lord of the rings

  On 6/14/2010 at 7:55 PM, dr lopez said:

  On 6/14/2010 at 6:34 PM, jefferoo said:

  On 6/14/2010 at 7:24 AM, dr lopez said:

lol at thinking LOTR is deep beyond two general plot metaphors and generic run of the mill bible parables with changed names. It's influential yes. any good as writing or as novels? absolutely not. Tolkien scholars that are intellectual academics with Ph.Ds in literature do not exist, and if they do, they treat tolkien as a portent for the loss of the populace reading (somewhat) intellectual literature and becoming more interested in fantasy creatures/wizards/vampires.if you want an epic novel that has more character depth and intellectual wit as well as a fascinating plot, try Moby Dick.

boy do you sound like a cock. Who gives a fuck?

 

it's just really poor writing. Tolkien's skills were in fantasy. The novels were his last resort to share his creations with the actual world. He created the languages and maps of Middle Earth long before he wrote the novels or even decided on a "story" That kind of stuff I find fascinating in a way, and it's totally clear that the "plot" and "character development" is second to merely describing his fantasy kingdom. The novels suffer for it however. They are deathly dull.

 

 

  On 6/14/2010 at 5:19 PM, GORDO said:

if you are over the age of 15 i recommend you don't even try. you're not going to finish it anyway.

 

this.

Deathly dull? Name your standards!