Is it just me
Or could J.R.R. Tolkien not actually write?

I finally got round to finishing LOTR about 3 years ago, and it struck me that whilst he could write a fantastic, convoluted plot with loads of backstory and footnotes, none of the characters has much development in a book spanning three decades and 1000+ pages, he has no talent for describing things, and his fight/battle scenes are coma-inducingly tedious?

Having read fantasy authors such as Raymond E. Feist, Robin Hobb, even Terry Pratchett who can make you care about their characters and actually explore their motivations and feelings a bit, describe scenery in a bit more detail than "there was a big mountain" and produce fight scenes that actually make your pulse quicken, am I being completely heretical, or do I have a point?

Slightly off-topic I know, but several people have already named LOTR as life-changing, but I can't say it would have changed my life if it had been the first fantasy book I'd read. It may even have put me off.
(Axeman Jim, Thu 15 May 2008, 20:03, 12 replies)

I agree
my dad gave me LOTR when I was about 12, with the words "you'll love it". I hated it. I haven't seen any of the films either.

*writes Will in advance of being burned at the stake for heresy*
(TheWeeWitch hasn't been here much recently .., Thu 15 May 2008, 20:07, closed)

I never understood why most of my friends loved the battle scenes
I got very bored trawling through them, and longed to go back to what was happening with Frodo and Sam, the bits that most people skim over, apparently.

He can write, he's just very, very specific about setting the scene and getting it 'right'
( Hampster Squared has stuff at www.tilla.co.uk, Thu 15 May 2008, 20:08, closed)

you are correct
It's extremely badly written. The exciting bits are boring and the boring bits made me want to eat my own feet.

And don't get me started on the poems and songs.

*clambers up onto pyre next to WeeWitch*
(happylittletulip helpless and delicious, Thu 15 May 2008, 20:13, closed)

*Gets pitchfork*
*gets flaming torches*

Right, which one of you first?

In fairness, to the original post though, it is not brilliantly written, it has bugger all plot development, despite Tolkien stating that the final section of the Shire getting a damn good raping at the hands of the industrial orcs was not an allegorical account of the destruction of Englands green and pleasant land by heavy industry it quite clearly is, and to cap it all off, the relationship between Sam and Frodo was the greatest homoerotic love story until Point Break came along.

But (and it's a big but)(yes Tourettes that was hilarious now swallow your drink)

It's an absolutely cracking adventure story set in such a huge varied world with every type of creature you could imagine that I cannot condemn it, despite finding most of books two and three mind numbingly tedious to get through every time I've read it.

But you're right. Pratchett is most certainly god when it comes to "fantasy" novels.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 15 May 2008, 20:33, closed)

it is not just you
I read The Hobbit first and struggled through the trilogy but prefer Raymond E. Feist
(whiskas loved by 8 out of 10 cats, Thu 15 May 2008, 20:34, closed)

I could never finish any of them
There are too many words to say absolutely nothing - he would have made a good politician!
(deadly_sinners, Thu 15 May 2008, 20:38, closed)

He could write.
His use of language is excellent. The descriptive writing is stunning. It's not the most exciting style of writing, but that's not what he was aiming for.
(SteONorDar, Thu 15 May 2008, 21:01, closed)

FINALLY!
Somebody who agrees that he could sure as hell make stories up, but he SO should have got somebody else to write them down for him!
( Bathory, Thu 15 May 2008, 21:09, closed)

writing
There are numerous bestselling writers who have flaws. JK Rowling might have a great imagination, but her writing ain't nothing special. Mark Twain is regarded as one of America's greats, but he was a journalist rather than a novelist. My hero Poe produced more shit that he did good stuff. It takes a really great writer to marry style, imagination, structure and sales. Tolkien got two out of four.
(frankspencer, Thu 15 May 2008, 21:16, closed)

JRR was a cunning linguist...
...and I think thaat's the real reason he wrote anything to do with Middle Earth. After all, it's one thing to invent a language (e.g. Esperanto), but you've got to persuade others to use it.

However, if you invent a world - you can populate it with as many languages as you like. No-one was forced to learn Elvish, but there are a damn good number who have chosen to.
( Fireflier La la la la, not listening on, Thu 15 May 2008, 22:24, closed)

Sort of...
I don't think it was done with character development in mind, but how the characters reacted to the world. I remember devouring it as a young man and wondering in the back of my mind the entire time, "why don't these guys ever go to the bathroom?"
What makes it big was it seems to me to be an attempt to reproduce the saga form of storytelling - and I think it does it well. It beats the hell out of Beowulf or Gotterdammerung, anyway.
(aeon chicken Like the Millenium Falcon, only slower and noisier, Thu 15 May 2008, 23:54, closed)

@aeon chicken,
re Beowulf -- try reading it aloud ... (but not with a prose translation, obviously)
(haberman is singing in the changes, Fri 16 May 2008, 10:13, closed)