IS LORD OF THE RINGS BORING?!đĄ -FANTASY DEBATE
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 17. 12. 2019
- LET'S DEBATE THE FANTASY GENRE!
Merch: teespring.com/stores/fantasy-...
Patreon: / danielbgreene
Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/danielgreene
Discord Server: / discord
Twitter: DanielBGreene?lan...
Instagram: / dgreene101
GoodReads: / daniel-greene
Subreddit: / danielgreene
P.O. Box 1016 Dublin, Ohio 43017
with the backup of:
715 Shawan falls Dr. Dublin, Ohio 43017 - ZĂĄbava
I am working on my Anthony Fantano impression! How is it going?
You're doing great...
Danthoniel Fangreenetano.
not melony enough yet :D
Needs a bass intro.
Iâm sorry Daniel I think your were too nice again... we need to see shots fired & blood.
Only calling him Brando Sando from now on.
Branderson. Brandy Sandy. Bran San.
I'm calling him the Sandsmanian Brandersnatch.
Brandthony Sandertano
My sister calls him Brandy Sandy. Including the time she was a pizza party at his house.
Good, it's spreading
The only way I could imagine someone feeling that the worldbuilding in LOTR is boring is if they've grown sick and tired of the LOTR copycats who employed Tolkien's worldbuilding tropes before reading LOTR. Many of the things we perceive as tropes in LOTR - even overused tropes - simply weren't tropes at the time when the book was written. It's like if we imagine this alternate future where 90% of all fantasy books have a magic system whereby the characters have to eat/drink certain metals in order to use magic. Someone in this alternate future might very well say 'The magic system in Mistborn is dull, overused, and unimaginative.'
LOTR is boring because the prose is purple af, and the uses of soft magic doesn't evoke wonder for me, it just falls flat.
Also white and black Christian-analogue mythology is boring af.
@@LeFlamel
Keep crying kid.
Book will stick for GOD knows how long and you will see it and suffer.
He did lift ideas from mythology - but yes, I don't find it especially boring. Sometimes it is a bit floral and by Melchior, the songs! But the relative slowness does build the epic feel of it, the weight; it's not a perfect book by any means, tho.
@@TulilaSalome
Well there is no perfect book.
But it's an amazing one.
that person that said: "not every adaptation should be live action, more should be animated" (or something close to that) is totally correct! I am liking the His Dark Materials show but as it has gone on I feel it is being held back by difficult scenes that could be easier to do animated.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you! Iâve been thinking for months about His Dark Materials ever since they announced the BBC adaptation. I will not be convinced that a classic 2-D animated series would not be an infinitely better representation of the world and story that Philip Pullman created.
I actually would LOVE for the Star Wars legends books to be turned into a long running animated show... Disney could say it is an alternate universe or whatever they like but fans would love it and I think it would get praise all around. Yes movies would be better but to many actors and such wouldn't return and recasting Luke Skywalker for example would be just wrong, plus all the bigger battles and such in there would be much easier and cheaper to do in animation then what would be required for a full live action adaptation.
**edit plus a long running animated show would mean little would have to be changed or cut.
I always though Stormlight Archive would be better this way personally.
The big problem is in most West countries and US specially majority think animation = kids
they should be animated in 3D. live action looks stupid and cheap. they don't have the aesthetic of anime or manga
That take on Snape, is one that I've been pushing for years. I have literally lost friends that are Potterheads because I think he's more of an obsessive stalker, than the redeemed hero that people push.
Draco should have gotten the redemption arc, not Snape. Sure, Draco was a jerk. But he was just a kid who was pushed to do things by his family. Snape made the choice to join the hate group all on his own and only backed out because the girl he was obsessed with was targeted. Had Lily not been the target, he would have stayed in the hate group.
Also JK didn't write Cursed Child. It's an endorsed FanFiction. Her name gets to be on the cover because she created the characters.
@@Marie45610 your missing the reason why peoplw change after joining these hate groups. Look at films like american history x. Or even better the ongoing real story of daryl davis who converts kkk members by befriending them. Sometimes it takes personal interaction with what you hate to open your eyes. Its not reflective of you being a terrible person either. He probably does take his love for lilly too far based on what they had but 1) its typical fantasy 2) shes one of the few that ever showed him kindness.
@@klebyell Snape knew Lily since before they went to Hogwarts. He knew she was muggle-born, he knew what the Death Eaters' goals were. He wouldn't have cared who the target was otherwise. It goes with the theory I heard of why Snape bullied Neville so much because it could have been him who was part of that prophecy since Harry and Neville's birthdays are a day apart.
That argument doesn't really work for this situation, because Snape knew all along who Lily was, and what the hate-group he joined WILLINGLY as a kid was about.
@@Marie45610 and it was her death that brought him out of it again. The loss of someone he was personally attached to showed him the error of his ways. Thats the way life works, if we felt empathy for every death we encountered wed all be peace protestors. Plus his jealousy that shes off married to the guy who made him miserable at school obviously played a factor on him getting involved with the death eaters in the first place. He probably hated her for it but still loved her.
@@klebyell Incorrect. He left the death eaters because he wanted Dumbledore to protect Lily, not after her death. And it doesn't matter. He was still a major scumbag who bullied children, outed Lupin as a werewolf to the entire world, and taunted Sirius to his death. All because he was a bitter, petty man.
This is more of unpopular opinions than a debate. đ€
It's very difficult to have a debate with one guy talking to a camera. :)
It would hurt his views
Say what you will about LOTR, but Tolkien adds a sense of dread to his books that looms over the protagonists at every moment. This is to the point that even when the characters are safe, they are not free from the influence and watch of Sauron. His reach even extended as far away as Bree, and I think that is really cool.
I am currently in the middle of reading LOTR for the first time (I've read Hobbit and am halfway through with Fellowship of the ring) and I see what you mean. This book legit spooks me lmao. The fact that the evil horsemen (I'm not reading the book in English so dunno what they're called) keep finding Frodo and the gang stresses me the heck out hahaha.
First time I read them it took me a couple of weeks to get through _Fellowship of the Ring_ but then I read the next two over a couple of days. I just could not put them down. In the ensuing 40 years, I've reread them countless times. (Though I've only read _The Silmarilion_ twice, once when it first came out, and again quite recently. I certainly took more of it in, the second time.)
@@donsample1002 The Lord of the Rings is completely immersive. It's a whole world, and it draws me in. I've read it more times than I can count, and The Silmarillion about five times, I think.
@@3nu570 Hey, a bit late, but just for reference, the evil horsemen are called "The Nazgûl" "The Black Riders," or "The Ring Wraiths." Whichever sounds most menacing to you.
â@@3nu570 This is the first time i hear someone call FotR's group "Frodo and the gang" and i honestly find it absolutely hilarious.
I thought LOTR was boring when I started, I think it took me three of four attempts to get into it but after having finished it I can say with confidence that it isn't boring at all.
I have yet to be able to get through it. I've considered borrowing Audiobooks from the library to get through them. I think audio is the only way I can. (My LotR hot take, Tom Bombadil is a pointless character in terms of LotR. He adds nothing to the main story and, as far as I know, is never seen or mentioned again in the trilogy.)
@@Marie45610 He is mentioned during the council of Elrond as a possible guardian for the ring. So he did have some purpose later on in the story. Oh and I think Gandalf went to visit him near the end of TROTK, when the hobbits continue on towards the Shire. Besides that, he simply is, imo, a very intriguing character. A being that was there in the world before anything else, and is not affected by the ring. Very interesting, especially once you have read the Silmarillion and explored more of the lore, to think about what kind of being he could be and what he could symbolize.
The council of Elrond is the furthest I could make it when I tried reading it three separate times. If the Silmarillion is also an audiobook, I might check that out too. I own a copy, but a demon spawn cat I used to have, ate half of it.
Same here, Iâm thinking itâs the expository essay on hobbits at the beginning and the two chapters with Tom bombadil as well.
The only part I found boring was the whole battle of Gondor/Minas Tirith in Return of The King. It just seemed to go on and on, and I was just like, 'can we get back to Frodo and Sam now please?!'
You could said this video title have a nice RING to it.
Ayyyeeeeeeee.
Ba dum tss đ„đ
@@ropecrewman36 *High five*
đđđđ
Maria Paz Gonzalez Lesme lol
I've finished the LOTR trilogy 3 times and I like it more every time. I don't think the world-building is boring but I'd describe it as gentle. Not sure why that word comes to mind, but gentle is the best I've got.
It's like people have a certain inner longing for things like that.
i think what the historical realism person meant was that when some authors are criticized for lack of women/poc/lgbt, they claim it's because of historical accuracy, and then turn and dont do anything else historically accurate besides being set in a place that vaguely resembles medieval europe
Probably true.
We're in an era of soft magic, no one wants more elves and wizards with superpowers. But it could change in 10 years. Just write the story you really want to write. That's the problem with so many writers now. Everyone is thinking about how to get rich instead of simply writing the stories they want to write. In the end, it's all about the characters!!
0:35 as someone who read the wheel of time I can confirm that no one has ever read the wheel of time. Me included.
P.s. hell yeah reading the bible is a roller coaster. It has more incest, murder and magic then game of thrones
The Book of Revelations is insane, and what got me into darker mythology as a kid.
Endriago Super God is in the sequel.
That first sentence needs some explaining.
Second sentence: any part of the Bible that tells a story is exciting. But the parts that deal with rules and a lot of the prophetic books are a bit hard to digest. Also the geneological parts like chronicles can and should be skipped.
The Bibleâs lore is so convoluted.
Michael Sauls I donât think any books should be skipped really as they all connect and tell stories in themselves. Chronicles is a perfect example. Davidâs big head was his downfall, and thatâs an important lesson in humility for example.
Boring for people who expect action. If you go into LOTR expecting it to be slow, it doesn't seem boring at all.
+1
I new what I was geting into when I stardet reading LOTR, but I still was not very engaged with the storry through all 3 books.
@solarcat93 i watched and loved the movies but i think at least the first book is veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery boring i said first book because i couldnt finish first book
I find LOTR immersive and I'm actually always surprised at how quickly it reads.
Me too, it's one of my "books I read or better listen to again and again, rivaled only by the Witches books of the Discworld series"
But I can see why modern fantasy fans wouldn't like it.
It paints a deeply detailed picture, slowly builds atmosphere and is generally more subtle - I don't want to say 'slow paced' because that seems to be a negative term for many people - this is far from the faster paced, often more action packed, fast building tension that modern readers like
I'm reading TFOTR for the first time and I 100% agree
I hated it and the first book I read was the hobbit then lord of the rings both were so boring too me and the stories seem like people starting shit they really shouldnât be
â@@battledsoda6744 If you'll persist, what you're looking for is probably there.
@@Caerulean itâs just extremely boring to me the book and movie is very predictable
I've actually been relistening to LOTR recently in audiobook form and I find it to hold up surprisingly well, it has a lot more nuance than people nowadays give it credit for (as it's often used as an example of a story with clear good/evil compared to modern day more presumably grey storytelling) and it's also quite fast paced. Despite the big Tom Bombadil detour we get from the beginning of the story to Bree and to Rivendell in the same page count as a modern day fantasy prologue chapter.
I tend to like darkness and action but I find the slow beggining of LOTR to actually be one of the best parts. Itâs so immersive and just makes me feel cozy and excited for the journey to come as well as just appreciating the hobbits doing thier hobbit things. The plot summary would make the begging seem boring but I think itâs great
"He's definitely planning on finishing it, and if he dies beforehand, that's not...his fault." đ€Ł So true.
LOTR's writing style can feel boring, but the actual information conveyed about the worldbuilding is beautiful!! The histories! The cultures! (And then if you get into Silm, that's even more epic!)
(Also, a lot of times, people find things boring because they think it's overdone.... but guess who did it first*?)
(*as far as modern fantasy is concerned)
Great comment.
Silmarillian is the only Tolkien book I tried besides LOTR, and The Hobbit. I couldn't finish it. Though I love LOTR including the history, the prehistory was just too much for me.
@@kareydwyer9088 lol you know heâs got a massive world when he sums up the entire three book series in one singular page
IMO, if you see Lord of the Rings as 3 seperate novels, they, especially Fellowship of The Ring, are boring. (Especially the first time you read it.) But when you see it as one big book (and have finished it once), it's never really boring (for a 1000+ page book.)
@@kareydwyer9088 same. The silmarillion was dry as bread.
I found LotR really boring. It was a struggle for me to get through the 3 books and couldn't be bothered to pick up the Hobbit afterwards. I get that Tolkien was sort of a fantasy-pioneer and put a lot of work into his story, but I think LotR can't compete with modern fantasy.
Same
Violet Evergarden was adapted into an anime but it was originally a light novel. I recommend that one.
Most anime + manga have been adapted from a light novel. I don't think it's a good example of books adapted to animation considering light novels' close association to manga and anime. However, Violet Evergarden rules and Daniel should definitely watch it.
4:43 To be fair, Snape's hatred for James Potter was probably more down to the fact that he was bullied by him, rather than just purely because he was "obsessed" with Lily.
I've completed the whole lord of the rings thrilogy and hobbit and for me this series is boring too. I love Brandon Sanderson's and Robert Jordan's work but Tolkien is just not for me. I understand that without lotr there wouldn't be fantasy in the way that it is today but still i think thats this world is not for me. Sad for me is that when i say this to people, they immedietly are looking at me as on an insane person.
I get you
I guess Iâve never been too fussed about âhistorical accuracyâ in my fantasy as long as it makes sense within the story. For example, if you want to have some African knights in a historically-plausible King Arthurâs court, I think it can be done well, but it would take more explanation than Welsh knights would. England was considered a real backwater place when Arthur may have lived, so it didnât attract many immigrants (minus raiders). If youâre going the âKnightâs Taleâ route (does anyone else remember that movie?), you donât need to explain because âhistorical accuracyâ isnât necessary for the story being told.
Yes, I remember that movie~
Knight's Tale is a classic, at least for me. Good example of no historical accuracy though. Hell, his name is supposedly Ulrich von Liechtenstein but him and all his crew are English or Irish.
No. LotR is one of the most beautiful and enchanting books in English, if not world, literature. I was enthralled when I read it at 11 and I'm enthralled and amazed every time I read it, even now.
How can anyone say that the worldbuilding for LOTR is boring? Does the Silmarillion not count as worldbuilding?
I mean, tbf, The Silmarillion is kind of written like a history book. If you're not a huge fan of fantasy and of the trilogy, it's kind of a tough read.
There is world building in LOTR proper as well as in the Silmarillion and the Hobbit. However the comment mentioned here referencedc LOTR specifically which is a specific book (Well it was published as three of course). There are plenty of people who like the world building of LOTR but DNF the Silmarillion because of its writing style and pace.
Basically there are a very wide range of opinions and I would imagine in most cases the disasatisfaction (If it is a fantasy reader who is dissatisfied) is probably more about pace and writing style than world building but they are not always clear about why they didn't enjoy it and so they just leave it as 'anything I don't like=boring.' A more and more common apprach on the internet.
I think the historical take one is saying that if youâre not going to be all that close to history then donât use the historical setting as an excuse for no representation (I have seen authors claim that there are no women in a story because women werenât allowed to do anything in the time their fantasy is based on, for example) , which I kind of agree with đ
I was thinking the same thing :D
if the story takes place in a setting where immigration and long distance traveling is going to be much more difficult then there is going to be less representation. is your self esteem really that low that you can't see this? it's literally always unathletic, chronically online, 30 year old white chicks
Is The Lord of the Rings boring? Let's debate?
Me: ok, I'll start the debate - it's not boring!
Excuse me, I just won the debate!
Never read the books but the movies were boring as hell they are well done but filmmaking is about entertainment not making the audiences fall asleep and over time more people say the same about them.
@@nickieb2636 I already said they're well done doesn't take away from them being boring and I don't hear people talk about them like they do with any top 70/80s film or any Christopher Nolan movie for that matter quality doesn't always equate entertaining and that's why I never got into them.
@@caliente2512 deleted my previous comment... Sorry for being jerky hehe
@@caliente2512 weird. You're literally the first person who I have come across saying the movies are boring. I mean a part from people who find fantasy boring. If you have fallen asleep during LotR you must know that you're in extreme minority (and that's fine). Recently a cinema in my city screened all three movies in extended edition (so around 4 hrs) and there was no empty sit.
@@caliente2512 The books are in NO WAY as good as the movies, especially the Hobbit movies. I do like the LOTR movies ( but not the Hobbit) but they aren't as good as the books in my opinion, but everyone has their own opinion and preferred styles so I understand your opinion.
âbeing a fantasy fan is about the NUMBER of time youâve read a bookâ oh wow I feel seen
On the take of GRRM, let's not forget that it took Stephen King 35 years to finish the Dark Tower series. I've also never really understood the whole, oh it won't get finished, thing.
@FLYNN RYDER go be salty somewhere else đ€Ł
For the Lord of the Rings worldbuilding, it's one of most expansive and intricate worlds in fantasy. Though I'll say that the characters might be boring because compared to modern fantasy everything is very black and white morally. If someone were to rewrite Lord of the Rings, but with all characters being realistic instead of some perfectly good and others perfectly bad, I'd be a huge fan.
That's also why, of the whole Legendarium my favourite book is The Children of HĂșrin, because TĂșrin Turambar is very morally grey, and he might even have done more bad than good in his life despite being one of the greatest heroes of his time.
Prose is underrated massively in modern fantasy. There isn't a single thing I've read in modern fantasy that compares to the sheer beauty of prose in chapter 5 of RotK:
"Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor! Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Eomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first Eored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Theoden was could not be overtaken. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Orome the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City."
I could spend half an hour reading that paragraph over and over, savoring the imagery. It evokes something deep, and different in the hearts of the reader, that modern fantasy can't quite reach.
That passage is super dry dude. It's omniscient and detached, and it tells the reader the emotion they should be feeling, rather than actually creating any, causing a disconnect between the reader and the story.
Yes, I suppose it is a dry passage, what with all the descriptions of how Sam feels about his potato gardening. Wait a moment, did I link the wrong passage?/s I think you need to look up "dry" in the dictionary. Btw I'm confused by, "tells the reader what emotion they should be feeling." Sorry what?!? It very specifically doesn't do that at all, by the very nature of being somewhat "detached".
To call this "dry" is to say 50 Shades of Grey has realistic character development.
@@aarondimoff5180 Lmao okay.
@@karkatvantas9557 I don't see why it could be considered "dry"
None of your complaints really make any sense. The only part when it explicitly tells a feeling when it mentions Battle-fury - sure the following part about Orome and stuff is a bit of a bump but otherwise it is very good passage (better than anything, slothfuss or sanderson ever wrote in their entire life) that invokes just by describing the scene and builds up towards the ending, where he reveals his shield.
And the fact that its omniscient actually a good thing, it allows for more wiggle room for the prose, to be more elaborate. More people should write in third person omniscient.
Ăkos KovĂĄcs I havenât read any Rothfuss or Sanderson yet, so comparing it to them doesnât really apply to me.
Look maybe itâs not as boring for someone who grew up reading LotR or maybe if I was actually reading the entire story myself, Iâd be able to get into it. But as a stand-alone passage it elicits no reaction from me.
I read The Hobbit when I was thirteen and it turned me off high fantasy for like 5 years....
I like that you are putting out opinions knowing you might make people mad about it. I'm sick of people being afraid to share their opinions. Keep it up! You've inspired me to read 5 fantasy books this year which I may not have otherwise đ
Great comment especially considering that is exactly what Daniel si trying to achieve. Now lets go and do likewise in our conversations. Stone, pool, ripples you know what I'm saying!
i agree with the one about historical accuracy because many authors quote historical accuracy as a reason why women don't do anything in the story, or why there are no lgbtq people, meanwhile there are wizards wielding magic and dragons flying around. no, the reason there aren't any well-developed female characters (and poc and lgtbq etc) is because the author decided not to put them in the story. which is their prerogative, i'm not saying they can't do it. but they hide behind the dissonant cloak of 'historical accuracy' to justify to the world (and themselves) their decision.
Comparing historic societal structure to made up animals and magic isnât a very good comparison. How exactly does the inclusion of a dragon change the way a medieval society views women? That doesnât excuse not having developed characters of all types, but from what Iâve seen authors donât use that excuse to explain why certain groups arenât developed properly. They use it more to explain why there arenât a ton of different races or women in high positions of a society that is based on medieval Europe.
It would be like if someone based their fantasy world on ancient japan and all the characters were white, it wouldnât make any sense.
You really don't know what you talking about. When i see people speaking things like these i guess they think that a village in England middle age is equivalent to a big city nowadays where there are a lot diversity
@@goffokfm6821 why not? It's their world, they can do whatever they want. They can base their society on medieval japan and their people on mayans if they want to. The point is they don't.
I have an explanation on LOTR being boring or not:
So in terms of finishing the LOTR series and finding it boring: I've now read the full series twice through. I once tried reading it in middle school. I finished The Hobbit, loved it, started Fellowship, and stopped 25% in because it was too boring. Then I read it in college all the way through, and was gonna read the silmarillion too but the trilogy bored me so much I couldn't bring myself to read the Silmarillion. I just did another reread this year (I'm 29 now) and absolutely phenomenally loved it and read through the silmarillion and enjoyed that more than the trilogy and it's vaulted to my favorite fantasy book series.
What's different? The goals I went into the series with. The 1st 2 times I read it (including the unfinished reading), I was looking for a story. I wanted Frodo to get the ring, go to Mordor, and destroy the ring. Yes, reading about the journey would be good, but I cared about linearly getting to the end of the story. The 3rd time (or 2nd time that I finished it) I read it because I wanted to appreciate the genius of Tolkien more. I no longer looked at his long winded explanations as boring, but as intricate world building and an amazing set up. I appreciated it so much more. Specifically to Daniel, I think because you sit from a point of view of analyzing books, you can appreciate it, and as I've gotten older, I've come to appreciate that too. But if your goal in reading a book is just pure plot, and you don't appreciate prose, worldbuilding, or understanding magic (or vice versa not learning in depth about soft magic systems), then Tolkien probably isn't for you.
Summary: Tolkien is great for fantasy nerds who get caught up in worlds. Tolkien is boring for people who want to read a plotline.
I liked your intro with the spin and this angle of the bookshelf.
I just started reading lord of the ring and I find it extremely slow and I struggle keeping my concentration for long enough to finish a chapter. While reading, my mind wonders somewhere else so I come to a point where Iâm reading words but not understanding them and end up having to reread entire chapters because I... dosed off? Is that the right way of saying it?
How do I fix this? I really want to enjoy it, and I know I will after I get used to it but still... itâs frustrating!!!!
Maybe give the audiobooks a try?
Tbf that sounds like Lotr isnt for you and maybe you should just stop trying to read it. I did it with Harry Potter (because it wasnt as good as i thought it would be). I like Lotr and Tolkiens stories but people shouldnt rly force themselves to read them. If you are struggling with it, then just find something that you will enjoy and dont use your time for a "bad book". Just my advice tho, but I know its one year late.
I'm currently in my third reread of Lotr, at the age of 22 and I'm loving it more than ever. My first attempt was at age 10/11 and i StRUgGled hard but didn't want to admit it. I read them again at age 13/14 and I definitely liked it more but did find it to be a bit dense. In hindsight though, it was just honestly just too advanced for me. Now that I'm a bit better read, I find myself constantly delighted by his prose, his dialogue, and his pacing. It's definitely a difficult read, but I'm finally at a point where that isn't impacting my enjoyment of it.
Wait. Harry Potter has world building? I mean, of the barest kind. There is still a lot of hand waving in that world.
Daniel i started wheel of time because of you and after reading first 3 books i would say its really good.Thank you for recommending it.
I've always been scared to read Lord of the Rings because I thought it would be boring. Funnily enough, I own several gorgeous editions of the series because everyone assumes that I love it because of how much fantasy I read, so they always buy me sets as gifts. lol
LOL I love that!
@@ezramalzbender7934 "except one" hmm surgically remove his life card you must mhmm.
My jaw drops when I see people call LOTR boring. I clearly recall convincing my mother that I was sick so I could spend two days away from school, because I couldn't put it down. Admittedly, that was 55 years ago......
LOTR isn't boring, it's long and can take a effort to get through but is by no means boring. I'm reading the Sillmarillion at the moment and, no it is not boring, every page is stuffed with information and the world building and how it's all put together especially the more mythological side of it is just..... *enthusiastic screams*. But it is a very hard read, I've fallen asleep reading it several times, and it's quite a hard read because it is so stuffed full of information. So if you're someone who isn't willing to an effort into reading it and isn't interested in the absolute genius that is Tolkiens world building then I wouldn't say it's for you.
I feel like my wording wasn't clear, so my point got a little misconstrued. To clarify, my issue isn't with authors straying from history--but rather with the concept of "historical accuracy" being applied to fantasy. IMO, it's ridiculous to strive for being accurate to a history that does not exist in the world that was created, and so more often than not, authors who aim for this just end up writing bland, cliched worlds full of misconceptions and half truths about the past, and will then use "historic accuracy" as an excuse for the more pernicious aspects of their work.
Also, to the point that "historic accuracy" and "representation" are mutually exclusive--they aren't. More often than not, they overlap far more than we think, even in societies like those of medieval Europe or the vikings, or other cultures we tend to think of as overwhelmingly straight, male, and white. They rarely fit into those confines, and I think it's important to see that more in fiction.
There are countries in Europe today which are 98 to 99+ percent white, in an age when international travel is unbelievably easy compared to say 1000 years ago when the population would be even less mixed. The land would be more culturally more diverse though because there was less interaction even between cities than there is countries today, but still white. Just as Africa would be predominantly African and China would be predominantly Asian. Less representation is historically accurate because travel difficulty caused people to spread less, if that's what your story is going for and if it is appropriate for the setting of the story. Certainly doesn't have to be in every story but to say it's only used to justify leaving representation out just because isn't true
@@kamikazekopec1084 of course there were, and are, places that were predominantly one race, but it was hardly the rule. Just to use the examples I cited above, both medieval Europe and Viking societies, frequently touted as "all white," had people of color. Also, representation isn't limited to skin color: even all white societies had LGBTQ people, and women who held a variety of diverse societal roles.
But ultimately, when talking about fantasy, historic accuracy doesn't matter: it's fantasy, you're making it up. If an author decides that all the main characters live in entirely white societies, that's a choice they're making. If they decide the only way people can be distinct is of they have a homogenous skin color, it's a choice they're making. They have the ability to write whatever they want, and if they're chosing to stick to all white, straight people, it's on them, and "historic accuracy" isn't an excuse for it.
@@mly3537 So you agree that it's plausible to have a story inspired by midevil history that is predominantly white? So what is the problem? You would like more writers to create your vision for you. Well, they don't want to. You do it. It's a flawed criticism, but a fair goal to aspire to yourself.
@@collinsmcrae Yes, it's "plausible" that a writer could be inspired by a predominantly white culture, but that has literally nothing to do with what I'm saying. My point is that if an author is writing a society that is all white, regardless of they're inspiration, that's a choice they're making. And if it's so super important to them, or to you, that everyone be white and straight, maybe that's something you should unpack and think about. If people criticize an author for having only white characters, an author doesn't get to say "well, i'm inspired by history, so it's fine," because they invented the history of the world they're writing. It's not flawed criticism to say "hey, you only want to write about white people, maybe that's an issue." I'm not forcing anybody to write something they don't want to write, I'm saying that their excuses for doing so are weak and don't negate the criticism.
Fantasy worlds aren't real, if you write an all white world, that was a choice *you* made. Same if all major characters are men, cis, or straight.
There are definitely more reactionary fantasy readers who hide behind "muh accuracy" whenever these assumptions are challenged.
Thank you for the spoiler alert at 3:38. I found your channel a few weeks ago and as a result decided to read the Mistborn series, which my sister offered to buy me for christmas. Ever since I've been watching your videos while trying to avoid spoilers. Been mostly succesful so far :)
Sanderson: "Boring you say? Hold my beer, I'm only 3 books in in my magnum opus of boredom"
Dude, at times my heart was pounding like I had just run a marathon while reading through Stormlight. It's true that the first book is rather slow and mostly just character work and world building, but the series can't be described as boring imo
Interesting thoughts and thanks for being bold and humerous enough to share them, but I would humbly suggest there are hundreds of thousands of readers who think otherwise considering the sales figures. That's why he gets to be three books in and setting sales records each year.
Maybe boring for some but clearly notfor the majority of fantasy readers for whom slow burn is not the same as boring.
I first attempted to read the Lord of the Rings when I was pretty young (in my teens) and didn't like it. I contemplated this and thought maybe I might have been too young. I reread it a few years ago with a different perspective (I was about 45ish) and.....still didn't like it.
I appreciate you sharing this experience. Just out of interest did you finish the second time? (I too have had series that I DNF, I am not asking to critisize but just out of curiosity)
@@Trisjack20 I did finish it but it was more to say that I did read it.
To be fair, Snape did a lot more than one good act. Like a LOT more. Even after learning Harry needed to die (Harry being the sole motivation for joining the Order) Snape demonstrably kept fighting for Voldemort's defeat. He put in nearly twenty years of atonement and died for the cause. He's definitely still not a good person, just inherently. He's mean-spirited and bitter and I truly question why Harry would feel comfortable naming a child after him. But he didn't just do one good deed. I can think of like five selfless acts from Snape off the top of my head.
I've read the Wheel of Time, but I don't think I could hold a conversation about it. I've forgotten like 95% of it. The Brandon books aren't even that fresh in my mind. The rest is just ancient to me now; they were some of the first books I ever read. Excited for the show to come out though.
After reading the Fellowship, I can say i think it is an amazing story buried under unnescessary parts, like the boats on Anduin or the pass of Caradhras. A real shame.
First time commenter but I agree I read all 3 LOTR and only finished through sheer will power. Extremely boring
People that say the LOTR is boring haven't left The Shire yet. I suppose one could argue it has a slow start with a lot of back story/history and the 17 years of time between Bilbo's birthday and when Frodo actually leaves The Shire...but I love it. Also with the films too The Fellowship is the best. That pre-adventure slow life slice of Shire living fills my heart with glee.
âGame of Thrones is too hard to keep track ofâ -thatâs bs! If you take it seriously, GOT and its characters are hard to forget!
I enjoyed your take on the hot takes. I take away from this that taking what you want from the genre takes some maturity that most takers haven't taken from their lives yet. I appreciate you taking the time to give us your take on these takes.
Personal take: I think GRRM focuses too much on the sex side of things. It feels like as a shorthand almost every villainous character has to have SOME form of sexual depravity. Rape, incest, grooming a minor, etc. Like, it wasn't bad enough that Baelish betrayed Ned, he also has to be grooming Ned's daughter? And the vengeful queen plotting against her husband has to be fucking her brother? And then of course there's the stuff with the Targaryens, which I'm a bit torn on. The ancient Valyrians being like that is less vomit-inducing because it can be seen as A. a parallel to the Ptolemaic Egyptians and B. one of many things that the Sept might use to blame their fall on. But it had to persist through the dynasty, so now we have Habsburgs v2. At least the Habsburgs branched out first and then sort of curved back in, the Targs never left the trunk other than the occasional alliance ala Rhaegar and Elia.
Remember folks, be a Lindelof, not an Abrams
Michael Strietz this is a distinction that REALLY needs to become more popular.
Thanks Daniel! Another great video.
9:39 AGREEE YES. i feel like live action is so limiting. While wih animation you have a lot more control. You can even be more in line with the characters' physical appearance
Iâve read Harry Potter over 45 times. I think Iâm losing my damn mind
Iâve thought this for a while, but your outtro song is so good
Hi! I'm the guy with the WMF comment. Thank you for responding. I think it just comes down to what we see as needing to be addressed in the books. I truthfully think a lot of the questions and theories don't need to be outright addressed as much as just given a bit more evidence. Much of my enjoyment from these books comes from my endless notetaking and speculation because of the GENIUS left behind from Pat.
I probably am in the minority for believing not all questions need outright answers. That is just an opinion I hold. So that's where it stands, we just want different things out of the story. Thanks for your time.
I read all of LotR in middle school and thought it was the most boring thing Iâve ever read.
THAT BEING SAID, at the time my English wasnât all that great and my taste in books has evolved and changed, so maybe if I read it now Iâll like it? But probably not.
I am 59 and have read LOTR at least once a year since I was 16. To say his trilogy (quadlogy if you count The Hobbit) and yes I know quadlogy is not an actual word) is boring simply tells me that perhaps that reader needs to mature. I glean something new from it at every reading. Also regarding Snape, he is a bit different in the books. I would say his character is one of the more complex characters in the series.
Daniel got me hyped enough WOT to make it through The Slog.
Hey Daniel, do you have any plans on reviewing any of Robin Hobb's books? Also, keep up the good work man!
I just ordered Lord of the Rings and Im gonna read it going into it blind. I literally know nothing about it but I heard its pretty good sooooođ.
Have you finished it? How was it?
@@varunparab604 I need to know!!! Why he didnt answer? Jajajajja
@@thiagorodriguez5073 I don't know.
MUST KNOW WHAT U THOUGHT
About the nullifying GRRM for an as-yet-incomplete series: Does OP know that The Brothers Karamazov was supposed to be the first of a two-volume work? An incomplete work can still contain great depth and merit.
I have just started reading WoT (halfway through the 2nd book) and find that I'm really enjoying it. I bought the eye of the world 1 year ago and DNF'ed it. But thanks to you and your channel I got back into it and I'm LOVING it!! so a massive thanks to you! also at which book do you think the story really starts picking up? because I'm looking forward to that point :)
Robin Hoeben Book 4.
Hard to say. I feel that the story has already started picking up. Like in TEOTW by the time they leave the Two Rivers I was hard into the story. I found the escape from the halfmen, the struggles to reach the tower and the discovery of who could channel was story really in play.
If you are saying when does the pace of story ignite I think it gets quicker and quicker till book 5. Book 4 is one of my favouites and it dramatically raises the stakes I felt in the series. I loved book 6 as well, it was an emotional rollercoaster and one of the books 'I could not put down' . Then there is a more detiled slow drive over 7-10 with a few periods where things exlode into an accelerated pace often near the end of each of those books. The overall pace picks up in 11 and continues to accellerate to an amazing climax in book 14.
Honestly I like all the books (Many do not) but the last 4 are some of the best fantasy books and really provide pay offs for all of what the first 10 have built. Very satisfying stick with it!
Any book that has to be read multiple times to be appreciated are not good books. A book should be well enough written, you can appreciate it the first time.
I don't disagree, but on the flip side any book that you can't enjoy just as much, if not more, the second time doesn't have enough depth in it. A great book is rereadable, but doesn't require a reread. Just my opinion.
@@cbpd89 agreed
Tolkien's writing is boring to those who do not appreciate poetry and songs, as he tended to write for the love of language first, and the story second. In many discussions, I have found a lot of people skip over the many songs that are found throughout LotR, and those elements of the novels seem to bring joy to nearly everyone. So I can see why someone might find it "boring," but I see it more as an issue with the reader than the author ;)
I never found the prose all that interesting even when evaluated from a poetic perspective. Take a line like this:
>> [...] neither quill nor feather did it bear [...] [ËnaÉȘĂ°Ér kwÉȘl nÉr ËfÉĂ°Ér dÉȘd ÉȘt bÉr]
That's so contrived. It sounds nice due to the rhythm and poetic devices like the assonance of "feather" and "bear", yet it's sacrificing grammatical sense for sound. It's akin to, "The man had neither legs nor feet to retreat."
>> He was a man who would never ask for sympathy. He was a man who sought only to do what was right. Such people appear in the world, every world, now and then, like a single refrain of some blessed song, a fragment caught on the spur of an otherwise raging cacophony.
This is clever in sound, disrupting the trochaic feet of the previous line with the most dissonant rhythmic tension to reflect the nature of this cacophony. Yet it's grammatically so confusing. A refrain (along with "such people") suggests it's referring to men like him who show up every now and then, but then it refers to "a fragment" which means the subject shifted back to the lone man without making the shift clear (a refrain would make up multiple fragments).
I have no doubt that Tolkien possessed poetic skills, but in trying to write an entire epic fantasy and creating his own mythology while cramming in poetic devices into the prose, I think he often sacrificed quality for quantity.
I think the problem in 10:10 is that fantasy authors claim historical realism without actually knowing the history in order to justify questionable writing decisions. It's fantasy, they should write what they want to write and then own up to their decisions, not try to hide behind "historical realism" when they get backlash
đđđ
my fantasy hot take is: authors should finish their book series. art is art, and i agree that art cant be forced, but writing is also their *job* and they have made a commitment with a large audience to give them a finished work
I found Mistborn to be an utter bore the whole way through, but I love Lord of the rings it completely immersed me. I think I'm more of a classic fantasy kind of guy
I have to agree I'm reading Lord of the rings now. It was a slow start but I love it and enjoy paying my dues. Recently finished Mistborn and I look liked it. Pretty forgettable though in my opinion.
I missed giving a hot take, so imma do it after the fact:
WoT is better suited to be an anime/animated cartoon rather than live action.
Yeah, Iâve only read the first three, but I actually agree. Especially Nynaeveâs antics which totally read like a cartoon and would be hilarious to watch
Probably, mainly because then there wouldn't be a massive cgi budget. WoT with infinite funds would be beautiful as a live action show. That won't happen
This may be a hot take but I think there is a lot of sense to it.
I agree about getting used to Tolkien's writing style. It took me a bit and after I adjusted, I haven't found anything better. I had the same thing happen with Pink Floyd, hated it, now I love it.
Try Thomas Mallory, le Monte de Arthur.
You are pretty stupid if you ever hated Pink Floyd.
Thanks for the Mistborn spoiler warning - fast forwarded that section.
thankfully i read lotr and the hobbit when i was... 11? 12? so i hadn't read a lot of the other lotr copycats/books that used those tropes. i absolutely loved it and found it very immersive
I have read the LotR trilogy and the Hobbit several times, but did struggle getting through it on my most recent re-read attempt. I stopped a little into tRotK.
tbf I definitely remember reading at least two Wheel of Time books, but if you started talking to me about it, at this point I wouldn't even remember the main characters' names, let alone anything from the plot confirming my claim.
God Bless you on the spoiler warnings. I'm on mistborn book 1 now. So tough to delve into these videos never knowing if you might ruin something for yourself. Just a hint of something is enough since people can usually figure it out.
Great video
I put down lord of the rings with one 3rd of return of the king left and have tried to reread it multiple times but just cant it is dull
#hottake
Padan Fain had the most amount of wasted Character development in all of fantasy.
I raise you Gilderoy Lockhart. Rowling had an amazing opportunity with him. Imagine he wakes up with no memory, and people tell him he was this amazing monster hunter who wrote all these books. So he reads his books, believes his own legend, and decides to "re-learn" how to do all that shit. Then you can have him learn along the way that he was a fraud, which would bring in some juicy internal conflict.
But nope. "ha ha look at the crazy guy in the mental hospital." Fuck you Rowling.
Such a waste of a character!! It still pisses me off to this day.
A lot of books here mentioned I've never read. Cool channel.
Do more of these bro
Lord of the Rings is the only novel I am able to read when Iâm tired before bed.
When I read Two Towers yesterday, it just was just so smooth.
Donât know why.
The story and most of the writing is not boring, but the SONGS!
Farseer Trilogy induces depression in readers
Yes. When the MC's girlfriend goes away with his best friend without even waiting for him or doubting the death news. Or when MC marries a MILF (later GILF) and she also dies.
Authors should start using tags for their story like fanfictions.
Dang this channel is getting real close to 100k
My only problem with LOTR is that i want to know the characters more ,i think there is not enough in books and there are lots of characters.
Agreed. This is why I prefer Sanderson. It takes nothing from Tolkien but I prefer more character scrutiny and development in my adventure stories. I recognise that Tolkien was writing a mythology not merely a novel.
I almost never enjoy "quirky" characters, but I'm all about interesting and different. Ka-Poel in the Powder Mage Trilogy is a good example of an interesting and different female character. Jasnah in SA and a few of the characters in the First Law world also do this well.
*After watching the latest episode of the mandalorian* đ„
What happen? Did a storm trooper catch baby Yoda or something?
so is it true then that baby yoda got turned into a green smoothie after all lmao
Did they finally bother to progress the plot?
If you think about it though Snape did not just do one thing harry found out that he had been on his side all along and only being a dick to protect him the whole time
I have a million books on my booklist, wheel of time is on there. I havenât gotten round to reading it yet. But all your suggestions, give them to me!
9:52 Daniel, this person isn't saying that historical fantasy has to be accurate to the time period and include good representation. They're saying that people who argue in favor of "historical accuracy" often use it as a convenient excuse to exclude POC/LGBTQ+ folks while the rest if their story isn't even historically accurate. I mean, historical inaccuracy is inherently implied in the term "fantasy". Example: It's okay for there to be dragons, magic and events that never happened in (insert fantasy story here), but having POC characters just isn't believable, apparently.
My main criticism of Tolkien's works (and I suspect I'm pretty alone in this criticism) is that the land of Middle-Earth is written a sparely populated wilderness. While I enjoyed the story I always had this nagging feeling that I couldn't get fully invested in the stakes of the storytelling because from what is described the land of Middle-Earth has very few significant (non-orc) population centers. The only regions described in any detail are the Shire, Bree, Minas Tirith, Edoras, Rivendell, Lothlorien, the Mirkwood Wood elves, & Dale/Erebor. There's fleeting mentions of the main Dwarven enclave of the Iron Hills, a few vassals of the Gondorian Steward (i.e. Pelargir), the enslaved humans in Mordor, but other than that you get the impression the entire population of Middle Earth is no more than a few hundred thousand or less for a land mass that's the size of Europe + Central Asia. The only "scholarly" population estimates online are very rough ratios take the size of an army a medieval society could muster & extrapolate that as a fixed percentage of the overall population. For a writer as intricate in his worldbuilding as Tolkien it always bugged me he didn't take the time to mention the various villages or medium sized towns/cities that composed the various realms that comprised Middle-Earth.
Thanks for the spoiler warning for mistborn. Iâm in the middle of book two! I love it so far. So thanks
Hahaha love these vids
I did in fact make it through LOTR and find it boring. It felt like a slog throughout and can't say i recommend it.
Would looove for you to do all the work of finding a Japanese fantasy novel, reviewing it, and recommending it to me to read. Sounds interesting to me too, but don't have the time to research that
Some stuff that I know cause I got recommended to read the books and watch the anime adaptation by my professor at the uni: The Tatami galaxy (psychological journey of a college student trying to live his best life, get a girl and taking his chances) and Steins gate ( very believeable timetravel story that starts out sliw and weird but gets depressing and mature as it goes on). I'd recommend reading the Steins gate novel and watching the Tatami show (because of the insane visual directing)
I gave up on LOTR about 3/4 of last book, so think I am justified to say my opinion.
The book was written almost a century ago, and you have to admit that for people who are used to mostly YA, and some other modern fantasy, LOTR could be a pain to go through. Imagine getting to it straight from Harry Potter or (that was my case) the Witcher - of course it will be boring.
The thing is, as always, expectations. When you know that the story is slow paced, and the writing style is more like in literary classics, than your average 21st century fantasy, you can decide if that's something for you. I totally bow before what Tolkien means for fantasy, but it doesn't mean everybody have to enjoy reading him.
I am currently planning on rereading LOTR, as maybe I was just too young reading it first time. Meanwhile I got into classics and I assume I'll enjoy it much more, but still I don't expect a crazy thrilling ride.
Now to be fair, can you really blame anyone who do not read WoT? It's 14 book the size of a brick - I have the first one but never went beyond the first two pages because every time I look at it the only thing I see is basically a long term relationship in my future, that I would probably regret.