Classics for Beginners discussion

Enjoy this one!

I'm excited this one won. I read The Hobbit a couple of months ago, so this is perfect. This will be the first book I read with this group =)

Cool! I'll pull out my copy.

Reading thru my foreword by the author...interesting thoughts on all the theories about hidden meanings in his book...he says there are none. not religious, not political, none....kinda neat to hear it straight from the horses's mouth. excited to be reading this...

I am currently reading The Hobbitand I am quite excited to finally be reading The Lord of the Rings:)

janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "Reading thru my foreword by the author...interesting thoughts on all the theories about hidden meanings in his book...he says there are none. not religious, not political, none....kinda neat to he..."

I've just finished reading that too and also found it very interesting - I always wonder just how much of the symbolism that others read into a piece of literature was actually intended by the author. My feel about what Tolkein wanted to do with Middle Earth was to create the most detailed and fully realised world imaginable, not create a reflection of this world (even if the shire does feel like the English countryside of his childhood, that's probably just because it's what, in his head, represented a perfect rural idyll).

I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings late last year, and I don't think I'm quite up for a re-read yet. I saw the movies before I'd ever read the books, and I REALLY, REALLY liked the movies. I think it caused me to have a tough time with the books. I liked them, but I didn't LIKE them, like them. :)

@Elise - Yes, it's really neat...I've heard so many theories about what this book was really about, from the war (since it was written during that time) to the religious aspect. I've actually heard that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were best friends and made a bet with each other to see who could write the best story to show their faith/Christianity. Lewis wrote Narnia and Tolkien wrote LOTR. Amazing what ppl come up with.

janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "@Elise - Yes, it's really neat...I've heard so many theories about what this book was really about, from the war (since it was written during that time) to the religious aspect. I've actually hear..."

It's true that Lewis and Tolkein were friends and colleagues, but given that Tolkein is clear that he does not mean his books to be allegorical in any way, I don't think I believe the story about the bet.

Narnia is very much an allegory, of course, and well done (as long as you discount The Last Battle which is just a mess in comparison with the others).

janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "@Elise - Yes, it's really neat...I've heard so many theories about what this book was really about, from the war (since it was written during that time) to the religious aspect. I've actually hear..."

Yes, they were actually great friends and had influence on each other. They were both part of the Inklings, a group of people that would meet up every week to talk about their current works etc. Tolkien actually wasn´t very fond of Lewis´ Narnia as he wrote it in a short time. He criticized it , especially the scene of father Christmas in the Narnia books, Lewis however decided to stick with it. For Tolkien TLOTR was his mammoth work during his life time. He wanted to develop a world as precisely as possible with its own history. Lewis however wanted to create a world and see what the influence of God/ Christianity/ Jesus in a different world could be like. Tolkien had a great influence on Lewis´ faith. Sorry for going on for that long but I read a book about their friendship and I wrote an essay about the Narnia movies and their Christian aspects for one of my classes!

I read this one (well, all of them actually) a summer like 12 years ago. I re-read them like 2 months ago and I discover that I have forgotten a lot of details and dialogues. This reading group should be really interesting!

I read this last year. I enjoyed it but I did find myself comparing it to the movie and I think I liked the movies more. I felt the books moved very slow in places. I did enjoy the books though and would definitely recommend them to anyone into the fantasy/action/adventure genre

I read these a bit over decade ago (I can't believe it's that long!) before the films came out and I loved them, despite never getting on with The Hobbit enough to make the half-way point. Then I saw the films and loved them too - and not just cause almost all the men were dead sexy.

The books for Two Towers and Return of the King def beat the films but Fellowship I'm not sure about... the film doesn't have Tom Bombadil. That section is just painful to read.

@Elise - I too thought the last battle was a bit disjointed but could never put my finger on it.

@janice - great info! i knew a little about their relationship having done some research of my own after hearing those theories. interesting which authors you find have met and have possibly had some on each other...tolkien/lewis....doyle/wilde...etc...

Louise wrote: "I read these a bit over decade ago (I can't believe it's that long!) before the films came out and I loved them, despite never getting on with The Hobbit enough to make the half-way point. Then I s..."


Tom Bombadil caused me to give up the first time I tried it - it's just so totally irrelevant to the story (also I was 11, probably just a bit young for something with this amount of minute detail. I was 13 when I finally got through it, which makes it a couple of decades for me, since I last read them). I've still never worked out what purpose he actually serves and the only reason I could see for Tolkein making all of his dialogue verse was to say "look, aren't I great, I can write in verse!" (and it's not the best verse, at that - plus, we know he can, there are poems and songs all the way through, so why???).

I'm likely to get lynched by the adoring Tolkein fans, but I definitely prefer the films - I just couldn't get along with Middle Earth being far and away the most important "character" in the books. I know character-driven and plot-driven narratives aren't the be-all and end-all, but for me this gets too bogged down in fictional history and minutiae to be truly "great" writing, which led me to feel, like Pamela, that they become very slow, in places. (Let me clarify, I like the books, I truly do, I just don't LOVE them as so many people do).

that's exactly how i felt when i read them the first time when i was a teenager! that's why i'm reading them again, i want to see if i feel the same way...

I haven't read The Hobbit. Some people say it's better to read it first, but I feel I might lag behind for this group read.

What should I do?

Elise wrote: "Louise wrote: "...Tom Bombadil caused me to give up the first time I tried it - it's just so totally irrelevant to the story ..."

I'm rather fond of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, but I agree they are irrelevant to the story (hence they were easily omitted from the films). They should have been in their own book.

Gargi wrote: "I haven't read The Hobbit. Some people say it's better to read it first, but I feel I might lag behind for this group read.

What should I do?"

The Hobbit took place a generation before Lord of the Rings. It's the story of Bilbo Baggins' adventure, and there are a few points in LotR where those adventures are referenced. But, LotR can also stand alone on its own. Your decision can be one of personal preference.

i've already started lotr. i'll go back later and read the hobbit.

Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "Gargi wrote: "I haven't read The Hobbit. Some people say it's better to read it first, but I feel I might lag behind for this group read.

What should I do?"

The Hobbit took place a generation bef..."

So I'll read LOTR first. The Hobbit can wait!

Gargi wrote: "Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "Gargi wrote: "I haven't read The Hobbit. Some people say it's better to read it first, but I feel I might lag behind for this group read.

What should I do?"

The Hobbit..."

If you haven't read The Hobbit make sure you read all of the preface to The Fellowship of the Ring which gives the background on Middle Earth - it's a bit tedious, but it does give a summary of the bits of the Hobbit that are important for LotR.

Elise wrote: "Gargi wrote: "Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "Gargi wrote: "I haven't read The Hobbit. Some people say it's better to read it first, but I feel I might lag behind for this group read.

What should I do..."

Thanks a ton Elise :)

working on that now...

Truly, The Hobbit stands as its own narrative. It is a very different book - actually meant for a much younger audience. You really do not miss much by starting from the Fellowship.

LOTR is one of my favorite books - if not my favorite. I have read it more times than any other book. I loved the movies, too, but they will never match the level of emotional attachments I felt for the LOTR character during the first read. I am sure age had a lot to do with it - I was probably 12 or so - but I have never been as sad closing a book as I was once I finished LOTR - but because it had been so much fun reading it...

Said so, the first is really my least favorite of the three books. I think it just gets better and better - and the third book is the apex.

I have read the rest of the related books by Tolkien as well. Fun if you want to find out more about Middle Earth, but nowhere near the level of LOTR or The Hobbit.

Can't wait for The Hobbit movie, by the way!

janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "@Elise - Yes, it's really neat...I've heard so many theories about what this book was really about, from the war (since it was written during that time) to the religious aspect. I've actually hear..."

What I read was that they both had a bet to write the best stories on a particular theme. And Tolkien's story ended up in his mythology while C.S.Lewis's story ended up separately.

Jonathan wrote: "janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "@Elise - Yes, it's really neat...I've heard so many theories about what this book was really about, from the war (since it was written during that time) to ..."

That sounds more likely - thanks.

I have a question to put to people to start the debate going (it's from right at the start of the book so I'm not spoilering it).

It looks like Gandalf's had these suspicions about Bilbo's ring for a very long time. Why do you all think he doesn't share those with Bilbo? To me, I always assumed that he was trying to protect and not to frighten Bilbo, but re-reading it, it occurred to me that this could be seen as a fantastically patronising thing to do. Especially as, even if Gandalf only thinks this might be the One Ring, surely it's better to share those concerns with the one who is carrying it? At very least it might have stopped Bilbo using the ring for trivial reasons.

I also thought that, even in The Hobbit, Gandalf's not one for over-sharing, so maybe there's also an element of him just being secretive by nature.

Just thought I'd try to get the ball rolling.

i haven't gotten to the story yet, but i'll post back when i do, trying to finish up david copperfield first. but i've noticed in a lot of stories that have "all-knowing" and wise characters who impart knowledge, it's almost like a teaser, can't give anyone too much info too soon, gotta draw it out for more suspense. also, i almost thought when i first read it years ago, that he thought the information in bilbo's hands would be dangerous...he has a little more greed/something in his nature that would almost be too much for him to handle the ring. just some thoughts...

janine aka J9 aka midnightfaerie wrote: "i almost thought when i first read it years ago, that he thought the information in bilbo's hands would be dangerous...he has a little more greed/something in his nature that would almost be too much for him to handle the ring. just some thoughts... "

This. It's always what I've asumed anyway. By the time Gandalf was sure exactly what the ring was Bilbo had already grown too attatched to it. Telling him while he still had the ring would have caused a rift between them and made it much harder for Gandalf to both protect him and destroy the ring. Much better to persuade him to pass it on to pass it onto Frodo and then work on persuading the 'uncorrupted' bearer to destroy it. Or at least that's always how I figured the logic went. Bilbo simply wouldn't have accepted the truth while the ring was still in his possession.

I'm sure there's lots of ways to read it though.

I just wonder whether with tiny little people who are the height of children there would be a temptation to treat them like children - even in Tolkein's mind. A lot of the human characters certainly seem to (I'm having to go right back, but I'm pretty sure Merry and Pippin often don't seem to be being treated as adults in the later books).

I can agree with that as well to an extent.

I've always found Tolkien rather patronising - as a child I forced my parents to remove the cassette for The Hobbit from the car because of it and have thrown the book across the room in annoyance every time I've tried to get through it myself. I think when I read Lord of the Rings I was just so glad I wasn't the one being patronised that I didn't pick up on how patronising the writing was to some of the characters.

If I was to reread the books now(I don't have time or energy atm to read the whole thing and I'm not doing just the first book in isolation) that's something I think I would pick up on a lot more than I did aged 12. Merry and Pippin, though accepted in Rohan and Gondor, really are treated almost as 'mascots' now that I'm thinking back on it.

I have tried and failed to read this book three times. I am going to try a fourth eventually because everyone else in my family loves it.

Louise wrote: "...I've always found Tolkien rather patronising..."

I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it's possibly the other side of the same coin.

Another thing I find odd (though not objectionable), is that despite his own beliefs, and the incredible detail with which Tolkien created Middle Earth peoples, languages and cultures, is the fact that none of them appear to practice any religion. Yes, they have myths about origins etc, but not much in the way of priests, temples or religious practices.

But even so, I think they are great works of literature.

Cecily wrote: "Louise wrote: "...I've always found Tolkien rather patronising..."

I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it'..."

I've always understood that the lack of female characters was the product of Tolkein's life and upbringing. He was basically almost entirely unfamiliar with women so just couldn't write them and since, other than his wife, they didn't have much of a place in his life, they also have no real place in his writing.

He grew up with no sisters, losing his mother at a relatively early age and was then put under the guardianship of a Catholic priest. He came from an upper-middle class family so he was educated in an all-male environment (both school and university), then went into the army during the Great War (another all male environment, of course). After that, back to Oxford to finish his studies and he continued to work there for his entire career - at no time (within his lifetime) did the colleges he worked/studied in admit women (and hence, I assume, they probably employed no female academics either).

(I heard most of a BBC radio 4 programme (I think it was) about him a good few years ago, the lack of women in his life was what struck me.)

Knowing that doesn't really help me like the lack of women any better - "real" female characters would have made it a lot more three-dimensional for me.

There's not much need for women in the plot (and I hate it when books or films throw in "love interest" where it doesn't belong, just to tick a box), but when there is so much rich detail, I just find it odd that there are so few passing mentions of quest/battle-weary characters pining for their sweethearts, lusting after a barmaid, or whatever.

It doesn't spoil the books for me, but I can't help noticing the absence.

Cecily wrote: "There's not much need for women in the plot (and I hate it when books or films throw in "love interest" where it doesn't belong, just to tick a box), but when there is so much rich detail, I just f..."

It doesn't spoil it for me exactly, but most of the female "characters" have none (character, I mean) and to me just feel a bit like place holders. I just think that "proper" women (i.e. ones that felt like real people) would have enhanced the books.

(I do have to agree 100% about the unnecessary "love interest" thing, though. I especially hate it when I see a film adapted from a book that I've read and enjoyed and they inflate the "love interest" to become the main thrust of the story, when it had no bearing on the original book.)

Having said all of that, I actually think that it was sensible of Tolkein not to really write women, if women were somewhat "foreign" to him - better than to try and fail. I've occasionally read books where an otherwise good male writer tries to do a female viewpoint character where it just sounds totally inauthentic to me, as a woman. Much better, in those cases, if the author had just stuck with a male POV. (Before I upset anyone, I'm not saying that the vast majority of men can't write women, they can, it's just a small minority who shouldn't even try.)

Yes, it's good to know one's limitations. Better the books as they are than with significant female characters that were really badly written.

I've got to say, having read Chapter 2 today, this is a place where anyone who hasn't read The Hobbit could become a bit lost - all of the Smeagol/Gollum stuff, in particular. really does need a fair bit of knowledge of The Hobbit.

So Frodo thinks that Bilbo should have killed Gollum when he had the chance and Gandalf disagrees. So should Bilbo have killed Gollum? It certainly would have made for big changes in the Sam/Frodo storyline in the later books!

New thought (I only get a single one every eight hours or so): The only volcano on the whole "continent" of Middle Earth happens to be right under Sauron's nose?

Anyone more au fait with all of the books able to tell me if it really is the the only volcano in Middle Earth or if it's special in some other way that I never picked up on?

Well, my reread is stalled at the start of book two in The Two Towers. Hopefully my schedule clear up soon enough and I can get back to it.

For me, Tom Bombadil was a character who signified a deeper and more vivid world when I first read the series and was a favourite character in the first book of tFotR (supplanted by Gandalf and Galadriel in book two). It was a naive read then, as I imagine first coming into contact with the Lord of the Rings series is bound to be for most. While enjoying the verse, the vivid descriptions and the kindly, straightforward narrative (which might put some off today), I missed the extent to which this work is about mythical anthropology- from the landscape and histories it was imbued with to the races of Middle Earth and their intricate past of interactions. The Fellowship of the Ring was almost a different volume when I read it again, since this time I was hanging on to the side stories and excess information rather than the adventure story tying it all together.
It's a difficult level of complexity to achieve (harder still while maintaining a simple 'quest' thread where the reader must be brought to care for the plot and characters) and I haven't come across any author who does it in the same way as Tolkien does.

On female characters, their presence (or in this case, lack) is as little important to the real essence of the narrative (as opposed perhaps to just the 'story'- by which I mean the fantastic adventure) as most of the characters. The hobbits, save for Frodo and Sam are just vehicles for the plot to keep itself going and be relatable and most other characters are subsumed, save for a few like Gandalf and Aragorn (and to a lesser extent Legolas and Gimli who become the familiar face of it) in the larger struggle in tTT and tRotK. If anything, Galadriel always remained stark in my mind (cf Éowyn who at least had more function in the plot) despite being something of a beneficent memory standing resignedly apart (not so resignedly as it turns out when she speaks to Frodo before the company leaves Lothlórien).

As a sidenote on Narnia, though I've only read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe after seeing the films, I agree with Lewis's own view that it's less 'allegory' and more 'supposition' (though with allegorical interpretations rife 'after the fact', which just goes to show, in my view, that a consistent allegorical narrative was not aimed for- rather, tropes sometimes gained a Christian hue). I hope to read The Magician's Nephew when I can.

Cecily wrote: "I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it'..."

To be honest, at age 12 the lack of female characters was just something I accepted without getting too stroppy about because of the time it was written, the environment it was set in, and because lots of the books I read as a child didn't bother much with females either. I would have loved a major female character - and I totally adored Eowyn when I got to her - but I agree that I'd rather have no major female character than one who is so apallingly written it effects my enjoyment of the story.

What I couldn't forgive Tolkien for on the representation of women front, though, was Arwen. (Final book spoilers) (view spoiler)[I'm another one who doesn't like inserting love stories where they're not needed at the expense of the real story. But there really needed to be a bit more evidence of the romance there before I could buy her happily being married off at the very end. She doesn't even speak if I recall correctly! And I can't remember her eventual husband even mentioning her in even a vaguely romantic way until the surprise marriage at the end. It just seemed tacked on and rubbish and she felt more like an object than a character. I could probably reread and pick up clues towards it now, but for a firstime reader it comes out of nowhere. (hide spoiler)] Not that I always liked what the films did with her, but compared to the book's it's a massive improvement.

Yasiru wrote: "Well, my reread is stalled at the start of book two in The Two Towers. Hopefully my schedule clear up soon enough and I can get back to it.

For me, Tom Bombadil was a character who signified a dee..."

Intentional or not C S Lewis' Christianity will keep coming to the fore during the Narnia books - when you read The Magician's Nephew you'll see Genesis parallels (hell, I did and I've never read the bible).

In the middle of the Tom Bombadil section and, sorry, but am I the only one who, if they met him, would just want to give him a slap and tell him to speak normally? Ok, I know, I have no poetry in my soul, but still...

"Hey-down-merry-dol-fol-de-rol-a-diddle-THWACK", (the thwack was me slapping him, btw). Now I feel better!

Louise wrote: "Cecily wrote: "I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it'..."

To be honest, at age 12 the lack of female char..."

I remember reading somewhere that Arwen was a late addition to the story and that Aragorn might have been married off to Éowyn.

But I don't know about your objection that Aragorn hardly thinks of her, since even in tFotR there are indications that Aragorn has her never far from his thoughts and presses on partly because of her.

There's also a chronicle-like account of their meeting at the end of tRotK.


Elise wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Well, my reread is stalled at the start of book two in The Two Towers. Hopefully my schedule clear up soon enough and I can get back to it.

For me, Tom Bombadil was a character who ..."

I've read synopses of it, but what I meant is that calling these Christian aspects an 'allegory' in the collective sense isn't exactly correct.

Elise wrote: ""Hey-down-merry-dol-fol-de-rol-a-diddle-THWACK", (the thwack was me slapping him, btw). Now I feel better!"

*snickering*

Yasiru wrote: "Louise wrote: "Cecily wrote: "I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it'..."

To be honest, at age 12 the lack..."

I fully agree about the Narnia thing. Lewis wasn't aiming for allegory like that he was mainly writing a fantasy where his beliefs were apparent. You read writing by anyone else and their beliefs will show. You may just not be able to pick it as well because you may not have the knowledge of their beliefs. I think that because he was an apologist and more open in showing his beliefs they are more noticeable in Narnia. But anyway I'll discuss the first part of The Lord of the Rings (I refuse to call it book one of three as it was intended to be one massive whole book).

Tom Bombadil is never a popular character. I like him because he's something quirky, unique and different in the world Tolkien created.

Yasiru wrote: "Louise wrote: "Cecily wrote: "I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it'..."

To be honest, at age 12 the lack..."

Seriously, you do need to read the books (The Narnia Section of The Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle in particular) before you make a definitive statement on it - it's fair enough that it may not have been consciously written as an allegory, but the allegorical imagery and semi-biblical references are slapped on liberally with a shovel.

Has to be said that it's difficult to see The Last Battle as anything but pure allegory - if Lewis didn't write it as such, that man seriously needed to be having words with his subconscious!

Jonathan wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Louise wrote: "Cecily wrote: "I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it'..."

To be honest, at ..."

I'm sure he has a deep seated place in the dense, multi-layered Middle Earth mythos, but since Tolkein never elaborates in this book, I'll continue to think of him in conjunction with a giant THWACK!

Frodo et al are currently trapped in the barrow and I'm going to leave them there for today because I know who's coming to the rescue again and I've had enough of him for now! THWACK, THWACK! *slapped with both hands*

Elise wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Yasiru wrote: "Louise wrote: "Cecily wrote: "I know what you mean, but for me it's more the almost total absence of female characters that I find frustrating, and I think it'..."

..."

Actually he's just a character who was thrown in there. Several people as a result seem to think he represents the God of Tolkien's middle earth. He also does a very creation story in The Silmarillion but it's not at all allegorical. I often think people see too much into some things (I would say that some of the stories of Narnia are allegorical in part but I also question whether the allegorical tag gets thrown over some of the ideas common to other religions and mythologies because of writer's specific religious beliefs. And I am certainly against people tagging things for the sake of it)