Problems with non LOTR readers...

[Olorgando]

I agree with your comments about cost, literacy, etc, but whether a book has mass appeal is relative to the culture at the time, in other words it is comparative and not absolute. The authors I mentioned were immensely popular and had a huge influence. They had their works translated into multiple languages, which demonstrates that (even given the higher relative cost of books) there was sufficient "mass market" appeal to make it commercially viable.

Agreed. The higher costs of the hardcover books, is my guess, made them commercially viable at much lower printings - probably up to today.
One thing that in earlier times (by this I mean pre-WW II, and early postwar period too, probably) was a source of reading material for the general public were (perhaps still are) the public libraries. The NY Public Library, a really big one, was founded in 1895, as I just checked. While I rarely if ever borrowed books from public libraries near where I lived, I certainly spent a lot of time in my high school library, and read quite a few books borrowed from it.
So readership goes beyond those who actually buy books. But in the time before the advent of electronic cataloging, getting those kinds of statistics must have been a chore, not to say almost impossible.
The popularity and influence of the authors that you mention would have been with the readership, no question. But the only thing quantifiable was actual sales of books. And those cannot have amounted to "mass markets" - which you do enclose in double quotation marks, and rightly so. A mass in relation to the small market of (hardcover) book buyers. But before the widespread advent of paperbacks, operating on much slimmer profit margins and thus dependent on big sales, I don't see there being anything that can truly be called a mass market. Part of the efforts by the paperback publishers, as in any comparable "industry", is to lower costs. Which is why my mid-1980's LoTR paperbacks are quite tattered ... those of my early JRRT books that are not have simply not been read as much. Practically all of my more recent acquisitions have been hardbacks, or at least trade paperbacks.

 

[Ealdwyn]

The popularity and influence of the authors that you mention would have been with the readership, no question. But the only thing quantifiable was actual sales of books. And those cannot have amounted to "mass markets"

Good point. There would have been a big difference between popularity and book sales.
It was common for books to be serialised in magazine or newpapers (Charles Dickens and Arthur Conan Doyle spring to mind, although these aren't fantasy writers), so they would have reached a great numbers of people without a book being sold.

 

[anelffriend]

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, too many plots, - but i honestly haven’t heard of the “Shakespearean” argument. I honestly think it could be that it’s starting to become more normal for us as a society to have shorter attention spans. I do get that not every book out there is for everyone though, and that (unfortunately to us) also includes LOTR.

 

[Muskrat]

Everyone now likes nonstop action, and new action, YouTube podcasts seem to call any book more than 20 years old a classic. And that is usually a term of insult. I guarantee that these same readers do not like Dickens or Wilkie Collin’s or Conan Doyle. They don’t even like old science fiction like Asimov or Heinlein. Also, Tolkien likes talk or thoughtful description more than action, a heresy to many readers’.

 

[Ent]

Everyone now likes nonstop action, and new action,

I would add they also like 'mindless action.' That is, stuff requiring nothing of them - nothing making them think, or ponder, or question, or wonder. This is also not Tolkien.

It's couched in the term "It's just not my thing." That is, 'please don't ask me to DO anything... I want to be spoon-fed, quickly, and move on.' Sadly this mindset reaches into every arena of life, with devastating results.

It all boils down to "I don't want to put in any effort. You do you, and I'll do me." And there are a number of reasons why it is so, especially in our day now.

Dickens or Wilkie Collin’s or Conan Doyle.

Classic examples of others who go beyond spoon-feeding.
Even Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories took on several 'issues of his day,' and some were mildly controversial when published. But one must look, to see.
Hardly palatable to today's masses. And they are certainly not trained for it.

 

[Muskrat]

On the other hand, lots of today’s books, like Gone Girl or The Girl on the Train are essentially a test of readers to see if they can figure out the next completely implausible plot twist. I wish reviewers would tell us what sort of thing they like, or what books are similar to the one under review. But who is similar to Tolkien? I read Gone Girl based on reviews and recommendations and absolutely hated it. I have seen reviews of LotR that make me think the reviewers has read some other book!

 

[Muskrat]

Ice and Fire and Wheel if Time are much longer. I have heard many podcasts saying that LotR is good for early fantasy, as if the genre had progressed far beyond it. I wonder if it could be the narrative style—long sentences, archaic or formal speech patterns, little action for a long time, and stories told by one character to another. I wonder how Tolkien’s prose would rate in a writing class. Not very well, I fear. Very sad indeed.

 

[Olorgando]

I wonder how Tolkien’s prose would rate in a writing class. Not very well, I fear. Very sad indeed.

I'm quite certain that publishers back then (and those teaching writing classes of whatever format and level of education; often literary critics at the same time) would have used LotR as a case study of almost every no-no an author can commit. "Do not write this way!"
Something between 100 and 200 million copies sold later, what does that tell up about publishers, "writing teachers", and critics? 😈😈😈😈😈

 

[The Witch-king Of Angmar]

I'm quite certain that publishers back then (and those teaching writing classes of whatever format and level of education; often literary critics at the same time) would have used LotR as a case study of almost every no-no an author can commit. "Do not write this way!"
Something between 100 and 200 million copies sold later, what does that tell up about publishers, "writing teachers", and critics? 😈😈😈😈😈

I can actually confirm this - I've studied English language and literature at uni, and our writing class professor literally said "Do not write like Tolkien did". 💀

 

[Vorondil]

our writing class professor literally said "Do not write like Tolkien did". 💀

This is some sort of scheme hatched between these filthy dwarves and those miserable tub-trading Lakemen, those snivelling cowards with their Longbows and Black Arrows! Perhaps it is time I paid them a visit!

 

[Deimos]

I can actually confirm this - I've studied English language and literature at uni, and our writing class professor literally said "Do not write like Tolkien did". 💀

Can you recall the reason(s) he gave for his apparently arbitrary directive?

 

[shenry]

I think I can try and answer this based on personal experience, as I tried to read LOTR as a child and gave up, before returning to it many years later. The problem I found wasn't that it took a long time to get started - in fact, almost the opposite, as I loved (and still love) the early Shire chapters, Tom Bombadil, Elrond, etc. No, I stumbled at The Two Towers as it just seemed to start dragging at that point - long sections where it felt like just people riding about the place, then a long, long journey to Mordor with Frodo, Sam and Gollum with not much happening. (That's what it felt like anyway).

So basically I would agree that people feel it's just too long, as that's certainly what I felt. Compare it to something like Alan Garner's Elidor, which I loved as a child, and which throws you into a richly immersive fantasy story and yet is only about a hundred pages long and can be read in a day.

 

[Radaghast]

I can actually confirm this - I've studied English language and literature at uni, and our writing class professor literally said "Do not write like Tolkien did". 💀

That's a good thing. We have enough Tolkien copycats as it is.

 

[Deimos]

I think I can try and answer this based on personal experience, as I tried to read LOTR as a child and gave up, before returning to it many years later. The problem I found wasn't that it took a long time to get started - in fact, almost the opposite, as I loved (and still love) the early Shire chapters, Tom Bombadil, Elrond, etc. No, I stumbled at The Two Towers as it just seemed to start dragging at that point - long sections where it felt like just people riding about the place, then a long, long journey to Mordor with Frodo, Sam and Gollum with not much happening. (That's what it felt like anyway).

So basically I would agree that people feel it's just too long, as that's certainly what I felt. Compare it to something like Alan Garner's Elidor, which I loved as a child, and which throws you into a richly immersive fantasy story and yet is only about a hundred pages long and can be read in a day.

Did you happen to read the Hobbit when you were a child ("Child" is very broad... at what age did you attempt LOTR?).
The Hobbit could be read by a precocious 9 year old.... not so sure LOTR could be read and appreciated by a kid under 12, with rare exception. .
I'm quite certain I could have read LOTR when I was 10...would I have liked it or gotten much out of it? Probably not.
I can see not liking, say, a novel, as an adult, but I would hope it was because it's a particular [sub] genre, not for the lame reason "It's too long".

 

[The Witch-king Of Angmar]

Can you recall the reason(s) he gave for his apparently arbitrary directive?

Unfortunately it's been 15 years since I've walked out of uni so I only really remember his dislike towards Tolkien's writing style in general because he mentioned it a lot as a negative example. I think it had to do with the "long-windedness" or something. He always told us to keep things brief and to the point when writing.

 

[Deimos]

Unfortunately it's been 15 years since I've walked out of uni so I only really remember his dislike towards Tolkien's writing style in general because he mentioned it a lot as a negative example. I think it had to do with the "long-windedness" or something. He always told us to keep things brief and to the point when writing.

I agree with him if one is writing, say, an article for a journal, or an op-ed.
The phrase I learned is "write tight and make it sing".
But if one is writing fiction and any of its sub-genres (e.g., mystery, fantasy, SF, historical fiction, dramatic ) well, all evocative description would have to be jettisoned. It would make for very dry, unexciting reading.

 

[Vorondil]

not so sure LOTR could be read and appreciated by a kid under 12, with rare exception

I'm that rare exception.

 

[Deimos]

I'm that rare exception.

How old were you when you read it?

 

[Vorondil]

How old were you when you read it?

I was 10

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

I'm that rare exception.

And I'm another
(age 7)
But then I was someone who wrote in all caps when I was 5, because I thought my small letters didn't look correct (with my 5-year-old fine motor skills...). So maybe my appreciation for things developed differently. Or maybe the exception is not that rare.