Books I Loathed discussion

I hate Tolkien. I think the Hobbitt is the worst book ever written. I don't understand why peole consider it a classic. I had to read it in high school then I had to read it again for a book club I am in. What a huge waste of my time.

That was my favorite book when I was little.
:(

I don't exactly loathe him, but I find I just can't get into his books. I've tried to read the Fellowship of the Ring a couple of times and I get up to Tom Bombadill and get no further.

Oh yeah, The Fellowship is terrible at the beginning. It gets good... somewhere near the end. The other two are the ones worth reading.

I also did not find The Hobbit at all interesting but wondered why are people so crazy about...

Sarah wrote: "I also did not find The Hobbit at all interesting but wondered why are people so crazy about..."

What sort of books do you like? The Hobbit I would agree is not the book to recommend to everyone.

Haha, Tom Bombadill! I have that problem, too. I really want to like the books. Love the movies and I liked the first part of the Fellowship, but at Mr. Bombadill drags and I haven't managed to get back into it. That said, I don't loathe or even dislike Tolkein, I think the books just aren't for me.

Jeanna wrote: "Haha, Tom Bombadill! I have that problem, too. I really want to like the books. Love the movies and I liked the first part of the Fellowship, but at Mr. Bombadill drags and I haven't managed to ..."

That is fair enough.

I loved Tolkien: the Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, Silmarilion... Of course, I hit it just at the right age: early twenties. Also, I'm a fantasy nut. My problem with Tolkien was that I had read Joy Chant first, and I had to keep telling myself Chant ripped of Tolkien, not vice-versa.

I think I must have been too old. Or maybe it was just that I'd already read some fantasy, so it wasn't all new but I got 150 pages into the Hobbit, and then 150 pages into The Lord of the Rings and knew I just plain did not care. So I stopped reading both times. At 150 pages if you don't have me, you don't have me.

Here is an important fact: Tolkein was a linguist before he became an author. Most of the literary stuff that people don't like about it are the things he (most likely) loved. Silly things like Tom Bombadill allowed him to show how good he was at things like poetry (which, in point of fact, is rather poor). You can easily skip parts like Tom Bombadill & elvish songs and not miss a thing. Like I said, Tolkein was a linguist.

Zak, I'd probably enjoy the linguistic stuff. Don't actually remember any of it, which means it wasn't what was bothering me. It was the story that bored me to tears, and the characters I did not care about. I need a story and I need characters or why bother reading.

I really do think that when the books were getting very popular, I was too old. I'm not a baby boomer.

By the way, my daughter who is also not a baby boomer (she is at the other end of the boom) was equally bored to tears.

Well... I read Tolkien when I was 10 and it was practically the only fantasy written/translated at that time (70's, in Finland). I love fantasy and fairytales, and I love languages. I also have the capacity of seeing beyond the "boring stuff". The Appendix was a huge bonus for me :-D

My husband thinks LOTR was "and then they walked, and walked, and walked..." (or run or rode or was carried or what ever - eternal journey from A to B)

If you loved the movie, you might not like the book, because they are very different. I love the book, hate the movie, because it is... well, enough said.

I also love The Hobbit. It is a children's book with some very serious stuff in it... about death, loyalty, honesty and greed, and that might be a reason to why people who like children's books don't like it, neither people who like "adult fantasy".

Tolkien has never been appreciated as "the best writer in the world". He is one of the fathers of Fantasy and LOTR is one of the most read books in the world, that's all. :-)

P.S. In my mind Outlander and Da Vinci Code both beat The Hobbit by miles in the "worst book ever written" competition :-D

You guys make me sad. I love these books. You just have to get used to the language. Well, I guess it's not for everyone, but I'm slightly obssessed.

Guitar Chick-Dolly Dagger wrote: "You guys make me sad. I love these books. You just have to get used to the language. Well, I guess it's not for everyone, but I'm slightly obsessed."

Don't get sad, Dolly!
Join J.R.R.Tolkien group or LOTR group and indulge yourself in the appraisal :-)

I know it's almost impossible to NOT to come and see what people in this group have against one's favorites, but don't... there are haters to every book in the world, and if your book is mentioned here, you won't probably hear anything nice about it.

Hugs!

The Hobbit is soooooooooooooooooooo awsome!!!! Why the heck do you hate it?!

*shits self* tolkien is awesome!!! whaaaaaaat I'm beginning to think this group has crackhead taste. jk lol specially since people being different is way better than people being all the same sooooo I like hearing different perspectives, especially if they surprise me.

Read Silmarillion stoned, I bet you'll change your mind. Either that or hate JRRT even more ;P

Well, I'm hopping up and down in fury. LOTR is the best book ever written!!!! The reason it might seem boring is because it's DEEP!!!!

I love the LOTR and The Hobbit. Awesome titles.

I, too, dislike Tolkien. I mean, in a nonchalant, offhand sort of way. I don't get too excited about it. It's mainly the mythopoeic element that annoys me. It's as if, from the first start, he thought that he was going to write this grand, sprawling, jumble of books, spanning, worlds, and pantheons, etc. It's a formula. I NEED X AMOUNT OF POEMS/HYMNS/SONGS ON X AMOUNT OF PAGES, TO SHOW THAT THESE HOBBITS ARE NOT ONLY HOBBITS, BUT DEEP HOBBITS WHO HAVE HOBBIT LIVES. That's great. But it's overdone. He tries to cram too much finnimbrun into the spaces. He's got to write these grand things (which are pretty vapid for being "poetry") to explain his mythopoeia. Every inch of the world is detailed, charted, and handed to the reader in about 4000 pages. That's nice. He should take a hand from Lovecraft (who wrote a better mythopoeia anyway) and leave some things up to the reader. That's what drives such things. Lacunae that give the synapses a bit of their own cogitation. That's what it needs.

But hey, that's just MY opinion.

:)

I really loved Tolkien, but I was 23 when I read it. I hated Lovecraft, however. His sentences were thick and heavy-handed, his idea of horror was standard--monsters--and he only had one way to describe anything he wanted to be creepy: "curious." Everything was freaking curious. What a hack.

Mmmmm...I think it's a bit dismissive to say that Lovecraft's horror was "standard." I mean, against what? You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who could write as he did--during his time. Admittedly, he was a bit bad with dialogue...but for some reason...I don't remember curious. What I do remember was "nebulous." He was however, original, and quite good with the continuuity of mythopoeia, mood, and the utilization of...tasteful noninclusion. He had a definite knack for making his "monsters" real--present--without the pedantry and overarcing pretentious demagoguery.

Albeit, it depends on which stories you read. I'd advise for another go.

Sorry. I'm a Robert E. Howard kind of guy.

Ben wrote: "I, too, dislike Tolkien. I mean, in a nonchalant, offhand sort of way. I don't get too excited about it. It's mainly the mythopoeic element that annoys me. It's as if, from the first start, he tho..."

first it was one book not a sprawling epic. 2nd the poems were really to him the most important part. He was interested in language and created the languages used in the books, the poetry and songs helped him to create the epic poetry he wanted as well. 3 he set out to write a legend and myth cycle for england that did not include any christian references(as king arthur has) so i think you missed the point of the books and that would explain why you see him that way.

as for lovecraft.. well the other guy who said he was "standard" obvious missed somthing there too as lovecraft never really brings out the monster, as in you never see it, as you said he leaves it to your imagination and that will always be more terrifying. however lovecraft himself did very little to connect the mythos. He had it there, but there is nothing saying that azathoth and cthulu and the beings in the dream cycle are related in anyway. In fact he really has two mythologies, that in the dream world and that in the waking world. NEITHER are explored fully by him.. mostly the people who came after did that.. so again i think you are missing the whole story.

John wrote: "Sorry. I'm a Robert E. Howard kind of guy."

I love howard but howard writes "Action" novels for lack of a better term, if they were movies they would be like most action fare starring guys like bruce willis and tom cruise.. not bad at all just you dont go there expecting too think too much.. tolkien is a different sort of thing, more like a high brow drama that has some violence in it.. (were it a movie genre) does that make sense?

This is blaspheme

I like "The Hobbit" well enough, but couldn't care less about LotR. Definitely NOT "the best fantasy ever written" :-P

... Although I will give him that it may be the most complete fantasy universe ever written. Just a shame the books are such a drag.

I can quasi-identify with the opinions in here. I personally loved The Hobbit since it's sort of LotR Lite, and really disliked The Fellowship of the Ring when I first read it. Overly-heavy description, too much time spent on doing one thing -- but if you slog through it, put all other reading projects to one side, it gets better. I actually enjoyed the first book for its imagery though its length remained a problem. The world itself is rich and becomes even wealthier if you have a good imagination, but there's little to no character development. I don't know. It's hit and miss, but overall it was a worthy read if only to say I'd read them. Still have to get through LotR 2 & 3, but I hear they are enjoyable by comparison so will keep going.

i would love to tell people that i read the lord of the rings but i can never bring myself to do that... I just bought a large omnibus copy of the three which just sat down on the shelf like a pretty display...


i love SILMARILLION though and other books about TOLKIEN and his world but not by Tolkien himself.

I agree, Tolkien is 'tard-core.

Guess what people? Elves and Hobbits and Orcs are weaksauce!

Proven fact- they used Newtonian Mechanics to determine the breaking point of all of these creatures and each time the psi was less that what's required to snap a single strand of angelhair pasta!

Aside from Hobbits being the first mass market homoerotic fictional characters and elves and orcs being interesting only to virgins and complete goobers... This dude is boring as hell!

I would prefer to read the nutritional facts on every item in a supermarket rather than read one of these books. That is not an exaggeration, I really would.

Devon wrote: "Ben wrote: "I, too, dislike Tolkien. I mean, in a nonchalant, offhand sort of way. I don't get too excited about it. It's mainly the mythopoeic element that annoys me. It's as if, from the first st..."

John wrote: "I really loved Tolkien, but I was 23 when I read it. I hated Lovecraft, however. His sentences were thick and heavy-handed, his idea of horror was standard--monsters--and he only had one way to des..."

Lovecraft was basically THE pioneer for the horror genre. So everything that he wrote that you call "standard" was actually the height of innovation at the time he wrote it. And he's a genius. He has references to pretty much every major work in Western Classical Literature all over the place in his writings. He's beautiful and subtle. Part of the horror of his stories is that he leaves things to your worst imagination (which is something that all good horror writers do...because all good horror writers rip off Lovecraft). So when he calls something "curious" he's really saying, "Look, imagine something that's sort of like this, but about as weird and creepy as you can possibly manage to think of." It's not lack of style or genius on his part. Quite the opposite, in fact. Fears and horrors are worse when they aren't fully described and named.
And Devon, I agree with you about Lovecraft, which is why I tagged your post.

Oh, and Tolkien is awesome.

I read the Hobbit, the lord of the rings, and then Bored of the Rings in a shortish period of time when I was quite young. Didn't love, nor hate any of it. Was more indifferent than anything. I was probably too young when I read them, but I'm not much of a rereader so I'll just have to be content to have read them.

I've forgotten now, how long was the gap in publication between the Hobbit and LOTR? 20 years? I just have this vague recollection that there was this gap.

I really like LOTR, but can't stomach The Hobbit. I know The Hobbit was written for children and LOTR wasn't (supposedly), but Bilbo should have stayed in his hole. And Frodo is irritating.

Never read The Hobbit, but I did read both Fellowship and Two Towers one after the other. When I realized I was forcing myself to finish the second book (I was 40 pages from the end) I gave up and haven't read Return yet. At this point all I can say is that neither book gripped me though the movies are actually better for having dropped a bunch of the more boring bits.

The Two Towers is always hard for me to finish too, Lori, and I think Return is the best of the three. The movies were pretty good though, Sir Peter did a good job with them, although now I wish he'd go back to making his screwball horror comedies :-)