The Harry Potter Phenomenon.....

[Whelan]

Tolkien lord of the rings was written as he wanted to develop a mythology like Beowulf or King Arthur.

England has no myth of our own they are rehashes of other nations myths.

Tolkien created languages and a history the lord of the rings is just the most famous of them thats all.

Its a history book really,all be it a made up one.

would it get past a publisher these days probaly not,its not a easy read,but the story and amount of work it contains are out of this world.

Lord of the rings has sold 150ml copies,the hobbit another 100ml,Tolkien was also very good firends with the Britains and Irelands second greatest fantasy writer C.S Lewis.

The words C.S Lewis used to describe the book "here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron. Here is a book which will break your heart."

If anyone doesnt know C.S Lewis is the author of The Chronicles of Narnia

 

I didn't realise there was that much reasoning behind the books! Fascinating stuff, I thought Beowulf was an Anglo Saxon story?

[Lee909]

It is classed as Anglo Saxon but would have been brought over here,The author seems to be unkown as the poem is found in the Nowell Codex which contain other sagas

The dates of its Writting are some time between 8th-11th century

 

If you look at parts of the lord of the rings you can see how many different languages Tolkien created for the Elves especially. There are alot of similaritys in some of the scandanavian languages,Welsh were used. Piece underneath from wikipedia

J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy fiction contains several languages for Elves. The author, a philologist by profession, spent much time on these constructed languages. His interest was primarily philological, and the languages were the first thing Tolkien created for his secondary world. He said his stories grew out of his languages; he created a whole fictional mythology and history, complete with races, to speak the tongues he had constructed.

 

Tolkien started with what he originally called "Qenya", the first primitive form of Elvish. This was later called Quenya (High-elven) and is one of the two most complete of Tolkien's languages (the other being Sindarin, or Grey-elven). The phonology, vocabulary and grammar of Quenya and Sindarin are strongly influenced by Finnish and Welsh, respectively. In addition to these two, he also created several other (partially derived) languages.

 

Tolkien also created the Tengwar and Cirth scripts for his languages.

 

There was a fictional tradition of philological study of Elvish languages within the legendarium. Elvish philologists are referred to by the Quenya term Lambengolmor (singular Lambengolmo). It is a compound of lambe, tongue, and n(g)olmo, loremaster (from the same root ngol, or "knowledge", that also yields the word Noldor). The Lambengolmor were skilled linguists and historians, and created many works about the Elves and their languages.

 

Known members were Rúmil, who invented the first alphabet; Fëanor, inventor of the Tengwar; and Pengolodh, who is credited with many works the Silmarillion was based on.

[Guest James D]

I have a first class degree in literature, as such, I can confirm that they are in fact, texts. Carry on.

[Guest PurpleNose]

Absolute wank.

[Paul]

In terms of the books, I think it's great that so many children have read such relatively challenging texts. However, they are clearly formulaic and lack any real originality. That said, I don't begrudge her her success. She quite clearly knows how to capture children's imaginations.

 

The films have taken the whole money making machine stratospheric and I was initially much more anti the movie adaptations. However, as has been said already, they get darker as they progress and are therefore more entertaining, in my view.

 

Finally, I do think it's ace that a single mum became a billionaire on the back of writing a book for kids (which is what it is, by the way; the definition of audience in textual analysis is the group for whom it was written as opposed to who happens to be reading it. Ergo, just because my Nan picks up my copy of 2000AD doesn't mean it's for her. She can obviously enjoy it, but the audience is decided by the writer and the language choices they make).

[RedBrian84]

Hmmm, not sure I agree, I think you have a point about the linguist, that probably does explain the style, never knew that about him!

But I think his Professorship is irrelevant in a literary capacity really.

 

And I am not sure what his knowlege of root vegetables has to do with anything!

 

I mean, who the fuck breaks into song when you have just met someone! I would have just stood there, mute with embarrassment thinking 'What the fuck! I only said hello, welcome to Rohieran and he burst into fucking song!'

 

The pointy eared poof!

 

 

Tolkien was a product of his time; he grew up reading stories that involved songs and poetry; his chief interest (as already pointed out here) was in Norse sagas and mythology, along with Celtic legends and Anglo-Saxon epics like Beowulf. Now, these were littered with songs and poetry and heroic ballads.

 

He then incorporated this into his own works. The songs give more depth to the characters; don't forget that he set about creating entire races of beings as well as providing each race's unique history and how they fitted into his Middle Earth. Songs and music are a facet of any civilisation and so Tolkien used them in his own works. Take them out of context (as well as forgetting the times when he wrote them) and they may appear strange or silly, but when you understand why they are in the books they begin to make sense.

 

Also- if you would have read my post properly you would have seen that I pointed to his Professorship at Oxford to confirm that he was a linguist and not a literary writer. He wasn't interested in the style of his work, he wasn't trying to make it 'easy' or whatever, it was his life and his passion. If people enjoyed it, then great, if not, then so what? Given modern society's need for everthing to be quick and easy, and nothing that requires too much effort, it's a testament to LOTR that they are still some of the most widely read books of all time. That to me says they are great books, and the "pointy eared poof" that you referred to will still be read about and talked about as a classic in a hundred years from now. And the Lord of the Rings is merely the tip of a very large iceberg; Tolkien devoted his life to the world of Middle Earth, right from when he first scribbled down his ideas in The Book of Lost Tales in a muddy trench in Flanders in 1915, until he died leaving his unfinished masterpiece The Silmirillion. It's the dedication to his craft that I love so much and what makes them truly great.

Edited June 30, 2010 by RedBrian84

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Can just about cope with the films, I tried reading a few of the books but they really are dreadful.

[Lee909]

as i have said with other books,if you struggle reading the lord of the rings the unabridged books read by rob inglis are well worth getting hold off.

[Whelan]

Tolkien was a product of his time; he grew up reading stories that involved songs and poetry; his chief interest (as already pointed out here) was in Norse sagas and mythology, along with Celtic legends and Anglo-Saxon epics like Beowulf. Now, these were littered with songs and poetry and heroic ballads.

 

He then incorporated this into his own works. The songs give more depth to the characters; don't forget that he set about creating entire races of beings as well as providing each race's unique history and how they fitted into his Middle Earth. Songs and music are a facet of any civilisation and so Tolkien used them in his own works. Take them out of context (as well as forgetting the times when he wrote them) and they may appear strange or silly, but when you understand why they are in the books they begin to make sense.

 

Also- if you would have read my post properly you would have seen that I pointed to his Professorship at Oxford to confirm that he was a linguist and not a literary writer. He wasn't interested in the style of his work, he wasn't trying to make it 'easy' or whatever, it was his life and his passion. If people enjoyed it, then great, if not, then so what? Given modern society's need for everthing to be quick and easy, and nothing that requires too much effort, it's a testament to LOTR that they are still some of the most widely read books of all time. That to me says they are great books, and the "pointy eared poof" that you referred to will still be read about and talked about as a classic in a hundred years from now. And the Lord of the Rings is merely the tip of a very large iceberg; Tolkien devoted his life to the world of Middle Earth, right from when he first scribbled down his ideas in The Book of Lost Tales in a muddy trench in Flanders in 1915, until he died leaving his unfinished masterpiece The Silmirillion. It's the dedication to his craft that I love so much and what makes them truly great.

 

 

The 'pointy eared poof' I was refeering to was Legolas! Not Tolkein! And I was being flippant, and not talking from a technical point of view but from that of a reader!

 

And I am genuinly interested in the background, never knew that much about him, but it doesn't make the books easy to read, this has nothing to do with the style or the narrative or the prose, I find that they are difficult to read! Which was not the case with the Hobbit. All the background you have given me tells me about how he approached the books and tells me about him and why he took that approach but it doesn't mean they are easier to read. And I am talking about LOTR, not the Hobbit.

 

As Terry Pratchett pointed out, when JK Rowling was talking about plagerism, they would all be paying royalist to the Tolkein estate, without him we wouldn't have had Pratchett or Rowling,

 

You're a fan, fine, I loved them, but still found them difficult to read!

[RedBrian84]

The 'pointy eared poof' I was refeering to was Legolas! Not Tolkein! And I was being flippant, and not talking from a technical point of view but from that of a reader!

 

And I am genuinly interested in the background, never knew that much about him, but it doesn't make the books easy to read, this has nothing to do with the style or the narrative or the prose, I find that they are difficult to read! Which was not the case with the Hobbit. All the background you have given me tells me about how he approached the books and tells me about him and why he took that approach but it doesn't mean they are easier to read. And I am talking about LOTR, not the Hobbit.

 

As Terry Pratchett pointed out, when JK Rowling was talking about plagerism, they would all be paying royalist to the Tolkein estate, without him we wouldn't have had Pratchett or Rowling,

 

You're a fan, fine, I loved them, but still found them difficult to read!

 

 

You're absolutely spot on about the royalties to the Tolkien estate. He's the Godfather of the genre.

[Whelan]

You're absolutely spot on about the royalties to the Tolkien estate. He's the Godfather of the genre.

 

On similar note, I notice they are filming Song of Fire and Ice, Game of Thrones, I have only read the first one, but thought that was spectacularly good.

 

Would be really interested to see how close to the book they keep it, HBO are producing it, so it should be a lot more adult.

[Joe Le Taxi]

[WaltonRed]

Just never got it at all.

 

Roald Dahl for me any day of the week.

[RedBrian84]

Just never got it at all.

 

Roald Dahl for me any day of the week.

 

Dahl was a genius, a real trail blazer and there hasn't been another one like him since. I grew up with his books. Especially loved The Witches and The Twits, but I think James and the Giant Peach was probably my favourite.

[Xherdan]

I like the books. They are books written for kids and it totally captured the imagination of its target market. As others have said, it can be critisized for many reasons but in the main it has had a positive effect on a particular generation and like Pratchett/Rowling we will have many future authors citing Rowling as an inspiration.

 

I have also enjoyed the more recent movies, from Goblet of Fire on, I thought they were decent.

[stevebaby]

Is Emma Watson old enough to knock one out over?

A quick reply will earn some rep...I have the house to meself for a couple of hours and my thoughts have turned to carnal matters.

[RedBrian84]

Is Emma Watson old enough to knock one out over?

A quick reply will earn some rep...I have the house to meself for a couple of hours and my thoughts have turned to carnal matters.

 

She's 21, nearly 22.

 

So go ahead and enjoy!

 

Unless you couldn't wait for the reply and have already taken a chance on the age.

[stevebaby]

She's 21, nearly 22.

 

So go ahead and enjoy!

 

Unless you couldn't wait for the reply and have already taken a chance on the age.

I have to spread some first,so I owe you some rep.

 

I weakened...

[Whelan]

She's 21, nearly 22.

 

So go ahead and enjoy!

 

Unless you couldn't wait for the reply and have already taken a chance on the age.

 

Are you going to wait until he has 'ahem' finished and then tell him she is 14?

[RedBrian84]

Are you going to wait until he has 'ahem' finished and then tell him she is 14?

 

Haha. Would that be wrong?

 

 

Just kidding steve!

[Owen]

There was a different thread I could have bumped, but the thread title was a little coarse.

 

[Joe Le Taxi]

She's fit as fuck.

 

Although that is awfully photoshopped.

[Pidge]

Will the books be read in 40/50 years time?, that is the big question as wether they are truely great books or a season that came out at the right time.

I have not read them myself,watched the interview on Jonathn Ross were she said few peoplw would understand what it was like finishing such a long series of books"

As good as they are or not i cant see how they can be anywere near as in depth as Tolkien, or if you only want to use books based for kids and adults the fiction that runs with Games Workshops Warhammer 40,000

 

but as has been said anything that gets kids reading can only be a good thing

 

The books are variable in terms of writing quality but the narratives are really compelling and the prose is at least light enough that you are well past mistakes before really thinking twice about them.

 

After uni I had a period of unemployment and won't lie. I re-read them all in a week.

 

The films are like the books, shoddy in places, poor technical aspects (kid acting mainly) but the narratives are broad and compelling enough to draw you in. It's pretty shallow but what I love about them is the extent that Rowling uses names of creatures from other myths, legends and fables. Words of pagan, latin or celtic origin in spells etc.

 

Just as Tolkien (and Lewis... possibly to a wider extent as his books were more accessible. Also Pratchett and Jacques to an extent.) did 50 years ago Rowling has repackaged the myths and legends of our cultural history for kids of today. I think that's a great thing. Not just because it proves how vital and stimulating these myths still are.

 

edit: sorry I forgot to tie that back into the quote. JK Rowling's work is made to relate to the kids of today, I don't think they are made with longevity in mind. I think the hope is that someone else will come around soon enough.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Pidge

[Carvalho Diablo]

I'm 40 and I have no time for this childish, money spinning wankathon.

[RedBrian84]

There was a different thread I could have bumped, but the thread title was a little coarse.

 

 

 

Jesus Christ.