What's so special about LOTR?

[Luvian]

I never understood why people elevate LOTR, consider it the best and use it to rate other novels.

Sure, I liked the story, but there was nothing special in it. It was actually pretty average as far as stories goes. You've got this villain that want to take over the world, but an unlikely hero rise up against him, and with the help of a cast of mis-matched allies that bicker with each others but put their differences aside to accomplish their goal travel trough strange woods, ruins, and battlefields to finally accomplish their goal of saving the world. I probably just described 90% of all fantasy novels right there.

That's what get me. There is nothing special in LOTR, nothing that you don't see in other novels. There's nothing special in the way it's written, there's nothing special in their adventure, nothing special in the ending, it's just a typical fantasy series.

You could say that LOTR started it all, and I guess that's true, maybe back then it was original, but today, it isn't. The only difference between LOTR and random well written generic fantasy of the month is that LOTR is older, but I don't know, when I read a book, the fact it was written a while ago doesn't make the story any better than if it had just been released, it's still the same story.

If you remove the age factor, if you pretend all novels had ben writen and published at the exact same time, what make LOTR special, what make it "the best story ever written"? I just don't get it...

[Thoran]

Obviosly it's just people's opinions we're talking about here. I've met plenty of people who don't feel the same way I do.

For me, I don't think it's the LOTR trilogy only... I think the entire history Tolkien created is what makes Middle Earth so compelling. The trilogy itself represents only a fraction of what is Middle Earth... and without knowing the rest I think it's harder to appreciate how unparalleled Tolkien's achievement is. The problem with this is that much of Tolkien's writing is far less accessible to most readers. It's difficult enough that most people say 'to heck with this' and move on to something else.

But if you can get through it... The Silmarillion, the Lost Tales... then when you reread the Hobbit and LOTR you find that the stories are woven through with 20+ millenia of history. Every time you read you find things with long rich histories... from Aragorns ring to Gandalf's sword... people, places and things that have a solidness that most stories can't give.

Just like I recommended the Belgariad for younger readers... LOTR is something I really didn't appreciate until I was in my late 20's and had read through Tolkiens other works. It was just too much work for me when I was a teen... I liked it but I felt it dragged in places (like the escape from the shire). Part of it was probably impatience... something I don't have such a problem with now that I'm older.

[Luvian]

So for you "LOTR" mean the whole world and not just the series. It's true that he did spend a lot of energy on developing his world, I've spent hours reading about it to better understand it all, he did create a complex and detailed world.

But to get back to my argument, if that's whe way it is, then people should say "This novel is X compated to Middle Earth. But then the comparison is flawed, you can't really compare a novel with a developed world. You could compare one world with another, but then you wouldn't really comparing the novels.

When I'm rating a novel, I rate it based on what was in it, it's plot, character interaction etc. Not what can be researched about it's barkground based on other books. If you just take the novels without the researchd background, is there anything special?

Edit: Although comparing worlds themselves would be interesting. Some novels have pretty rich world.

[ 09-13-2006, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Bozos of Bones]

I find LotR a bit too drawn out. Everything else is good, considering it was the first actual fantasy novel, it's just that Tolkien takes so much time describing every single hair on the stallion ridden by the noble Aragorn, or every single wart on every single orc besieging every single town/castle/fort.
As for really good world-building, GRRMartin and Frank Herbert come to mind almost unbidden.

[JrKASperov]

LoTR's world is quite bland as far as it goes. The details get hidden in Tolkien's horrendously tight writing style which bores the utter crap out of me. I really don't want to read 15 pages about how some hobbits are trudging around forests, even if those are completely detailed. As for other fantasy aspects, there is no intrigue(everything is quite clear from the beginning, something Feist has done way better), I've spotted no humour, the dialogs are unbelievable(why not address anyone with 'thou' while he's at it) and there's hardly any magic.

[SideShowRage]

Ive always liked the books, but I definately agree that they arent the end all be all of fantasy.....Personally I would prefere to read a David Eddings novel than the LOTR again..

[Harkoliar]

perhaps LOTR the movie also created such big time war using CGI that intense that you cant help but admire the movie.

i have read the trilogy. I must admit its really boring. SKip the entire boring introduction of the world and get on with the story and you would be getting into it.

[Iron Greasel]

I like it, but that could simply be the lack of comparison. I haven't read much generic fantasy.

[Thoran]

I think it's impossible to seperate LOTR from Middle Earth... because I don't believe Tolkien saw them as seperate entities. He designed a complete history and chose one little piece of it to write about in LOTR... and an even smaller piece for the Hobbit. If you only read those novels you're basically seeing 1% of his creation. As such I think they were groundbreaking for their time, but certainly there are many writers who are talented enough to compare to Tolkien on a book by book basis. I think George Martin is an extremely talented author, Jordan has some brilliant individual books although the series as a whole has some glaring weaknesses. Eddings, Donaldson, Hobbs, etc... there are many talented authors who can put together a good book, even a good series. What they ALL lack is the historical depth that makes Middle Earth unique. When you read those books you may hear a character talking about a long dead elf maiden and her love for a mortal... but there won't be an entire series of novels worth of story for those two that exists.

So without Middle Earth... when Aragorn says "She Died." in the movie in response to Frodo's question about his song (a song that Tolkien wrote), you may get an idea that it was tragic... but you won't understand that there was so much more to their story. The story of Beren and Luthian could be written based on Tolkiens work, and it would be nearly as long as LOTR. Then there's the Fall of Gondolin (which some feel he should have written instead of LOTR), the Downfall of Numenor, the Last Alliance, and numerous conflicts thoughout the history that would make outstanding books or series.

The difference is that there are no writers who can match Middle Earth, with a number of complete languages... an entire and fully fleshed out mythology and history... a pantheon of dieties with millenia of detailed history. IMO it's a singular achievement that I doubt will ever be matched by another individual.

[Luvian]

I have to agree with you about how big Middle Earth's history is. Tolkien didn't only create legends and histories as a background, he actually fleshed them out and created the whole history of his world. I think if Robert Jordan had done like Tolkien and had wrtten about only one part of his world he might be getting better critics, instead of trying to fit his whole world in one series.