/lit/ - Literature

Most writing has a shit ton of terrible filler in it. Thomas Hardy goes on about grass for entire fucking chapters in like every single one of his books but he's still my favorite author.

It's really hard to find a book that doesn't feel like it's trying to run up the page count but Perfume: The Story of a Murderer really is nice and compact

IIRC, Tolkien starting writing LotR as a personal challenge to write the longest novel he could. It doesn't surprise me it has filler.
I still like it though.

I think the book is just fine. The enormous amount of backstory fills in gaps that you are just forced to ignore in most other works. Most writing rules only apply to mediocre authors, people like Tolkien can do whatever they want.

>>15054996
You're kinda correct but not really.

>>15054976
The entire novel form is filler. Poems, fairytales and short stories are better for their economy.

>>15054950
Your recollection of Lord of the Rings isn't accurate. There's hardly any discussion in the books of "Oh in the Third Era... etc". What references are made to the history of Middle Earth tend to be made in passing within characters' speech. There is some poetry which refers to it, but the history of middle earth is far more frequently alluded to than ever discussed directly. The book is long because there are a lot of characters, scenes and events.

The only sections that are given more length or wordiness than most other books are Tolkien describing the surroundings and lands the characters are traveling through. It's not filler either, one of the major themes in the book is appreciation for the natural world.

>>15054950
>Is The Lord of the Rings just filled with a shitload of filler?
Are we calling everything that doesn't further the primary plot filler? If so, then yeah, there's a bit, but you're overstating it.

>I studied English in college
I don't see why that matters. I'd have a pithy remark for you, but honestly, maybe LOTR isn't your type of book. That's fine. Read Run Man Run, that's an excellent, tightly constrained book that doesn't get enough play here.

>>15055125
>appreciation for the natural world
And it's in POV. The characters are walking around in the landscapes they're observing. Wow, shocking.

>>15054988
It's not even a long novel. It's a breezy weekend read that millennials and zoomers have convinced themselves is a big slog. Here's a take: maybe the lot of you have ADD.

>>15055133
The fuck do you think happens when people study English in college? Do you think we just read a dictionary every day?

>>15055135
Yes, it's not complicated. What's your point?

>>15054950
Imagine getting filtered by something 12 year olds can finish.
They don't get it, but they can at least finish it.

>>15054950

Imagine having studied English and STILL reading for plot. Fucking idiot.

>>15054950
>"Oh, in the Third Era, year 453 the king elf did this and this happened,"

Name three examples of this.

>>15054988
>IIRC, Tolkien starting writing LotR as a personal challenge to write the longest novel he could.
source: your ass

>>15054950
>>15055174
seems like your English studies were a waste of time if you can't fathom why LotR is written the way it is

>>15054976
Pic related is the most non-stop action packed story I've ever read.

>>15055174
I think people get assigned a lot of theory (either literary or ret/comp theory) they may or may not understand (or even read) and write in a genre that exists only as an artifact of the academy using various primary and secondary texts. If they take writing workshops, they may also gain some knowledge in narrative and point of view (hopefully psychic distance) and some practical skill with peer review.

I don't know why you'd think any of this would, uh, prime you to enjoy LOTR. Brass tacks--LOTR isn't overwritten except as a way to express Bilbo's writerly quirks (since everything up until the party gets to Rivendell is supposed to have been written by him). Maybe you find that obnoxious. Maybe you find the detour through the Old Forest pointless. That's fine, but Tolkien didn't write that stuff due to a lack of craft or by mistake. The rest of the book is so tightly constrained comparatively, that I suspect anyone who complains about LOTR didn't make it past the first chapter.

>>15055175
It's not complicated, and yet plebs everywhere, and especially here, don't get it.

defend this book

the 2nd half of it is 400 pages of 3 manlets walking through a fucking forest constantly stopping to drink water

>>15055205
That's a third of a novel. They're also traveling overland with limited supplies, and one of those manlets is half a guide and half a prisoner. What would you do instead?

>>15054950
I reread it recently determining to observe how much of the writing seemed unnecessary to what was attempting to be conveyed. I surmised that very little of it was actually overwrought. Get over your aversion to reading about Tolkien's landscapie fetish and understand that it was actually pertinent to the narrative at large considering that the landscape was essential in the fellowship's determining the best potential course of action. If anything it was an insurance policy about people saying dumb shit like "why didn't they just follow the road through Buckland" or "why didn't they just pass through Rohan" or "why didn't they just go over the mountain". It's a journey into the unknown for nearly all of them and the unknown is necessarily engaged with trepidation. The fact that nothing is happening may very well mean it is the right path, because when shit starts happening it's usually shit hitting the fan meaning they've taken a wrong turn, they've been discovered, and this was a mission whose insurmountable odds were only achieved by stealth, by taking the road least travelled, or better, not travelled at all.

Now if you want grand action, then yes, it isn't necessarily the book for you, but it doesn't mean the book did anything wrong. The Hobbit would be more fitting.