the "classics" are sometimes crap

I don't care if you like LOTR or not. I don't care if you enjoy Tolkien's writing style or not. I don't care if you think Eragon is a masterpiece. I'm not bashing you because you have an opinion different than mine. I'm bashing you because of your ridiculous mentality that essentially EVERYONE who says they like LOTR is lying and is too afraid to admit that they don't like it, and if you read my responses/your own posts you would know that is what I mean.

I deem this topic officially CLOSED (on my end at least). Feel free to post other stuff here if you'd like but i've said all I wanted to say on this topic.
 
I think Tolkien's style of writing is quite good, but there are many people who dislike it because it's rather descriptive, and sometimes, Tolkien dedicates too much lines to describe for example a tree. This kind of descriptions are disliked by some people, but in spite of this, i find Tolkien' style kinda good because I don't care about that.
It's a matter of what are you searching for when you read a book, but I consider that to say Eragon is better than LOTR is to exaggerate a bit.

Tolkien has nothing on Robert Jordan when it comes to descriptive writing, to name one other fantasy author. As for some points in this thread:

1. LotR is not the best fantasy series, A Song of Ice and Fire series is indeed better, but it's still better than Eragon

2. Heath Ledger dying has nothing to do with the fact that he was amazing as the Joker. Even if he hadn't died, I would still say that

3. I don't find Lord of the Rings hard to read at all, and being easy to read doesn't necessarily make a book better
 
Tolkien has nothing on Robert Jordan when it comes to descriptive writing, to name one other fantasy author. As for some points in this thread:

1. LotR is not the best fantasy series, A Song of Ice and Fire series is indeed better, but it's still better than Eragon

2. Heath Ledger dying has nothing to do with the fact that he was amazing as the Joker. Even if he hadn't died, I would still say that

3. I don't find Lord of the Rings hard to read at all, and being easy to read doesn't necessarily make a book better

as far as i've seen, the specific people that hate Eragon think that Wheel of Time and A Song of Fire And Ice are both better series than Tolkien's middle-earth, most of the people that i've found that think "LOTR is the greatest book of all time" are people that read romances or whatever where LOTR is the only book that they've read that's actually in the "high fantasy genre"

heath ledger's death increased the amount of money TDK made at the box-office, period. trying to debate that is wasting your breath

i don't understand why people seem to hate the books that are easier to read than LOTR

also
Tolkien spent his entire freaking life doing the world-building for middle-earth and people use that as an excuse to say it's good

that it must be good because tolkien spent so much time making it

but really
i feel the opposite way
a book should flow out of you onto the paper
a book should be written because the story and characters are swimming incessantly in your mind and you'd go crazy if you didn't write it out on paper
i remember in the 90s when they had these horror books that had the month in the copywrite date where each author was contractually obligated to write 3 books a year
and they were able to make those deadlines!!!
that's how books should be written
 
I'm not sure Tolkien wanted to be "epic fantasy." He wanted to be literature that reinvented mythology. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

like i said

didn't have a problem with content, i had a problem with the writing style

love the content, therefore loved the movies

the writing style was crappy to the point that i have to say
LOTR movies >>>>>> LOTR books