Opinions on The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien?

I recently reread The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings for the first time since Junior High. I must say that The Hobbit was as fun as I remembered. Witty, whimsical, economic, and with a ton of memorable events, characters, and descriptions. To me, Lord of the Rings suffers from being overly serious. I know that's the very reason so many love Tolkien's mythology, because of the seriousness given to it. But Tolkien said his goal was simply to tell a great story, and for me, LotR just got bogged down with a weight of trying to be an epic. Tolkien's descriptive prose, after a while, just bored me. The repetition, the 80 million words used for the same thing (who knew there was THAT many ways to say "valley"?). But in the end it lacked everything that I thought made The Hobbit so great. I guess part of my criticism comes from the fact that I've never been automatically hooked on Tolkien's mythology. If I wanted mythology I'd rather read the original classics which I think are more imaginative and interesting.

The major blow to Tolkien, for me, was going from LotR to War and Peace. My, what a breathe of fresh air! It's funny that W&P is the much longer book with the stigma of being a classic, yet I think I've breezed through it where I slogged through much of LotR. The writing is just so much better. Crisper, clearer, more vivid, and even more evocative in what it chooses to leave out. Tolstoy doesn't need 4 paragraphs of environmental descriptions to set the scene, and ironically I find his environments more vivid in my head than any in Tolkien in all his verbose descriptions.

But, even with all my criticism, I still vote "excellent fantasy" because I feel they are. When the books are good, they're very good. Offering the right blend of aesthetic atmosphere and narrative excitement. But I do think they fall quite short of literary masterpieces. I also think they unfairly overshadow fantasy that I find equally worthwhile even if less scholarly. For fantasy with rich, descriptive prose, for instance, I'll take Susan Cooper's superb but underrated The Dark is Rising Sequence, which I've read entirely 3 times (once in grade school, once in junior high, and once last year).

But I'd love to hear other opinions.

The Hobbit's by far the best of the two books. But yeah, Tolien's ok but nothing great. Robert E Howard's writing is far more powerful.

I read the Lord of the Rings, all three books together. It was a very good read. However, Tolkein's attention to detail goes a little to the extreem. It was hard getting through the first 300 pages of the history of the hobbits and everyone related to them. To be honest, in the overall scheme of the book, I felt this was a bit excessive.

Otherwise, the writing instilled a connection with the characters; more so than the movies ever could. I felt myself through a stream of emotions, going through the battles; times with friends etc. Few books and authors have been able to do that.

I believe that the overall story is powerful, engaging, whimsical, and captivating; though I feel that the writer could have spared us moments of breaking with the descriptions. I find the story fascinating, but the attention received from each book that was adapted into a feature film, and the sweeping sense of cult-fandom that hit my 7th grade class turned me off a bit.

Ring Cycle>Lord of the Rings movies>the Hobbit> Lord of the Rings. Lets be honest, the best thing about the Lord of the Rings (note this is entirely my opinion, feel free to object) is the New Zealand scenery that made it into the movie, which is of course, a natural, and spectacular phenomenon of this world. I'm happy that at least made the movies bearable, but the plot, characters, and premise are all silly.

Lets be honest, the bad guy is a big eye. What is so scary about a big eye? What can a big eye do? Look at you? Take a mental photograph when you are sleeping?

They are the greatest fantasy books ever written, but it seems a waste to devote a life to them as some do, especially when one could devote one's time to Shakespeare's complete works or Wordsworth's or Proust's.

Still, I don't think it's fair to dismiss his books as mere fantasy. Tolkein was after more than that. He was trying to give England a new mythology, to reconnect it with its 'northern' past: with the anglo saxons and vikings. I'm not sure that he succeeded but it was a good try. Personally I prefer the Hobbit, which is a truly wonderful, well written and gripping fantasy/adventure novel.

A case where the movies are much better than the books. The appealing thing about the Lord of the Rings is the world it's set in, not really the actual story or writing quality. I don't really read in the fantasy genre though, so I can't compare it to other fantasy books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Ring Cycle>Lord of the Rings movies>the Hobbit> Lord of the Rings.

---

Absolute agreement, though I might put The Hobbit equal with the films. But Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen trumps them all.

I voted masterpiece. I believe that Lord of The Rings is still the best fantasy book that I have ever read. The large amount of descriptions to me is part of what made the books so amazing, because there seemed to be so much richness to the world. It seemed like I was reading a history of an actual world rather than a fantasy book.

With that being said after my initial obssession in 3rd grade where I read it about 20 times; I have not read it since 6th grade so my view of it might be largely effected by nostalgia. Especially considering it was the book that got me hooked on reading.

I need to read it again.

The Hobbit rocked my socks, but the LOTR books were just alright for me. I still think it's incredible how people can think up imaginary places like that, though. My imagination's not that good. :p

I love the Hobbit nd i really enjoyed the Lord of the Rings. I voted excellent.
Personally i think The Bitterbynde Saga is much better than LOTR.

I loved The Hobbit! The difference between it and The Lord of the Rings is that the latter seems to be somewhat slower in my opinion, and that not as much action happens. In the Hobbit, however, more seems to happen, more exciting things that keep the reader's attention.

One of these days I will have to read LotR again. I hadn't read any real books of quality or substance when I read it last. I remember it feeling a little wooden, but having no trouble getting through it within a few weeks.

The movies were fantastic, so I look forward to reading it sometime in the future with a more discerning and appreciative eye for writing than I possessed in the past.

I have read both Hobbit and the rings twice and enjoyed them very much both times. I like the fact that at the beginning there is a long introduction, both in the Hobbit when the dwarfs come to Bilbo and all the people talked about in the rings, it is similar to how the Icelandic sagas begin. It gives a truthful and real feeling to it before the story begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Absolute agreement, though I might put The Hobbit equal with the films. But Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen trumps them all.

---

Oh, I couldn't agree more about the Wagner. This cycle of operas is absolutely STUNNING. Trumps Tolkien yes; with steroids!