Problems with non LOTR readers...

[James_SentellFOTR]

So, Lord Of The Rings have been my favorite novel since I was 6. I read them every year or so and my family, friends, and even acquaintances usually say the same thing... "why"?

I usually go through a lengthy explanation, and I always end it with recommending it. Then they continue to state that they do not enjoy the writing style for the book. I find that one of the most annoying comments about LOTR is that it uses "old timey english", like Shakespearean (which obviously does not).

The most popular quote as of late is Gandalf (in FOTR) stating “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” (clearly not Shakespearean...)

So what are some other common excuses for people not wanting to read this novel that you guys have heard?

 

[Starbrow]

The most common excuse I have heard is that it is too long.

 

[James_SentellFOTR]

The most common excuse I have heard is that it is too long.

Yes! Very common, very annoying.

 

[Licky Linguist]

Most people say they don’t have the time to. That’s not a problem, just that they’re missing out on a lot.

My classmates (from four or five years ago, when I first attempted LotR, and brought it to school), abandoned it on the first few sentences, saying the text was difficult to read. I still don’t know whether the text was too small, or the writing was difficult to understand, but the first chapter seemed one of the most easy to me (and others incredibly hard to get through, at that age).

 

[Olorgando]

From what I've read, and seen reported on (quality) TV, reading of books generally has been on the decline for decades. Possibly the advent of Kindle and other e-book readers has slowed or even reversed this trend, at least in reading of book content. I don't recall any statements about this either way, but I may simply have missed them. While e-book readers certainly have some practical advantages, especially when travelling by air with those luggage weight restrictions, I still prefer a book to an e-reader (I don't own one).

One cause could well be a trend towards what might be called hyperactivity (that senseless zapping through TV channels, for example), and shortened attention spans. Something that has definitely been noted in studies on the effects of what one could call "small-screen media" (even "tiny-screen" in the case of "smart-" phones), beginning way back with TV, which also found some far more worrisome trends. Claims to the contrary by the TV and IT industries, game developers among the latter being most prominent, are quite bluntly bald-faced lies.

 

[James_SentellFOTR]

Most people say they don’t have the time to. That’s not a problem, just that they’re missing out on a lot.

My classmates (from four or five years ago, when I first attempted LotR, and brought it to school), abandoned it on the first few sentences, saying the text was difficult to read. I still don’t know whether the text was too small, or the writing was difficult to understand, but the first chapter seemed one of the most easy to me (and others incredibly hard to get through, at that age).

From what I've read, and seen reported on (quality) TV, reading of books generally has been on the decline for decades.

Yes, and it's really quite depressing. I was always raised, especially by my grandparents, that books and reading are incredibly important.

When I was 13 I got a kindle as a surprise gift... I used it for 10 minutes then gave it to my older brother (who doesnt like to read). Reading makes most things easier. Public transport, road trips, hard/lonely days. I really hope it makes a comeback...

 

[1stvermont]

So, Lord Of The Rings have been my favorite novel since I was 6. I read them every year or so and my family, friends, and even acquaintances usually say the same thing... "why"?

I usually go through a lengthy explanation, and I always end it with recommending it. Then they continue to state that they do not enjoy the writing style for the book. I find that one of the most annoying comments about LOTR is that it uses "old timey english", like Shakespearean (which obviously does not).

The most popular quote as of late is Gandalf (in FOTR) stating “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” (clearly not Shakespearean...)

So what are some other common excuses for people not wanting to read this novel that you guys have heard?

too long.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

I'll admit I find stretches of Fellowship to be a bit of a slog early on, but other than that, it's all gripping!

I'm thirty, and can say my generation has overall, the collective attention span of a pack of squirrels on crack. It's a common joke that millennials only read books when assigned them in school (which lasts till 35 now, or seems to). I remember being in high school, last couple of years, and I'd openly read Shakespeare in class because what was assigned was so dull and pedestrian. It's funny; if you were texting they'd bust you, but with what I was doing, they left me alone.

 

[James_SentellFOTR]

I'll admit I find stretches of Fellowship to be a bit of a slog early on, but other than that, it's all gripping!

I'm thirty, and can say my generation has overall, the collective attention span of a pack of squirrels on crack. It's a common joke that millennials only read books when assigned them in school (which lasts till 35 now, or seems to). I remember being in high school, last couple of years, and I'd openly read Shakespeare in class because what was assigned was so dull and pedestrian. It's funny; if you were texting they'd bust you, but with what I was doing, they left me alone.

Yes! When we would have free time in classes, people would always just go on their phones. I would always have a book open, and even if I forgot one (for some reason) I'd still watch a YouTube video or something about LOTR or other books that I love.

 

[ArnorianRanger]

In talking with those accustomed to such things as Harry Potter and the Peter Jackson movies, a repeated argument I have heard is that the Lord of the Rings just isn't magical or exciting enough. Doubtless untrue, but the fact that Gandalf doesn't up and burn up the Orc armies with some magical blue flame or mutter dangerous spells at every predicament is just too much of a thrill-killer for many apparently, even when an attempt is made to explain why he doesn't do that.

Thanks,

ArnorianRanger

 

[Barliman]

...the fact that Gandalf doesn't up and burn up the Orc armies with some magical blue flame or mutter dangerous spells at every predicament is just too much of a thrill-killer for many apparently, even when an attempt is made to explain why he doesn't do that.

Maybe try saying he's more like Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid, if they saw that. His "purpose" is more as a guide to allow the people of the 3rd Age to overcome Sauron, rather than as a savior like Harry Potter.

I will say that both of my sons who really liked Harry Potter liked the LoTR books.

I will say that when I first read LoTR around 1968 it took me a year to get through the FOTR. LOL

 

[Aramarien]

My mother was an avid reader, but refused to read LOTR because she thought it was "fairy tales", no matter how hard I tried to explain to her that there's a huge difference between fairy tales and "high fantasy". This was many, many years ago. I did convince her to read the Sil's Ainulindalë, which she thoroughly enjoyed, but she would not read LOTR.
As for other people, I usually got the response that they didn't like to read, or didn't like that genre, or that they started LOTR, but couldn't get into it.

The funny thing is that I read The Hobbit in 8th grade because everyone else in the class had started reading it and it became a class thing to make jokes and references to the book. ( It was NOT asssigned!!) I fell in love with the book and couldn't wait to read LOTR. The first chapter of LOTR was written not long after The Hobbit was written and the tone is similar until it becomes more mature as the book goes on. It's a good transition from one book to another.

I wonder if that first chapter of LOTR for people who did not read "The Hobbit" might seem a little light or childish? It's hard to be objective about that after all these years.

 

[Olorgando]

I wonder if that first chapter of LOTR for people who did not read "The Hobbit" might seem a little light or childish? It's hard to be objective about that after all these years.

Perhaps those by now accustomed to the hack 'n' slash action getting underway from the word go, perhaps conditioned by the "Conan" genre (I'm guessing here; I don't think I ever saw any of the Arnie films or any others entirely - this would be on TV, I certainly never saw any in the cinema; and I certainly haven't read the books) think they've picked up the wrong book. Now I've hardly read any (high) fantasy besides JRRT's works, so I have to ask: has any other book ever made something like this shift in tone from TH to The Sil and (partially) back again?

 

[Ealdwyn]

I wonder if that first chapter of LOTR for people who did not read "The Hobbit" might seem a little light or childish? It's hard to be objective about that after all these years.

It is light though, through most of book 1. I always feel that the tone doesn't get serious until Bree. Up until then, even with the Nazgul and the Barrow wights and everything else, it still feels like a Hobbit holiday.

 

[Shadow]

The most common excuse I have heard is that it is too long.

This is the most common excuse.

The length for me is a positive. I enjoy taking my time with any book, reading a bunch of chapters a day and digesting what I’ve read. If a book is good you shouldn’t want it to end.

 

[Goldilocks Gamgee]

What I've encountered way too many times are these three things:

- It's too long/I don't have the time.​

- the language is too complicated.​

- too long-winded and dramatic.​

Makes me mad, these reasons! I do think there can be no excuse to not reading the literature written by the father of fantasy.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

What I've encountered way too many times are these three things:

- It's too long/I don't have the time.​

- the language is too complicated.​

- too long-winded and dramatic.​

Makes me mad, these reasons! I do think there can be no excuse to not reading the literature written by the father of fantasy.

Yeah, I don't know what they expect from a book... I mean, I've heard those arguments too, and the ones I heard them from aren't exactly reading Hemingway. It's not a pared-down style they're after, it seems to be one that can just be digested without having to pay much attention. Best I can answer there.

But hey, some just aren't that appreciative of books deep down... yes, even when they try to be. Ah, well.

 

[Goldilocks Gamgee]

But hey, some just aren't that appreciative of books deep down... yes, even when they try to be. Ah, well.

I'll never understand them, though. Sadly. Or not so sadly.

 

[Olorgando]

JRRT himself basically provided the answer in the "Foreword to the Second Edition":

"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

Now this was mainly a broadside against whining reviewers; that "or any rate have reviewed it" is true of quite a few books. Seems some people don't mind running off at the mouth (or pen or typewriter or ...) despite not knowing what they're talking about. One form of mental diarrhea.

But as to people preferring other reading (one early review predicted "the severely practical will have no use for it"), well, there's no sense arguing about personal taste. It's the matter-of-principle aversion to reading, especially books, that Sir Eowyn is probably referring to, that I find sad, and not a little troubling.

 

[Ealdwyn]

"Some who have read the book, OR at any rate have reviewed it,

I particularly like the "or", implying that those who have reviewed it negatively have not necessarily read it in the frst place! 😂