Yuku free message boards

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.

There are some books that I have enjoyed over the years. As I mentioned, I think The Hobbit is one of the great books of the last century. I have enjoyed some of the Dragonlance short story collections, though it has been quite some time since I have read them. Definitely not nearing The Hobbit in quality, but enjoyable as pop/disposable reading. A number of other books have fallen into that category for me over the years, e.g. some of the stuff by Terry Books. I don't really like Anne McCaffrey (Dragonriders of Pern series), but I'm a fan of Fritz Leiber (Newhon mythos). When I was younger, The Chronicles of Prydain were among my favorites (The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, etc.). In truth, however, most of the newer fantasy books seem to be targeted at a much younger crowd than that to which I belong, so I often don't find them as interesting. Too many knockoffs, not enough innovators.

These days I generally prefer reading older stories that mesh with or are similar to that genre. The original Aurthurian poems, for example. I like Greco-Roman mythology too, and fairy tales (e.g., Brothers Grimm).

For the sake of comparing my tastes in other genres, I also like the works of Douglas Adams and Jules Verne. Some of the stories in the Arabian Nights are pretty good, too.

Perhaps the funniest book I have ever read, though it is admittedly very off-color and not recommended for weak stomachs, those easily or even not-so-easily offended, impressionable youths, females, and possibly Christians in general, was Portnoy's Complaint (Advisory: Adult Content). Oddly, for my preferences, it is very Freudian, but satirically so. Being now somewhat older (Advisory: Understatement) and more sanctified (Advisory: Overstatement) than I was when I first read it, I'm certain I would not enjoy it as much now as I did then. If anyone out there has already read it and repented, this example does provide some insight into the type of plot vs. character development issues I have been mentioning. Yes, the book is Freudian, but it unravels its story in the form of episodic stories and action. Please let me reiterate: Do not read Portnoy's Complaint. I am not recommending this book to anyone. If you read it and enjoy it based on the comments I have made here, it's your fault, not mine. If your child is reading it, burn the book and ground him. Do not open the pages under any circumstances. Don't believe me? Read the reviews.