Book first or Films first? Never read LOTR... NO SPOILERS PLEASE!!!!

[Hex]

Books first. Fun as the films are they don't come close to the books. Why spoil the book experience?

If you read the books you can decide for yourself what the characters look like -- if you see the films first, you'll forever imagine them that way.

(I might have a copy of Bored of the Rings somewhere... it was published when I was utterly obsessed with LoTR)

 

[kythe]

This thread is a couple of months old now. Any update? What did you decide, THX?

I was first introduced to LOTR in the theater when I saw Peter Jackson's version. I was captivated from the first moment and knew I would read the book. But I left the theater with quite a few questions I felt hadn't been cleared up. When I read the book, it turns out I had a few misunderstandings about certain characters and plot points as well.

The extended edition is a much better telling of the story. When a movie is 3 hours long, it may seem quite unnecessary to make it even longer. But the story is so rich and detailed, the movies need to be longer in order to tell it properly. I think the theatrical version actually feels rushed and skims over some important points.

My favorite movie is the first, Fellowship of the Rings, probably because that is what got me into Tolkien's works in the first place. I watched the first movie, read the books, then watched the other two movies in the trilogy. I tend to find that the second two movies stray further from the book story. They probably are not less faithful to the source material than the first, it is just my bias because of the order that I saw/read the stories.

 

[THX-1138]

Well, by now I'm almost done with The Hobbit. Decided to read.

 

[hopewrites]

good for you!! I always read The Hobbit after the trilogy, because although they are set in the same world, the world is not the same. In the way that the world was not the same before, during, and after WWII. Or the way a country is not the same before, during, and after a civil war.
The Hobbit is set in a Middle earth that is 60 years younger then the Middle Earth of the trilogy. For me, the trilogy is 60 years darker.

Just a heads-up, encase you expected the world to be the same when you re-enter it.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I'd say the movies, I don't actually think much of the book/s to be honest. The books were revolutionary at the time they were written, but now they read rather dated. But that's just me, I'm sure there are plenty of readers out there that don't find them painful to read like I do.

 

[devilsgrin]

I'd say the movies, I don't actually think much of the book/s to be honest. The books were revolutionary at the time they were written, but now they read rather dated. But that's just me, I'm sure there are plenty of readers out there that don't find them painful to read like I do.

i completely agree with you.
the legacy of these books is staggering, and the inspiration (or outright plagiarism) they've generated has created the Genre as we know it. But yep, reading them, they're tragically dated. Nostalgia colours the perceptions of many.

 

[Hex]

We're not that old

I think you're right, though, that if you read the books at an impressionable age then they tended to define fantasy for you. If you're used to things that are more immediate, then perhaps reading as dated is a bad thing.

 

[Rodders]

Generally i'll read the book, but i've never been into Fantasy so i only got about half way through. I think there's something to be said for watching the film first as you get to take the film in for it's own merits rather than judging it based on your own recollection of the story. Watch the movies first and if you like it enough, read the books.

I saw the the Fellowship of the Ring and really thought that it was a well made film but haven't quite gotten around to watching the others. I think i'm going to need to get the box set and lock myself in for a day.

 

[Clansman]

I think calling any work of fiction "dated" is historicism. I can recognize the great works of literature of the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and enjoyably read them, so why not the 20th? To me, minimalism has destroyed the pallet of the English language, as description is now seen as a bad thing, and anything that is not plot-driven is considered "wordy". Reading something that is old (and Tolkien wrote in a Victorian style, so substantially older than the 1954 publication date would suggest) transports me back in time. A minimalist style setting a story in Dicken's London would kind of wreck the atmosphere for me. The language is the vehicle that gets me there, not the plot. Once a person gets used to that and practices it a few times, the reading experience of older works is suddenly enjoyable and wonderful.

Otherwise, a person limits themselves to the post-Hemingway era. Tragic, really. I feel sorry for those who can't get into a good Victorian novel, or read Shakespeare.

 

[THX-1138]

Finished The Hobbit. Just bought Fellowship.

 

[THX-1138]

What do you guys mean by dated? I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare, from a modern perspective Romeo & Juliet just seems stupid to me. I recognize that it made sense at the time and was a tragedy. But Romeo was confusing love with sexual attraction as many adolescents do and was willing to die for it and he ended up causing the deaths of many others as well. On top of all that, the whole feud is pointless. They don't even know what they're fighting about anymore! So yeah Shakespeare is dated, but there's a much bigger difference between Shakespeare and today than between 58 and today. Also I recognize that being dated doesn't change the integrity of a good story, it just makes it less relatable.

Actually, the reason I wanted to read LOTR is because I was getting into latter Fantasy books and I wanted to be a more legitimate geek. My friend got me into Dungeons and Dragons, before that I was pretty much strictly sci-fi(except Harry Potter). How can say you like Legend of Drizzt and not like LOTR? I wanted a fuller perspective, Drizzt seems far less original now(though it's still not a ripoff, I do like it). Also I figured I'd enjoy it, like Harry Potter or Star Wars, another epic with which to compare other lesser works. After LOTR I can move on to other Fantasy which derived from it(recommendations?). Also I was considering other early Fantasy, Lovecraft seems particularly interesting and would be a change in tone I suspect, to keep things fresh.

 

[Warren_Paul]

What do you guys mean by dated?

You asked the question, but then gave the answer in the same post... just so you know

Writing styles have changed considerably over the years.

It's like looking back at old comedies from the early 1900s, for instance Charlie Chaplin, who was considered hilarious at the time, wouldn't even be considered funny today. The only laughing that would be going on, would be at how ridiculously simple entertainment was back then.

Same goes for writing, what we think of as good writing today is different to back when Lotr was written. Some people still appreciate old writing styles, but a lot of readers would have trouble going back to reading such old books because they are used to how books are written today.

Best trick is to read the older books before the newer ones, which you are doing it seems. Once you do read newer books, go back and try read Lotr again, you should see what we mean.

its like getting a new computer, its so fast that afterwards you can't stand to go back to using the old one.

 

[THX-1138]

What meant was give examples, I don't see how LOTR is dated. I get Romeo & Juliet being dated, definitely, but I don't see how LOTR is dated. It's great writing by today's standards, and Idk how 1958 writing styles were different.

 

[hopewrites]

If you want to understand how Forgotten Realms is not a copy of Middle Earth, then you should read Hero With 1000 Faces (sorry I forget author at the moment, sleep deprived). Reading LotR to become a "legitimate geek" is an interesting motivation, I wont dissuade you from reading it, and if you made it through all the singing in The Hobbit, without skipping (you didnt skip did you?) then you should get through Tom Bombadill just fine, he is the most common reason I have heard from 'modern' readers for not being able to get through it.

without spoilers; LotR is a 'darker' 'heavier' work then tH because he takes his time in reantiquing you with the shire while setting up some main characters. Then once the story gets 'really rolling' he shows more of the darker sides of the characters that inhabit it. It follows all the 'classic' elements of a Journey described in the book mentioned above (the book above mentioned doesnt spoil books any more then knowing what cake is made of spoils its delicious dessertyness, just sayin').
You will find that there is no one protagonist, and that puts some readers off as well. Since you already play D&D i doubt you will have any trouble with that or getting through the delightful descriptions (unless your a dungeon crawler, your not are you? I always played a bard and hated when I got stuck in a dungeon crawl because there was so little for me to do) and you might even absorb some new ways to play your characters with more dimension (one young man I used to play with did after reading it. we persuaded to read him after he saw them in theaters).

Anyway,
Happy Reading
let me know what you think as you go along

 

[Alex The G and T]

"Hero of a Thousand Faces." Joseph Cambell. The "42" answer to the questions of Mythology and story telling.
***

I'm a bit late to this thread and way late to describe the ultimate answer to the question raised herein:

Steeped in the reading of the books, no less than a dozen times, over the decades. Filled with eager anticipation over the new theatrical release. Car full of uninitiated teenagers, blasting Zep's "Battle For Evermore" in the car on the way to the theater. Uttering unnameable exclamations about key, epic events forthcoming in the current years episode. (which sentence would get funnier if I wasn't avoiding spoilers)

Chills, awe and wonder on the way home during another round of "Battle for Evermore" in the car.

Then the kids start reading, preparing for next years release.
(Popular christmas gift during those years. We have, at least, three copies on board.)

Short of that... another endorsement for the extended DVD versions. So much more, there.

***
Somewhere, long ago and far upthread, someone mentioned that the humor in "Bored of the Rings" might be somewhat inaccessible to brits...

Oh, it's way worse than that. Many of the references, especially substitute names, are related to archaic product names which were heavily advertised on american television in the '60's. Even an American has to be rather long-in-the-tooth to remember that "Barbisol" (Barad Dur) was an Aerosol shaving Foam product from the 50's, which vanished in the late 60's; or that Serutan, "Nature's spelled Backwards" (Saruman) was a laxative preparation.

But my kids still thought that it was pretty hilarious.

 

[j d worthington]

Don't know that I'd at all agree on the subject of Chaplin, save for his early Essanay and Mutual pictures. Once he had control over his own work, he didn't tend to go for simple laughter, but a blending of many emotions, and he succeeded quite well, more often than not, which is why his work is still so highly regarded throughout the world. But things such as "City Lights", "Modern Times", "The Circus", and so forth, work as much on the level of pathos and sadness as on "comedy" (so-called). And then there are things such as "Monsieur Verdoux", which is a great black comedy with Chaplin playing a serial murderer who is both chilling and humorous (in a very gallows'-humor way) at the same time....

As for Shakespeare... aside from the language (which is actually relatively modern English; certainly more so than that used in Chaucer's day), which
"dates" his work for most people, his themes and handling of them hasn't dated all that poorly, either... given their continued popularity and relevance. This isn't entirely true; Romeo and Juliet does address a very common human experience (look at the way so many young people react to "love", even today), but I would say his better plays are much more successful and important than that, and truly address the heart's-meat of the human condition in language that, even today, is almost impossible to better. It simply takes getting used to the different idiom.

To me, "dating" means that something is far too much a product of its time; not only in its manner of expression, but in its understanding of how the human heart works; it falsifies that reality by being too invested in the views of a particular period (e.g., many of the false perspectives concerning human motivations so common to Victorian morality).

 

[Clansman]

To provide an example of JD's point, Leave It To Beaver is a dated sitcom that is absolutely dreadful to watch, because it has such a false perspective of the human condition in the 1950s, and the themes (if there were any) are so trite as to cause a constant eye-roll.

LOTR is not dated. The themes are timeless. If language is a barrier, then practice it. Read it. Expand your mind. The shorter, simplistic writing of today's age is not the be all and end all of writing. It is simply what our generation is used to. If you make yourself used to something else, then you can truly enjoy it.

Reading older styles of literature is kind of like learning to drink scotch whisky. Almost no one likes their first sip, but after you've tried it a few times, your pallet changes. 10 years later, you won't drink anything but the finest single malts (make mine The Macallan, please). I love reading Shakespeare. His comedies are some of the funniest theatre I have ever had the pleasure of enjoying. His tragedies expose the best and the worst of the human heart. His histories (well, not that historical) make the past jump off the page and come alive on the stage. Who can't be moved by Henry V's speech to his troops at Agincourt, on St. Crispin's Day? My goodness, you'd have to be dead!

 

[j d worthington]

Or, The Merchant of Venice, certainly one of the best examinations of how hatred and prejudice breed true, and ever more virulent. Think of Shylock's famed speech, when Salarino protests that surely Shylock will not take Antonio's "pound of flesh"; it must be a pleasantry, as it were. After all, what would he do with it? To which Shylock replies, with a particularly chilling blend of justice and inhumanity:

To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

Shakespeare had his faults, but when he got it right, no one, not even Christopher Marlowe (who was damned good at examining the darker currents in human nature) could best him.

 

[Clansman]

Oooooooooo, good one, JD! That is definitely one of The Bard's best. And there are LOADS of other such speeches in Shakespeare.

Here is good King Harry, as played by Kenneth Branagh (who plays King Harry brilliantly):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDZVxbrW7Ow

the origin of the term "Band of Brothers", "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers...". Rousing stuff, truly timeless.

Here 'tis in writing:

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say, "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

Best motivational speech EVER, describing perfectly the kind of brotherhood that is shared only by those who have gone through combat together. This is human condition, and it will never be dated.

 

[j d worthington]

Oh, yes, and there are dozens, if not hundreds, such, in Shakespeare's work (and yes, Marlowe's, and Webster's, and...). Shakespeare could also tackle such a variety of subjects with that same eloquence and passion, from Hamlet's famed soliloquy to Prospero's beautiful summing up ("Our revels now are ended...") which applies to each and every one of us as well ("We are such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life is rounded with a sleep"); or the ghost's warning ("I could a tale unfold whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul..."); or countless others.

And, to bring the thread back to JRRT: He, too, often summed up in beautiful language some of the deepest of human dreams, aspirations, passions, and experiences; there are passages in LotR which are almost heartbreaking in their clear insight and eloquence; including some which are very quiet moments, such as when Gimli first really looks into Galadriel's eyes at the first meeting in Lorien; or the poignant moment at which we see Smeagol almost come back... where the reader, too, can genuinely feel pity for this lost, twisted thing because, for just that moment, we see just what has been lost, and that moment pierces like a blade.

While his approach is definitely that of "old-fashioned, leisurely prose", I don't think much in Tolkien has dated because of that. If anything, as that has been the mainstream of English literature for many centuries, he dates much less than many of our contemporaries, who are too wrapped up in both the idioms and philosophies of our day, so that within a very short period, those who were so strikingly "new", fresh, original, and "relevant", will find themselves as inaccessible to readers of another era as does poor Bulwer today....