Second-guessing and Misunderstanding Tolkien

[Deimos]

I linked a "stupidest things people have said" thread on the previous page, but it's from twenty years ago, so we could start a new one, though Radaghast appears to be amenable to a fairly loose definition of the subject? I'll give one of mine; does this fit?

Some years ago I was looking through the books at a rummage sale, chatting casually with a woman next to me, who must have mentioned something about not finding much of collectible or reading interest. I said "I saw a first printing Lord of the Rings paperback set over there". She gave me a look, and replied "Hobbits spouting pithy witticisms isn't my idea of good reading".

That needed a long answer, or none. I decided on none.

Dollars to donuts I bet her real animus was toward the author.

 

[Radaghast]

That needed a long answer, or none. I decided on none.

Probably a wise move. But maybe she was looking for something like this:

(That dude looks a bit like Halbrand 😝)

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Or this? 😄

Nah, she seemed a reasonably intelligent person, just snobbishly ignorant.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply that romance readers are unintelligent! 😳

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Dollars to donuts I bet her real animus was toward the author.

I doubt she had any knowledge at all about the author; if she had any such animus, I'm sure I would have heard it from her. My impression was that she preferred "realist" novels -- whatever that may mean.

 

[LaurelinBearsFruit]

There are unfortunately many people out there who regard fantasy (and even non-historical fiction to some extent) as juvenile and meant only for children. It's their loss!

 

[Ent]

(I would say Snape is the only truly multifaceted character in the series)

Agreement... though even that 'layer' is rather shallow.
I like Potter too, but well... there really is no comparison.

We may be seeing a bit of TROO with regard to the matter..! (Or just a convenient excuse for not wanting to tackle it...it takes a bit of work to read something of a little bit of depth.)

 

[Deimos]

Agreement... though even that 'layer' is rather shallow.
I like Potter too, but well... there really is no comparison.

We may be seeing a bit of TROO with regard to the matter..! (Or just a convenient excuse for not wanting to tackle it...it takes a bit of work to read something of a little bit of depth.)

I read HP and the Philosopher's Stone about 10 years ago.
What. A. Slog. 🙄

 

[Ent]

What. A. Slog.

HEY..!! He's right up there in 'mindless reading', similar to the 'mindless movies' like Godzilla I watch as background material.
Which by the way, reminds me I've never read Harry Potter twice... or even intended to.
I do confess to having the DVDs to put on as background stuff as a breather from the more in depth "Night of the Lepus" or "Attack of the 60 Foot Woman."

(Actually, I think potter is a little bit better than those, but we must not be hasty.)

 

[Deimos]

HEY..!! He's right up there in 'mindless reading', similar to the 'mindless movies' like Godzilla I watch as background material.
Which by the way, reminds me I've never read Harry Potter twice... or even intended to.
I do confess to having the DVDs to put on as background stuff as a breather from the more in depth "Night of the Lepus" or "Attack of the 60 Foot Woman."

(Actually, I think potter is a little bit better than those, but we must not be hasty.)

I did read all the HP books eventually.
The first one was a slog because Rowling's writing was so bad.

As is true with most activities, with time you either get better or worse.
She got better, but it was pretty much "two steps forward, one step back"; that is, her writing was still uneven.
So if it no longer was a solid slog, it was still "sloggy".
By the last book she had improved a bit more, but not enough for me to ever consider re-reading any of the HP books.

Still, some characters were memorable if only because of their eccentricities. I liked professor McGonagall.
I especially liked Luna Lovegood...can't recall hardly anything about her, but I can remember that at the time whilst reading her scenes, that I liked her, and thought her a rather astute person, and a deeper character than the other "yutes" (including HP) .

 

[Ent]

So here's one.

Q. So I was watching the Trilogy again (bolding by old ent) and the one obvious point I'm missing is why does everyone want the ring? It just makes you invisible. Now, don't get me wrong, being invisible has it's tactical advantages, but in times of these wars what good is an invisible king?

A. Well the ring has a supernatural attraction to it, it MAKES you want it. Kind of like the new Classics Universe toys. (old ent says - erm: isn't one of those an external coercion while the other is an internal lust? not even close to 'kind of like'.)

A. No one wore it long enough to figure out its power.

Note: if this person was watching it AGAIN, clearly they slept through the Council of Elrond each time... to say nothing of quite a few other inferences.

Sherlock say: "You see, but you do not observe."
Old Ent says: "You hear, but you do not listen."

 

[Radaghast]

I did read all the HP books eventually.
The first one was a slog because Rowling's writing was so bad.

As is true with most activities, with time you either get better or worse.
She got better, but it was pretty much "two steps forward, one step back"; that is, her writing was still uneven.
So if it no longer was a solid slog, it was still "sloggy".
By the last book she had improved a bit more, but not enough for me to ever consider re-reading any of the HP books.

Still, some characters were memorable if only because of their eccentricities. I liked professor McGonagall.
I especially liked Luna Lovegood...can't recall hardly anything about her, but I can remember that at the time whilst reading her scenes, that I liked her, and thought her a rather astute person, and a deeper character than the other "yutes" (including HP) .

I read the books, at least some of them twice, and didn't find them to be a slog. Then again, time can change one's perception of things. I remember reading and liking the Shannara books as a teen. Decades later I reread the first two and was shocked at how badly written they are. I think, compared to the Shannara books, the HP series is a masterpiece.

 

[Ent]

didn't find them to be a slog.

Neither did I really... though not the best writing, the material was in some ways engaging.

reading and liking the Shannara books.

I liked them too. Actually, very much. Read many of them...but somewhere in the later additive works I lost interest. (At first years ago, I considered doing a "Dictionary of Shannara" work of my own.)

I've laid the entire series back into my (electronic) library again recently, for a reread in the 'someday' when I'm not editing or (now) working on my own books. There are a couple other series I've added back in. (actually, about 5 or so.)

Looking forward to seeing, given years of engagement with the written word now, what my refined (or destroyed) perspectives might be too.

 

[Deimos]

I read the books, at least some of them twice, and didn't find them to be a slog. Then again, time can change one's perception of things. I remember reading and liking the Shannara books. I reread the first two and was shocked at how badly written they are. I think, compared to the Shannara books, the HP series is a masterpiece.

So true...time indeed changes us.
But good heavens! If the HP series is a masterpiece compared to the Shannara books (which obviously I have not read) I can only imagine the mental lacerations to which you willingly(?) subjected yourself.
But, then, is that not the universal practice of the young: to recklessly engage in shockingly bad diversions? 🙄😄😉

 

[Ent]

The cycle of life.

When one is a "young reader" (i.e. having read little, at whatever age), many authors seem good.
When one is a "middle-aged reader" (at whatever age) the reader becomes 'discriminating'.
When one is an "old reader" there is a return to many authors seeming good.

The pains of 'growth' impact every facet of life.

 

[Deimos]

View attachment 23725

Whoever came up with the name "Scottie McMullet" deserves the "Barbara Cartland Bodice-Ripper Blue-Ribbon" award. 😄

 

[LaurelinBearsFruit]

I have no knowledge or experience of the Shannara books, but as I had stated previously I quite liked the HP books.

The first few are admittedly poorer writing than the later books, but I rather enjoyed them all. There are actually quite a few threads and details that weave through the entirety of the book series if one looks closely, as well as some lovely symbolism (especially in love being the strongest magic and there being things worse than death). I can also agree with some other folks that there are quite a few memorable characters. Looking objectively at the writing, it is certainly not on par with the Professor, but then again few fiction writers are (barring his contemporaries such as C.S. Lewis).

Also it can be said that the HP books managed to reignite the youth's passion for reading and helped an entire (my own) generation of kids get into reading fiction again.

 

[Radaghast]

Speaking of Narnia, that's another series of books of which my perception has changed over time. The only one that still stands up for me is the first (published) one.

 

[Deimos]

I have no knowledge or experience of the Shannara books, but as I had stated previously I quite liked the HP books.

The first few are admittedly poorer writing than the later books, but I rather enjoyed them all. There are actually quite a few threads and details that weave through the entirety of the book series if one looks closely, as well as some lovely symbolism (especially in love being the strongest magic and there being things worse than death). I can also agree with some other folks that there are quite a few memorable characters. Looking objectively at the writing, it is certainly not on par with the Professor, but then again few fiction writers are (barring his contemporaries such as C.S. Lewis).

Also it can be said that the HP books managed to reignite the youth's passion for reading and helped an entire (my own) generation of kids get into reading fiction again.

"It's an ill wind that blows no one any good" as The Gaffer says. (Or if he didn't, it's likely he would have 😉)

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Whoever came up with the name "Scottie McMullet" deserves the "Barbara Cartland Bodice-Ripper Blue-Ribbon" award. 😄

I'm going to assume you realize that's a fake cover.

 

[Deimos]

Speaking of Narnia, that's another series of books of which my perception has changed over time. The only one that still stands up for me is the first (published) one.

Narnia Books... I still like them all.**
But then, like my reading of Tolkien, I came late to the game....in my 30s for the Narnia books and my 40s for JRRT.
I've reread all the Narnia books umpteen times, and with every re-read I discover another pearl.
And I think: I've read this a half dozen times at least; how did I miss this all those previous times?"
But "time changes us."

** The Silver Chair has always been my favorite, in no small measure due to the character Puddleglum.
The Magician's Nephew follows closely as a second favorite. Uncle Andrew is halrious, a 60+ adolescent who has always "engaged in shockingly bad diversions."
The remaining five I like in no particular order.