Who gives a rats *** what Tolkien thought. I enjoyed The Hobbit more.
First off, while I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings, some parts of the books where WAY over-written. (specifically Fellowship and parts of Return of the King) Do you realize that in Fellowship, the hobbits were not even out of the Shire until the book was half complete? In the movie, that was what? 10-15 minutes into a three plus hour movie? They were aware of how parts of the book drudged on and on. The only part I was upset that they didn't put in the movie was the Barrow Wights.
The Two Towers didn't suffer as much. It in turn was probably the book I enjoyed the most reading. It had good pace and he kept the story interesting with twists and turns. (it had a lot of action in it)
The Hobbit didn't suffer from it at all. The book was fluid and kept moving forward. It had no problem keeping my interest, or make me want to peek forward to see where *this* section of the store ended.
Now knowing you (and some other posters around here) You will act as if I said LotRs sucked. It didn't. I enjoyed it very much. It just could have been better if Toilken didn't linger/drudge on to much in parts of the book.
LotRs is a classic and I will always have a copy on my bookshelf.
It's a great book.
