Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
Of the three books in thsi trilogy I thought the Two Towers sort of dragged a lot in many places.
|
Really? Actually I thought it was the best of them. I just read them for the first time in January, and I wasn't really very impressed with the first book, much too much 'let's go here, what baddies are here', and not enough character development for my liking. I thought the Two Towers really started to flesh out the characters a lot more, though I didn't like the way all of book 3 was Aragorn and co, and all of book 4 was Frodo and Sam. I would have preferred if it switched back and forth in both books, partly because I detest Sam, and Frodo's not much better
, but mostly because I couldn't work out the chronology. It would have been helpful to know that when Frodo was climbing down the cliffs, Aragorn etc were doing whatever it was they were doing at that time. Then book three was also very confusing timewise, the quite weak saving of Frodo and Sam with the magic owls (or whatever they were
), plus there was that whole excruciating finale at the Shire
.