Actually, I read the books before I got into medieval literature more broadly. Using the paradigm of medieval lit just helps me describe what it is that I do and don't like to read. In most cases I prefer stories that are plot-driven over stories that are character-driven (e.g., I like "Rocky" and I hate "Waiting to Exhale"). Of course, every story needs good characters, but without a good plot, the characters don't do it for me. I also prefer activity over introspection. I want to learn about characters primarily from what they do, what they don't do, how they do it, what they say as they do it, etc., rather than by reading about what they are thinking, or inferring it from the landscape, or reading their diary, etc. And I tend to like stories about important topics more than stories about the peculiar personalities of a few people (e.g., I like "Braveheart" and I hate "Misery").
It just happens to be the case that what I prefer is characteristic of much medieval lit but not of much modern lit. Medieval lit tends to be shorter, densely packed with meaning, and its moves quickly. It tells broad stories, but each episode in the larger story has meaning in and of itself. For the sake of comparison, pick out a random chapter in LOTR and read it as an isolated story, then do the same in The Hobbit. In the LOTR, if you don't know the characters and you don't remember the story, the chapter is likely not to do much for you. You might read of troop movements, and then abandon that branch of the story and catch an update on a couple small people trudging through a barren landscape, and then a bit on who knows what. But in the Hobbit, you are likely to find a delightful story that can stand on its own rather well, that doesn't try to tell three different stories at the same time, etc.
I wouldn't like the LOTR more if it were reclassified. It's not that I hate it, mind you. I prefer it to many other books. Only in hindsight am I disappointed in the LOTR on the basis of medieval forms. But I think if the books had stayed truer to the medieval form, as The Hobbit did, I would have liked them more. In general, I prefer the older styles and concerns of writing over more modern styles and concerns. It is just disappointing for me that after a monumental success like The Hobbit, I was let down by the LOTR.
I'm also not saying that they are poorly written. Different people like different things. I don't believe that there is an absolute aesthetic standard form to which all art must comply (there are moral absolutes in aesthetics, but not absolute forms). I'm just one of the people who like the way The Hobbit was written but not the LOTR. Even though I like stories with medieval settings, and stories about elves and warriors and wizards, I find the LOTR confusing and boring.
It just happens to be the case that what I prefer is characteristic of much medieval lit but not of much modern lit. Medieval lit tends to be shorter, densely packed with meaning, and its moves quickly. It tells broad stories, but each episode in the larger story has meaning in and of itself. For the sake of comparison, pick out a random chapter in LOTR and read it as an isolated story, then do the same in The Hobbit. In the LOTR, if you don't know the characters and you don't remember the story, the chapter is likely not to do much for you. You might read of troop movements, and then abandon that branch of the story and catch an update on a couple small people trudging through a barren landscape, and then a bit on who knows what. But in the Hobbit, you are likely to find a delightful story that can stand on its own rather well, that doesn't try to tell three different stories at the same time, etc.
I wouldn't like the LOTR more if it were reclassified. It's not that I hate it, mind you. I prefer it to many other books. Only in hindsight am I disappointed in the LOTR on the basis of medieval forms. But I think if the books had stayed truer to the medieval form, as The Hobbit did, I would have liked them more. In general, I prefer the older styles and concerns of writing over more modern styles and concerns. It is just disappointing for me that after a monumental success like The Hobbit, I was let down by the LOTR.
I'm also not saying that they are poorly written. Different people like different things. I don't believe that there is an absolute aesthetic standard form to which all art must comply (there are moral absolutes in aesthetics, but not absolute forms). I'm just one of the people who like the way The Hobbit was written but not the LOTR. Even though I like stories with medieval settings, and stories about elves and warriors and wizards, I find the LOTR confusing and boring.
