Quote:
Originally posted by TheVoid@Feb 20 2005, 05:51 PM
I wouldn't call dry and boring a book who was able to give origin to so many and so different interpretations of it.
|
The effects of the book don't automatically make it a good book.
Tolkien is a sensitivist, and sensitivism by nature is meant to be dry.
It is the literary version of pointillism. Millions of little details building up the story. I felt his descriptions of the locations was keeping back the story, and while his descriptions of emotions was very lengthy most characters' feelings towards one another came across as bland.
And then there is the poetry, now many literary experets agree on this: his poems are weak. Many fans blame Tolkien his dryness on the time it was written in, now I have come to the conclusion that Tolkien's style resembles much more that of the writers of the early 19th century than those of the 20th century. I'd say many times his books are too l'art pour l'art.
Now I admit to not being a big fantasy-fan, but then again a friend of mine who IS a hard core fantasy fan stopped reading the Lord of the Rings series at book 1 while I managed to reach the second half of the third book.
This was just my humble opinion on Tolkien, its also one of the very few things I agree on with my Obese Dutch teacher