Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55
They certainly are, but they are not action-based books. I mean, if you have a book without action you're probably holding a botanical encyclopedia.  Yet the books (LOTR at least) do not emphasize the action, and it happens slowly, and allows other things to happen too. You don't have 20 pages of descriptions of how Aragorn chops orcs in half, three at a time, at a rate of 60 orcs/minute. But you can't expect to sell a movie to 15-25 y/o's nowadays without it being like that - which brings me back to the beginning of this endless cycle. |
Of course it doesn't focus on the violence of battle. I think you might need to read some of the Conan books for that kind of thing, and even then it's not half so violent. If I wanted to read about violence, I wouldn't turn to fiction of any kind, but to history books and the daily news.
But Lord of the Rings is a Quest, and that's inherently an action based story. Constantly moving on. And without the action of challenges along the way, it would be incredibly boring. This is where I think it's a very tricksy book, because the feel of it is pure magic, and we don't always notice that driving narrative. And it's also part of the reason everyone can re-read then so often. Once you know the narrative and have gone on that adventure, next time around you can spend more time looking at the flowers Tolkien describes and drinking in the atmosphere.
To be fair, I think the films did capture the same sense of movement and the same quotient of action as shown in the books. The sweeping panorama shots of the Fellowship moving through the hills are the filmic equivalent of Tolkien spending a few pages on exposition, describing a changing landscape.