 'The Hobbit', it's funny and enjoyable.
Definitely, you should read 'LOTR'. If a movie were to be made that actually represents the novels, it would probably be close to 50 hours rather than a mere 9 hours! Movies never do justice to novels!
Last edited by Tournesol; 06-23-2008 at 03:23 PM.
"My warm hands have made the paper limp,
So that its feel reminds me of slept-in sheets: comfortable and safe"
"All these things I say... I say them because I want you to know, I don't ever want to regret afterwards that I didn't say enough, I would rather say too much." ~ Samuel Selvon
While Tolkien wasn't the greatest writer of all time, the books are vastly better than the movie version. The books have a single overriding theme that was absent from the movie version, and there are some important parts of the books that were omitted, and those damaged the movies. The omission of Tom Bombadil and of the return to the Shire removed the heart of the story.
This books is pleasurably wonderful in the apperance.I like to read the book, but not as well a movie. There are vivid and gorgeous descriptions of the land and other things in thus way. Also I have seen all three movies. With simple enjoyment I can cast my eyes on pages with gracious writting of the author.
Let us flowing our mind away and keep your sight on a similar book like that from Mr. Tolkien. So, I would write many pages about this event of the literature. But every book is big event for honest author not only this with big popularity in the world.
Well, spent every your day!
I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy to the end; of the movie version, I only watched the first installment. So I guess that makes me one vote for the books. In truth, I'm not much enamored of Tolkien; I just don't get the appeal the books have to the devoted fans. Amusing tales, sure, and charming in that peculiarly English way of the adult college professor who never quite grew up. Mainly, I just find them silly. And as JBI's quotes just reminded me, the prose is stilted, awkward, and rambling.
Lord of the Rings is like the third mug of tea made from a single tea bag. The source material is the Saga of the Volsungs. Wagner adapted it into the Ring cycle and Tolkien recycled it into Lord of the Rings. Along the way it lost all the vigor of the barbaric Norse original, and became a tale of bunnies who live at the bottom of an English garden traipsing off to battle the Hun.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
