Hacker News Reader

Comment by kirvyteo | Hacker News Reader

I am pretty sure Tolkien books were way less popular before the movies were made. I often see them gathering dust in the library. I will be honest. For someone used to reading fantasy novels from Robert Jordan, Raymond Feist, Anne McCaffrey etc, I find the pace of the books excruciatingly slow. The details are great and the imagination is impressive but it is painful to read... (apologies to LOTR fans)

View on HN

> I am pretty sure Tolkien books were way less popular before the movies were made

The Lord of the Rings has sold more than 150 million copies over a period of 60 years [0]. The first American edition sold a quarter of a million copies in 1965 alone, and was the New York Times' Paperback Bestsellers list number 1 by the end of the year.

It's not quite up there with the Bible and Koran, but is definitely 'tier 2' if those are 'tier 1'. The films were made because of the massive historical popularity of the books.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Don't get me wrong. I am sure it is a massively popular book.

But I have not found stats that break down the "150 million over 60 years". It was published on 1954 + 60 years = 2014. The movies are made in 2001. So what is the % of sales for 48 years versus the 14 years after 2001? I am not sure really.

Without Tolkien, there would be no Robert Jordan, Anne McCaffrey, or Raymond Feist. Tolkien invented nearly all of the tropes of modern high fantasy. Without Tolkien there would be no D&D. Heck, there might still be role-playing games but they would bear no resemblance to what we have now.

Before the movies I had a hard time convincing people to get past the first 150 pages. And then you have the whole thing about the LOTR taking a different turn when Tolkien made it a larger story and not just a hobbit adventure.

I like LOTR because I like backstories and the whole book is about hearing what's happening behind the mountains. I could never get into Game of Thrones and my girlfriend never made it through LOTR. To each its own.

I used to love LOTR, but after reading Malazan book of the fallen, I can't hold it in very high regard anymore. It paved the way for sure, created a genre even, but as for pure gripping story and overall enjoyment during reading (my primary goals when I choose to read fantasy), it has been surpassed by huge amount.

Thanks for the recommendation. I haven't read a fantasy book in a long. This looks like an interesting one.

Most everybody knew who he was in the 90's and The Hobbit was standard fantasy fare - probably the most popular book in the genre.

It's also the basis of the whole high fantasy western culture, including D&D.

wait, you think LOTR is too slow but you like Robert Jordan? I'm pretty sure there are entire books in the Wheel of Time where nothing substansive even happens.

This has been blown out of proportion pretty badly. I would agree that Tolkien (even LOTR, and especially some of his other works) is slower reading than The Wheel of Time (I've not read other Jordan). I would attribute this almost entirely to broader differences in literature between their time periods. Writing in the '30s and '40s was just different than it was in the '80s and on.

I get what you mean. Wheel of Time has its slow moments. But then the whole series had a really odd pace. The last 3 books after RJ passed away was too fast and too sudden.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com