> Did you say you stopped reading LotR because it was
> cliched?
Because it *FELT* that way. And it was long-winded. A deadly combination.
;)
> Same with LotR. It may feel cliched, but that is only
> becuase it has been imitated sooooo many times. Star
> Wars for example is pure LotR (ok, both technically
> draw from the same archtypal hero myth, but that is
> getting too nit-picky. I dont think Lucas was reading
> Jung, Freud and Campbell and decided to do Star Wars,
> I think he was reading LotR).
Maybe. Maybe not. I know I'm not going to pick up LOTR for the time
being--although I might read it after the movie comes out.
> Give it a chance. Once you get to Moria (the first
> half of book one is a little long and unfocused) it
> really rolls. And nothing beats Tolkien.
Save something that doesn't bore me to tears. I just have a different
quality judgement--objectivly, I'll say that LOTR is a great book and a
landmark in the genere--subjectivly, I think it was boring and slow...
> It wasnt voted the best book of the century for
> nothing.
No offense, Clark, but "Best of the Century" is as dubious a title as "Best
of the Milenium."
> PS--Brooks' first book was a blatant LotR rip off. The
> subsequent books went in new directions.
Y'know, I'd call Brooks a "classical fantasy" that, like a lot of others,
followed the same basic outline. Of course, that's just me.
DM
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
