The Lord of The Rings

[metropolis_part_one]

What is your opinion on the book?

[Soapy Sam]

Methinks if you search old threads using the title as the search criterion, you will find the opinion of most folk who ever visited the forum.

For me- I first read it at thirteen and have read it at least three times from end to end and dipped into it too often to recall. The best novel of fantasy written in English . Ever.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

After watching the first Harry Potter movie, I was inspired to read the books and was pleased to discover that the books were better than the movie.

After watching the first LOTR movie, I was again inspired to read the books... I never finished the first one. Way too much detail and way to slow paced. I mean, come on, on page 100, Frodo was just starting to leave the Shire.

My opinion is the LOTR movies are much better than the books.

[metropolis_part_one]

If shorter = better.

[Morwen]

I have been re-reading the books regularly since my father got them for me at age 13. I grew up into a full-fledged Tolkiendil. I still read the books, or parts of them, as fancy takes me. Every one or two years I read them all again. I've just begun with the first one after the third Peter Jackson movie. I liked the movies a lot, and I'm very happy that Peter Jackson is someone who obviously loves and understands the books; but as I plunge again into the Shire, I find myself losing the visual imagery of the movie and going back to the scenes, feeling and characters that have been with me since I first read the Lord of the Rings.

I read a lot. In fantasy, no other book has surpassed Lord of the Rings for me. Each time I read it I discover something new, and as I change, so the book changes. It's a good feeling, and I get to share it with lots of people.

[Monketey Ghost]

Soapy Sam's got it.
I can remember very clearly reading the LOTR, first in the trilogy... when it comes to the part where Gandalf is explaining to Frodo what the Ring is, who made it, and why it has come to him, I got a chill down my spine. It's a rare bit of wordsmithy that actually gives me a physical reaction like this.

[fishbob]

I first read it at thirteen and have read it at least three times from end to end and dipped into it too often to recall. Scary how much we have in common. I first read it in 7th grade, and have re-read a number of times.

My wife has read it, my kids have read it, and my daughter has bought DVD 1 and 2.

Any book that can keep the interest of so many people, through more than a 1000 pages, for multiple reads, has to be good.

[LW]

Originally posted by metropolis_part_one
What is your opinion on the book?

I like it.

However, I like Silmarillion more.

[Hamish]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
After watching the first Harry Potter movie, I was inspired to read the books and was pleased to discover that the books were better than the movie.

After watching the first LOTR movie, I was again inspired to read the books... I never finished the first one. Way too much detail and way to slow paced. I mean, come on, on page 100, Frodo was just starting to leave the Shire.

My opinion is the LOTR movies are much better than the books.

But you haven't read the books so how can you make that comparison?

I think it makes a difference as to which you encountered first. I'm trying to persuade my girlfriend to finish reading the books - she saw the film first. For me, the books were with me since I was 11 and the films will always be a (close) second. The BBC Radio 4 adaptation really brought the story to life for me. I think even Peter Jackson drew on that somewhat in making the films.

The first book is slow, especially the first time you read it. Every dramatic adaptation made of LOTR has skipped the chapters from the Old Forrest to the end of the Barrow Downs. Get past this and it picks up a bit.

I'm currently reading LOTR for the third time.

I'm off to see Return of the King tonight (hopefully) so I can't make a full comparison either just yet. I was disappointed with The Two Towers film when I saw it first but changed my mind after watching the extended edition DVD. I have found that I use imagery from the film in fleshing out my mental picture of scenes from the book.

[DVFinn]

Great books. I first read them in grammer school and I reread them every few years.

[whitefork]

LW, do you see much linking the Tolkien works to the Kalevala, from the Finnish side, say in terms of style or language? It's a widely held view.

[LW]

Originally posted by Kullervo
LW, do you see much linking the Tolkien works to the Kalevala, from the Finnish side, say in terms of style or language? It's a widely held view.

Well, you should know since Turin Turambar is 33% Kullervo, 33% Sigurd Fafnirsbane, and 33% Tolkien's own.

It is said that the Elven languages of Tolkien were influenced by Finnish. However, that influence is not so easy to see.

There are some places where Tolkien snitched ideas from Kalevala. The most obvious part is the life of Turin in Silmarillion that is at parts uncannily similar to the story of Kullervo Kalervo's son. I have read only Finnish translations of Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales and not the originals so it might be that the translator emphasized those similarities.

In particular, the deaths of Turin and Niniel are almost directly from Kalevala (songs 35 and 36). There Kullervo seduces a girl on a tax-collecting trip but it turns out that she is his long-lost sister. When this is found out, the girl runs away and drowns herself in a river. Later he returns to the spot, draws his sword and asks it whether it would like to drink his blood. The sword then answers that it will eagerly drink his sinful blood as it kills also innocents, so Kullervo kills himself with his sword.

(BTW, this story wasn't originally about Kullervo but about Turo. When Lönnrot compiled Kalevala he edited the old folk song by changing the actor. Why he did this is not completely certain, probably he did it to reduce the number of different persons and that one was the only song about Turo. He did also few other similar changes, like identifying the viking-age hero-chief Ahti Saarelainen (or perhaps two heroes Ahti and Saarelainen, it is not clear whether they were originally one person) with the ancient shaman Lieto Lemminkäinen).

[epepke]

Originally posted by LW


It is said that the Elven languages of Tolkien were influenced by Finnish. However, that influence is not so easy to see.

The most obvious similarity is the dual number.

[LW]

Originally posted by epepke


The most obvious similarity is the dual number.

Except that the Finnish doesn't have a dual...

I haven't really studied Tolkien's languages, but I'd guess that the most important similarity is the idea that each word has a basic stem and then you modify its meaning by adding suffixes that correspond to the cases.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by LW

I haven't really studied Tolkien's languages, but I'd guess that the most important similarity is the idea that each word has a basic stem and then you modify its meaning by adding suffixes that correspond to the cases.

If I understand what you write correctly, he could also have gotten that idea from Latin - it is the same there.

[Mark]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
After watching the first Harry Potter movie, I was inspired to read the books and was pleased to discover that the books were better than the movie.

After watching the first LOTR movie, I was again inspired to read the books... I never finished the first one. Way too much detail and way to slow paced. I mean, come on, on page 100, Frodo was just starting to leave the Shire.

My opinion is the LOTR movies are much better than the books.

No offense intended, but I suspect this says more about your attention span than it does about the quality of the books. That said, I am a full-fledged LOTR geek, having read the books (since age 12) around 30 times.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by LW
Well, you should know since Turin Turambar is 33% Kullervo, 33% Sigurd Fafnirsbane, and 33% Tolkien's own.It seems I need to reread the Silmarillion. It's been a long time.

This mystery page: http://koti.welho.com/kpontisk/tolkien.html and others.

Research, research, and no time for it....

[epepke]

Originally posted by LW


Except that the Finnish doesn't have a dual...

Really? Maybe it was Icelandic, then. I don't speak either; I just read the assertion in a biography of Tolkien.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Mark


No offense intended, but I suspect this says more about your attention span than it does about the quality of the books. That said, I am a full-fledged LOTR geek, having read the books (since age 12) around 30 times.

Similar number for myself. Still haven't seen the ROTK movie and don't intend to.

[LW]

Originally posted by epepke

Really?

Either that or else the existence of the dual is so well-kept secret that they can't teach it in schools ...

Originally posted by Chaos
If I understand what you write correctly, he could also have gotten that idea from Latin - it is the same there.[

The same general principle. I also have read that Tolkien himself has quoted Finnish as one source of the Elvish languages. However, as a native Finnish speaker who is not a linguist by training and who has only a casual knowledge of the said languages, I can't see anything in them that would necessarily come from Finnish.

Well, the vowels and diphthongs correspond quite directly to Finnish pronounciation, but for example, in Italian they are pronounced in a very similar way. Then there's the thing that double consonants are always pronounced double in Tolkien's languages, as they are in Finnish, but I don't think this is an exclusive property of Finnish, either.

[Mark]

Originally posted by No Answers


Similar number for myself. Still haven't seen the ROTK movie and don't intend to.

Well, I have to admit I enjoyed it very, very much. The plot changes Jackson made actually seemed to make sense (as opposed to the dumb changes in TT) from a cinematic standpoint.

One exception: The character of Faramir was simply mangled in TT. Everyone told me that would be corrected in ROTK; it wasn't. The (book version) heroic, noble, wise Faramir remained a pathetic, limp, loser in ROTK.

That said, I enjoyed the movie a lot.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Mark


No offense intended, but I suspect this says more about your attention span than it does about the quality of the books. That said, I am a full-fledged LOTR geek, having read the books (since age 12) around 30 times.

No offense taken, but after some additional thought regarding this, I have realized the likely cause for my boredom with these books. The LOTR novels have been so hyped that it is difficult for them to live up to my expectations, reading them now for the first time. I have found that some movies have been ruined for me because of them failing to meet the high expectations that others have set for me.

Additionally, after seeing the movie, another set of expectations arises. It is hard to go from the fast paced, action packed movies to the story of a hobbit who spends fifty years in the Shire before finally getting the story moving.

[Mark]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


No offense taken, but after some additional thought regarding this, I have realized the likely cause for my boredom with these books. The LOTR novels have been so hyped that it is difficult for them to live up to my expectations, reading them now for the first time. I have found that some movies have been ruined for me because of them failing to meet the high expectations that others have set for me.

Additionally, after seeing the movie, another set of expectations arises. It is hard to go from the fast paced, action packed movies to the story of a hobbit who spends fifty years in the Shire before finally getting the story moving.

I get that. For many of us, though, the appeal of the books is not so much the plot, as it is the characters and the amazings vistas (many of them unexplored) in the books. Kind of like revisiting a favorite vacation spot.

[whitefork]

There's also a sense that a whole lot of history has gone before, that's merely hinted at, and revealed in some of the songs, or side remarks that the characters make. You're set there in medias res, Sauron has already returned and is calling his forces to him, the One Ring has been found but its nature is not yet known, Aragorn has been patrolling the wilderness for years and his history is known in part, the Elves have always existed and have always been heading into the West, there was this person/entity/god/demon Morgoth who caused havoc an indeterminately long time ago, the lost hidden city of Gondolin, the other wizards, hints of Numenor, the extreme age of Elrond, the fact that he's part human-part Elven....

There were dragons, they may still exist. There are races that have a past history that's hinted at but not spelled out. There are cool alphabets on the title pages.

It has a feel of age to it, as if Tolkien had pieced it together from some archaic sources he found somewhere.

Then there's a few hundred pages of appendices, languages with hints as to how to translate them....

The Lord of the Rings in isolation leaves the reader wanting to know the rest of the story. There are hints, to be sure, but very little that's explicitly spelled out. Part of me was sorry that Tolkien's estate published the Silmarillion and the other tales, not because they didn't get Tolkien's final touch, but because they told too much of the story.

It's slow. It takes its time. There's way too much to be absorbed in one reading. It demands the reader's attention.

It practically guaranteed itself a fanatical cult following by its very nature.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Kullervo
There's also a sense that a whole lot of history has gone before, that's merely hinted at, and revealed in some of the songs, or side remarks that the characters make. You're set there in medias res, Sauron has already returned and is calling his forces to him, the One Ring has been found but its nature is not yet known, Aragorn has been patrolling the wilderness for years and his history is known in part, the Elves have always existed and have always been heading into the West, there was this person/entity/god/demon Morgoth who caused havoc an indeterminately long time ago, the lost hidden city of Gondolin, the other wizards, hints of Numenor, the extreme age of Elrond, the fact that he's part human-part Elven....

There were dragons, they may still exist. There are races that have a past history that's hinted at but not spelled out. There are cool alphabets on the title pages.

It has a feel of age to it, as if Tolkien had pieced it together from some archaic sources he found somewhere.

Then there's a few hundred pages of appendices, languages with hints as to how to translate them....

The Lord of the Rings in isolation leaves the reader wanting to know the rest of the story. There are hints, to be sure, but very little that's explicitly spelled out. Part of me was sorry that Tolkien's estate published the Silmarillion and the other tales, not because they didn't get Tolkien's final touch, but because they told too much of the story.

It's slow. It takes its time. There's way too much to be absorbed in one reading. It demands the reader's attention.

It practically guaranteed itself a fanatical cult following by its very nature.

That helps give me a better feel as to what the fascination of the LOTR books is. In fact, it tempts me to take make another attempt at reading them.

[epepke]

Originally posted by LW


Either that or else the existence of the dual is so well-kept secret that they can't teach it in schools ...

Not to argue with you about Finnish (in retrospect, I think that what I remember probably was Icelandic), but English has two subjunctives and familiar and polite pronouns, and these are kept such a secret that they largely aren't taught in US schools, anyway. They might be taught in schools in other countries, though.

The familiar pronouns are considered archaic, but around half of English speakers seem to use and recognize the subjunctives. Yet I doubt more than a small minority of native speakers could describe what the subjunctives were or when they are used.

[epepke]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


No offense taken, but after some additional thought regarding this, I have realized the likely cause for my boredom with these books. The LOTR novels have been so hyped that it is difficult for them to live up to my expectations, reading them now for the first time.

Tolkien's goal was to assemble a mythology for England and by extension for English-speaking people. Very little of it was actually original, assembling lots of concepts from Northern and Celtic mythology, plus Atlantis (Numenor). In this, he put Hobbits, which are, of course, the English: homely, homey, and devoted to comfort, but capable of astonishing endurance when pressed.

I think one reason it doesn't seem so impressive any more is because it worked. The ideas assembled by Tolkien are part of the cultural landscape and are taken for granted, so by now they seem sort of ho-hum. This happens a lot. I don't know a lot of people who can really jibe with Woodie Guthrie or Lenny Bruce today, because they were largely successful.

[Jon_in_london]

I didnt like the book.

Its ridiculously long winded abd I ended up heaving it out the window after page 13874536 by which time Gandalf had just made his first appearance in the Shire.

I didnt like the movie either though... bah! humbug!

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by LW
The same general principle. I also have read that Tolkien himself has quoted Finnish as one source of the Elvish languages. However, as a native Finnish speaker who is not a linguist by training and who has only a casual knowledge of the said languages, I can't see anything in them that would necessarily come from Finnish.

Well, the vowels and diphthongs correspond quite directly to Finnish pronounciation, but for example, in Italian they are pronounced in a very similar way. Then there's the thing that double consonants are always pronounced double in Tolkien's languages, as they are in Finnish, but I don't think this is an exclusive property of Finnish, either.
Tolkien absolutely fell in love with the Finnish language when he first encountered it. In one of his letters he says that when he taught himself Finnish, "It was like discovering a wine-cellar filled with bottles of amazing wine of a kind and flavor never tasted before. It quite intoxicated me." On the Kalevala he commented, "The more I read of it, the more I felt at home and enjoyed myself." Keep in mind, too, that it's only Quenya that is said to be inspired by Finnish, not Sindarin, which was mainly inspired by Welsh. That might be why some people are saying "Elvish" doesn't look much like Finnish. They might be thinking of Sindarin, the more commonly spoken Elvish language. Quenya was "high-Elvish" or, as some like to call it, the Elvish Latin. And notice, too, I said inspired by and not based on. I think Tolkien wanted to invent a language that would give him the same feeling that Finnish did.

[Psi Baba]

My response to the thread's main question should by now be obvious. I'm a Tolkien geek. One thing I'd like to point out that's often misunderstood, is that Tolkien was not a "writer of fantasy novels" and he is often unfairly compared to later fantasy writers. He was an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon and a philologist (not to mention a contributor to the OED), who happened to author an heroic epic that became classified as a fantasy novel, and that this novel happened to be set in a world created as a result of his "secret vice" of inventing languages and then inventing histories of those languages and worlds in which to set them. Along the way he published a children's story called The Hobbit which was set in the fringes of his already invented world. His dream was to publish The Silmarillion, but the publishers wanted a sequel to The Hobbit. When he attempted to give them something that would please both the publishers and himself at the same time, it resulted in The Lord of the Rings. And we are so much the richer for it.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
My response to the thread's main question should by now be obvious. I'm a Tolkien geek. One thing I'd like to point out that's often misunderstood, is that Tolkien was not a "writer of fantasy novels" and he is often unfairly compared to later fantasy writers. He was an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon and a philologist (not to mention a contributor to the OED), who happened to author an heroic epic that became classified as a fantasy novel, and that this novel happened to be set in a world created as a result of his "secret vice" of inventing languages and then inventing histories of those languages and worlds in which to set them It's a pet peeve of mine when people refuse to classify a "literary" book as a genre piece. Tolkein wrote the books with fantastical, mythological, and folkloric (that a word?) elements. By definition that's a fantasy story. The pulps of the 30's had already established it as a genre. IMNSHO a lot of authors did it better, like Fritz Leiber. And he even I believe coined the term "sword and scorcery". Calling it a fantasy book doesn't make it less powerful. There are quite a few other authors who refuse to be called "science fiction" authors even though that is exactly what they write. Like the woman who wrote "The Handmaidens Tale" (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Lovecraft is still horror, Heinlein is still sci-fi, and Tolkein is still fantasy even if they are considered literature.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
It's a pet peeve of mine when people refuse to classify a "literary" book as a genre piece. Tolkein wrote the books with fantastical, mythological, and folkloric (that a word?) elements. By definition that's a fantasy story. The pulps of the 30's had already established it as a genre. IMNSHO a lot of authors did it better, like Fritz Leiber. And he even I believe coined the term "sword and scorcery". Calling it a fantasy book doesn't make it less powerful. There are quite a few other authors who refuse to be called "science fiction" authors even though that is exactly what they write. Like the woman who wrote "The Handmaidens Tale" (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Lovecraft is still horror, Heinlein is still sci-fi, and Tolkein is still fantasy even if they are considered literature.

I, on the other hand, am always confused by people who feel a strong need to pigeonhole works of art, be they literary, musical, visual, whatever. Is the work somehow made better (or worse) by assigning it a (often inaccurate) label?

One of the best psycological thrillers I ever read was "Sleeping Planet" by William R. Burkett Jr. A "Sci Fi" book by most people's label...yet the sci fi part was really subordinate to the real theme.

To me, labels rarely make any sense.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Mark


I, on the other hand, am always confused by people who feel a strong need to pigeonhole works of art, be they literary, musical, visual, whatever. Is the work somehow made better (or worse) by assigning it a (often inaccurate) label?

One of the best psycological thrillers I ever read was "Sleeping Planet" by William R. Burkett Jr. A "Sci Fi" book by most people's label...yet the sci fi part was really subordinate to the real theme.

To me, labels rarely make any sense. Reading over my post I'm unsure how I made myself sound like such an @$$hole. I didn't mean to sound that way.

No something is not made better or worse by assigning it a label. I meant that to be my point. I just think it's kinda pretentious when people act like it's BAD that books fall into the tropes of a genre. Publishers were probably quick to say that Michael Crichton wasn't a sci-fi author after he got mainstream popularity even though 90% of his books were just that. Stephen King and Dean Koontz are no longer found in horror sections because "most people don't read horror" even though millions read their books. And some people don't read "fantasy" but they love LOTR. Just makes me want to scream "Well then I guess you do read fantasy dip$#!+!"

[Hexxenhammer]

In the interest of full disclosure, I only read LOTR a few years ago. I tried to read it in 6th grade after I'd read the Hobbit, but I thought it was boring because Bilbo's birthday goes on for 50 pages. I read the Dragonlance books (a blatant LOTR ripoff) instead. Being a D&D nerd it was deeply shameful to me that I hadn't read it. So I went on a quest to read all the "old school" fantasy I could. I read all of Leiber's Fafrhd and the Grey Mouser books, a crapload of Howard, and LOTR. I liked LOTR a lot. Like Kullervo said, you get a sense of deep time from it. But on the whole I prefer Leiber and Howard more.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Reading over my post I'm unsure how I made myself sound like such an @$$hole. I didn't mean to sound that way.

No something is not made better or worse by assigning it a label. I meant that to be my point. I just think it's kinda pretentious when people act like it's BAD that books fall into the tropes of a genre. Publishers were probably quick to say that Michael Crichton wasn't a sci-fi author after he got mainstream popularity even though 90% of his books were just that. Stephen King and Dean Koontz are no longer found in horror sections because "most people don't read horror" even though millions read their books. And some people don't read "fantasy" but they love LOTR. Just makes me want to scream "Well then I guess you do read fantasy dip$#!+!"

Well, I never thought you were an @$$hole. If I made it sound that way, then I am the one who should apologize. And I do. And I agree 100% with what you just wrote. My bad.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Mark


Well, I never thought you were an @$$hole. If I made it sound that way, then I am the one who should apologize. And I do. And I agree 100% with what you just wrote. My bad. No dude, it wasn't your response. I thought I sounded crabby as soon as I read it after I posted it. I try to keep my posts pretty light.

[LW]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
But on the whole I prefer Leiber and Howard more.

I haven't read Leiber (shame on me) but I agree that Howard was a very good writer of fantasy short stories. I can't compare him with Tolkien, though, since their work is so different.

But what Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter did to his manuscripts after his death was something truly terrible.

[LW]

Originally posted by Psi Baba

Tolkien wanted to invent a language that would give him the same feeling that Finnish did.

I have only seen written Quenya, never heard it spoken. As a written text it gives me very different feeling, but I don't really know how it would sound. The pronounciation rules given by Tolkien are quite close to Finnish though there are differences in accentuaing the words. (Though apparently "Ancient Quenya" was systematically accented as Finnish: main accent is always on the first syllable, and side accents with every other syllable after that, though compound words mess that a bit).

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by LW


I haven't read Leiber (shame on me) but I agree that Howard was a very good writer of fantasy short stories. I can't compare him with Tolkien, though, since their work is so different.

But what Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter did to his manuscripts after his death was something truly terrible. I agree about de Camp.

I wouldn't compare Howard and Tolkein either, except on the basis of personal enjoyment. They are the opposite ends of the fantasy spectrum. Or were until Elric came along and smashed fantasy to rubble and built it back up again.

and yes, shame on you for not reading Leiber.:p

[epepke]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Like the woman who wrote "The Handmaidens Tale" (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

It's The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, and you're right; she's a supercilious twit about the whole thing. Clearly and obviously science fiction, as is 1984 and Brave New World.

The homo fecit that science fiction or fantasy cannot by definition be literature seems mostly American and Canadian. In England and the rest of Europe, they're much more relaxed about it.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
It's a pet peeve of mine when people refuse to classify a "literary" book as a genre piece. Tolkein wrote the books with fantastical, mythological, and folkloric (that a word?) elements. By definition that's a fantasy story. The pulps of the 30's had already established it as a genre. IMNSHO a lot of authors did it better, like Fritz Leiber. And he even I believe coined the term "sword and scorcery". Calling it a fantasy book doesn't make it less powerful. There are quite a few other authors who refuse to be called "science fiction" authors even though that is exactly what they write. Like the woman who wrote "The Handmaidens Tale" (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Lovecraft is still horror, Heinlein is still sci-fi, and Tolkein is still fantasy even if they are considered literature.
Hex, you are correct, and I wouldn't hesitate to call LOTR fantasy, myself, but what seems to happen a lot is that people who haven't read it, but have been bought up on the fantasy works of the 50s, 60s, and 70s who then go on to read Tolkien are often dissapointed (it even appears that may have happened in your case). There is certainly nothing wrong with preferring Leiber or Howard or Cherryh or Anthony to Tolkien. My point (perhaps not expressed very clearly) was that Tolkien was not a career writer. He was not a writer of fiction by trade. He sort of ended up in the vocation through a series of serendipitous events. I have no problem including his work in the fantasy genre (broadly defined), but it bears pointing out that his work is very different than most other fantasy fiction, and involved very unorthodox creative processes to bring it about. Tolkien preferred "heigh style" romantic epics, legends, and mythology, such as Beowulf (which he translated from Old English) and Scandanavian legends. LOTR is such a heroic epic, which is really what he wanted to write, but it had to pick up where the Hobbit left off.

His essay "On Fairy Stories" sheds much light on where was coming from with his fiction and why it is not exactly the same as more common fantasy fiction.

And although I'm a fan of Lovecraft, I wouldn't hesitate to call it horror (although he himself called it "weird fiction"). I would also call Harlan Ellison science fiction, though certainly not to his face. (He doesn't take very kindly to that label). :D

[espritch]

My father read "The Hobbit" to me before I even learned to read. As a kid, I read both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" and found them fascinating. The only real problem I had with the books was that the hobbits were the only characters allowed to act human. The human characters were so heroic that they came across as sort of two dimensional.

[Mark]

Originally posted by espritch
My father read "The Hobbit" to me before I even learned to read. As a kid, I read both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" and found them fascinating. The only real problem I had with the books was that the hobbits were the only characters allowed to act human. The human characters were so heroic that they came across as sort of two dimensional.

Huh?

What about Boromir? Bill Ferny, Harry the Gatekeeper, Denethor, Theoden (at first), the Dead at Dunharrow, Denethor's guards ("blind in their allegiance")...

Are you sure you read the right book?