Original post by felonius
Tolkien might be the inventor of a new genre, but when you compare his works with later works in the fantasy genre his books generally lack behind. There is too long travelling descriptions and long chapter with no real content. The Hobbit is quite a trivial story (original for its time but not anymore) so it can hardly be called a "perfect book". And Lord of the Rings has many boring sections. Take for instance the chapters in the forests of the Ents.
The hobbit is actually a children''s book, and begins as a trivial story. Yet, at the end it becomes much more than that, which is why I like it. The style of writing accomodates the growth of the main character, Bilbo, throughout the length of the book. I haven''t seen many other writers that do this.
The long traveling descriptions are good, in my opinion. Tolkien is the only author that has managed to create a living, breathing, consistent and complete world in just a few chapters. For the genre, that certainly doesn''t count as "no content" to me. I LOVED the ent forest.
What I do not like is the rambling kind of fantasy. Something awesome and new happens every chapter. YAWN! That''s pulp to me. I don''t find it enjoyable or realistic to read about ever more incredible situations. It''s desensitizing.
The end of the Lord of the Rings is magnificent. It doesn''t end in a magnificent final battle where good overcomes evil. Not really. It ends in the weakness of Frodo, and the overpowering evil within Gollum that accidentally destroys the ring, saving the world from Sauron. The heroism is that two small people managed to get all the way there, and got lucky.
Anyway, another book that certainly classifies as perfect writing to me:
Anne Rice''s Interview with the Vampire. People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel. ~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~