Is the straight to the climax method always best? No, I certainly don’t disagree with you there. In the hands of a capable writer, it can be a great vehicle to explore the story and its characters. However, it can also backfire, stalling the plot and crashing any thematic momentum. Thats how The Lord of the Rings happened for me. Too little plot strung on too many words, divorcing my attention after one too many divergences. Make them important to the plot, or get them out. That is my take at least. And I think that a lot of the fantasy series today that are far more bloated than Tolkien’s are a result of his influence in that regard.

Again, I am the odd man out here, so most people obviously find an appeal in the story and the world Tolkien has created. You can’t please all the people all the time, and I guess Tolkien just didn’t get me this time. Whether I liked it or not, The Lord of the Rings did a lot of good for the genre, and I won’t ever say otherwise. Even if it was far longer than necessary…*grumble*…:)

Brian, The movies have taken away from the experience of the books. Its been awhile since i’ve seen the movies. i saw Return 3 times when it came out, but i’ve only seen the others once. I know whats going to happen for the most part. For example i just read the part in the two towers when the Ents are heading towards Isengard there aren’t any big hints that make you think their just going to go crazy and destroy the place. When Aragorn and crew show up and see it destroyed practically that would have been an AH! moment for me, but that was taken away by the movies. As well as the part where gandalf ‘dies’ in Moria.

By bloated I didn’t mean to imply just that it was long. As you said, War and Peace is huge, but it is justly a classic. When I said bloated, I meant that, at 1,008 pages (I can’t find my copy, so I hope you don’t mind my stealing your number), it was about 500 pages too long for the story it had to tell.

I hate to make this comparison, because Terry Brooks is another author who seems to polarize people, but his Sword of Shannara was a deliberate take on The Lord of the Rings, and covered the entire story in 600 or so pages. Yes, not as successful, largely because it attracted readers who read The Lord of the Rings and who, upon reading Brooks, realized that they had read this story before.

Everyone has read a novel that simply feels fattened out with excess filler, and I feel that most of LotR is just that: filler that doesn’t move the plot. Are there longer popular fantasy books? Certainly. Does that justify LotR’s length, when it could be much shorter? Not at all.

Might I add that the list is “All TIME 100 Novels,” in reference to TIME magazine, the list only selects books published since 1923. On a list that is truly the top 100 books of all time, I would certainly question the validty of placing Lord of the Rings upon it.

I suppose it will just have to be agreeing to disagree. I’m one of those weird few who just doesn’t get it

Dave: Yes, I was pleasantly surprised to find the essay and I’m not entirely sure why it failed to make the cut in Meditations on Middle-Earth. There are better essays in that book but Wolfe’s is more personal and resonant than others that saw print.

Glenn: I’d be interested to hear how your perception of the books has been colored by the films. Most everyone I know started with the books, or watched the films without having ever read Tolkien (and have no interest in doing so). Have you found that the films have negatively affected your reading experience?

I’m in that seemingly rare group who likes and appreciates both on their own merits, though I do prefer the books.

Luke: I’ll guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I understand what you mean by Twilight’s success not being a barometer of quality, but I’d be willing to eat my hardbound copy of The Silmarillion if we ever see New Moon crack the top 100 novels of all time list in Time magazine. The difference here is that The Lord of the Rings is not only immensely popular, but also acclaimed by critics, studied by academics and scholars, and taught in schools.

Again, this doesn’t necessarily make The Lord of the Rings a great book, as many works that are studied and taught are anecdotally little read (Moby Dick and War and Peace, for example). But if you’re looking for yardsticks to measure the worth of a book, commercial and critical success have to be considered.

I also think you’re a bit off-base with calling LOTR too “bloated and unpublishable” for today’s market. I mean, George R.R. Martin’s immensely popular A Storm of Swords is approximately 900 pages. By way of comparison, the hardbound The Lord of the Rings I have sitting on my bookshelf checks in at 1,008 pages–all three “books” (Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King) combined. And a Storm of Swords is only one book in the Ice and Fire series, which is up to 4 books and counting.

I would submit that LOTR is positively in fighting trim compared to series like A Song of Ice and Fire and The Wheel of Time, and those have sold very, very well.

I have enjoyed some of Tolkien’s other works, especially “Smith of Wooten Major” and “Farmer Giles of Ham.” His translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was also entertaining. I felt he was more effective at short length, giving us the plot without having room to escape the plot into triviality for ungodly lengths of time.

I highly doubt that the modern state of epic fantasy that Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings had a hand in creating would deem The Lord of the Rings as anything other than bloated and unpublishable if Tolkien had lived and worked today.

I don’t hate Tolkien, and I’m not knocking him “on the basis of his conservatism or religion, his perceived racism, and/or the perceived shallowness/non-literary nature of The Lord of the Rings.” Literature mainly seems to be a fine line that academics use to create an “acceptable” cannon, and I don’t subscribe to that. I’m attacking The Lord of the Rings on the basis that, despite great amounts of fame and impact, it just isn’t that good.

I mean, look at Twilight. Popular. Impacted the popular subgenres of fantasy. Isn’t that good.

It happens.