|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 9, 2011 21:49:33 GMT -6
I never realized until tonight, comparing my paperback copies of The Hobbit with The Fellowship of the Ring, that merely Book I (i. e., the first 12 chapters) of the latter is almost exactly as long as the entirety of The Hobbit!
Bilbo gets to Rivendell in The Hobbit after about 40 paperback pages (2 chapters). Frodo doesn't get to Rivendell until the page length of Bilbo's entire adventure! Bilbo starts in Hobbiton, travels to Rivendell, thence to the Misty Mountains, then the Carrock, then Mirkwood, and on to the Lonely Mountain and back home again--all in the space that it takes Frodo to get merely to Rivendell!
No wonder some people strongly prefer The Hobbit over The Lord of the Rings. I haven't read the latter since before my daughter (who is almost 7 years old) was born. I wonder if I dare. I've read it 8 times, and loved it each time. But my tastes of late years have run far more into short stories (especially Clark Ashton Smith) and short novels. For the nonce, I'm going to leave well enough alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Nov 10, 2011 7:01:35 GMT -6
That's an interesting observation!
Having worked at a used bookstore at multiple points in my life I have noticed a trend among f&sf novels to grow, both in content and physical production size, as time goes on. If you were to pick up the same book in 1970 or in 2010 the latter would be thicker, in some cases substantially so. Add to that that the modern novel probably has a much higher wordcount, and the later novels of any given author tend to be longer than the first, and you find yourself with basically paper bricks.
I think it is kind of a shame because a little parsimony can make for a much tighter, not to mention portable, work that is more accessible to your audience. I in part blame the fact that I can no longer just slip the latest fantasy novel into the back pocket of my jeans for the rising move towards e-readers and away from books.
(It's just occurred to me that a similar thing is true about D&D and other RPGs through the ages. The Rules Cyclopedia is probably fewer pages than any of the 3.5/4.0 core books, and probably actually has a higher word count. Book bloat is icky.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kent on Nov 10, 2011 18:14:39 GMT -6
I don't need all the books I admire to be the same length.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 24, 2011 21:44:03 GMT -6
When LotR was first published it was considered to be gigantic. Now there are series like Shannara and the stuff written by Robert Jordan and many others that simply dwarf the material that Tolkien wrote.
Tolkien's big difference, IMO, was his attention to detail. If the characters happended to wander past a ruined tower, JRRT knew its history. If they crossed a stream JRRT knew its name. Amazing that he would put so much effort into the smallest things, which is probably a large reason why LotR is so much better than many of the later books inspired by it.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxvale76 on Jun 22, 2012 14:56:25 GMT -6
I know I'm way late to this thread...but count me as one of the ones who DEFINITELY prefers the Hobbit to the 3 books of the Fellowship of the Ring...in terms of reading them.
I like the epic story of the Trilogy a little better (but not much); but as for slogging through the books; the Hobbit is DEFINITELY a much better read for me. Frankly; the Frodo and Sam chapters in the last 2 books of the Trilogy frequently bore me to tears...
|
|
|
|
Post by owlorbs on Jun 23, 2012 20:53:56 GMT -6
I'm also in the (minority?) group of people who prefers The Hobbit. In fact, I'm going to go flip through my annotated copy right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 23, 2012 23:08:25 GMT -6
Frankly; the Frodo and Sam chapters in the last 2 books of the Trilogy frequently bore me to tears... For me, the better parts of The Lord of the Rings are the second half of The Fellowship of the Ring and the first halves of The Two Towers and of The Return of the King. |
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Jun 24, 2012 10:38:29 GMT -6
Having recieved my degree (BA) in creative writing, I have a few observations regarding the length of fantasy novels. Modern writing techniques are character development heavy, meaning it is accepable to go to great lengths in describing emotional response. This is in and of itself not so bad as I am concerned. It does however mean that a 300+ page book becomes two 500+ books rather quickly. Most older fantasy novels dealt heavily with action and background, and less with dialogue, which is another main difference. Finally the maxim of the modern creative writing class is "show, don't tell". Most new writers dwell quite heavily on description, while writers like the good professor used the essence or meaning of his written word to convey imagery.
I think older writers assumed their audience was a tad more literate, and had vivid imaginations. Part of the modern writer's connundrum is how to make the story interesting in a market that is laden with assumptions about fantasy, and iconic imagery.
Many of our favorite old school authors paved the way for the modern high fantasy genre. The results of it are giant novels, or 5+ novels in a series that seem derivative of one another. This doesn't mean modern writers are bad! They are masters of their craft, and it shows. But they have to cater to a modern audience, with its socio-political views and aggendas. This also is not bad in itself, as there is a considerably larger market as a result.
As for me, well I love the writings of the "Masters". They could do what they wanted to in under 100 pages, and it would be awesome. This is my litmus test for modern writers: The short story. If a modern writer can spin a good yarn in under 100 pages well enough, if not I probably won't bother with a novel of thiers.
|
|
|
|
Post by garham on Jul 13, 2012 17:28:16 GMT -6
Love the Hobbit. I'm meh on LotR... it's an ok story itself (albeit overly long for my tastes). Anyways a while back I decided not to read anything over 350 pages and I haven't looked back. This means that I don't read much modern fantasy stuff apart from short stories. The worldbuilding of LotR is very impressive in one sense, but I'm not really convinced that such a thing is really necessary for an author to spin a good yarn, and it seems to me unfortunate that this sort of detailed worldbuilding afterwards became a sort-of benchmark or standard for fantasy. I get the feeling while reading Moorcock (for example) that he really has nothing mapped out beyond the next sentence and this makes his stories go in weird and interesting directions. I wish I could experience that feeling more often while reading modern fantasy.
I don't have any problems with modern fantasy's catering to modern socio-political views and agendas, and in fact I think that anyone who preferred REH or ER Eddison or HPL on that count would have to be incredibly racist and sexist by modern standards. However I do have a huge problem with being bored while reading something that's supposed to be (mostly) entertainment.
Thorswulf's insights are interesting. Why is it that modern audiences are so interested in character development? I'll be honest, I don't really have any interest whatsoever in hearing about the tortured inner mental life of the protagonist, I just want to hear about the butt-kicking parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 13, 2012 18:11:20 GMT -6
Anyways a while back I decided not to read anything over 350 pages and I haven't looked back. I'm hard put to think of very many long works of fiction that could not be improved by skillfully trimming them down to 300ish pages. I have read only the first novel of George R. R. Martin's saga, A Song of Ice and Fire, and I did not care for it. I recently watched the first season of A Game of Thrones. I thought it was pretty good. "Maybe I'm not doing the books justice," I thought. Yesterday I checked-out from the library the second book in the series, A Clash of Kings. I read the first 30 or so pages and remembered why I don't like these books. The characters sit around and talk and talk and talk with each other about political matters that I don't really care about. If they are not doing that, they sit around and think and think and think about their problems, which I again don't really care about. The HBO miniseries makes me think that there might be a pretty good 300-page novel buried somewhere in A Song of Ice and Fire. But perhaps best of all would be a 50-page short story by REH in which Conan reaves through the whole of Westeros, killing all the main characters on general principles alone. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 13, 2012 19:18:03 GMT -6
I don't have any problems with modern fantasy's catering to modern socio-political views and agendas, I do. I think its moronic. and in fact I think that anyone who preferred REH or ER Eddison or HPL on that count would have to be incredibly racist and sexist by modern standards. If these guys are racist then being racist is a good thing. Frankly saying ER Eddison is racist, in a negative sense, is a very stupid thing to say. |
|
|
|
Post by garham on Jul 13, 2012 19:24:36 GMT -6
I'm hard put to think of very many long works of fiction that could not be improved by skillfully trimming them down to 300ish pages. You've got my vote on that one. If I scan the shelves in the used bookstores for volumes no thicker than my index finger chances are I'm more likely to find something that will hold my interest. It works for me anyhow. But perhaps best of all would be a 50-page short story by REH in which Conan reaves through the whole of Westeros, killing all the main characters on general principles alone. ;D Definitely. I can't say that I enjoyed GRRM at all really. Back to the topic at hand though, while LotR obviously remains the most influential work of 20th century fantasy, I don't think it's really fair to blame JRRT for the subsequent bloat within the genre. I mean, the influence of LotR certainly played a role but as is mentioned elsewhere in this thread bloat is an observed general trend within all publishing and thus it wouldn't make much sense to blame it on the influence of a specific work within a given genre. |
|
|
|
Post by garham on Jul 13, 2012 19:29:20 GMT -6
If these guys are racist then being racist is a good thing. Frankly saying ER Eddison is racist, in a negative sense, is a very stupid thing to say. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one then. It's been discussed often enough in enough places that there's no point in getting into it. My only real point was that I don't have any problem with modern fiction's attitudes towards the world generally, just with modern fiction's attitude towards fiction. I cringe inwardly at times while reading ERB or REH due to their worldview, but I'll still read them over China Mieville whose worldview I actually would endorse. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 13, 2012 19:48:15 GMT -6
I have heard people say the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy is so much more PROFOUND than the Star Wars Original Trilogy, because the OT deals with simplistic blacks and whites whereas the PT brilliantly exposes the machinations of the Bush Administration. LOL!
|
|
