Nooooooo!

hahaha seconded.

This is a good point. I think some books can be structured in a way that annoy some people that may then post vocal reviews of the book, especially coming off something as strong as Name of the Wind. So the main mysteries may not have been resolved but you would still say there is a worthwhile story in there?

shantaram... page 1 out of 904 googogogogoogo

russellintoronto - The Right Stuff is confirmed

Reading Kudzudemon's Collected Essays, Criticism, and Arguments, Vol. 1, by Kudzu Demon. 1,239 pp. Forward by Prohorn Blower.

A nice and eclectic blend specially umbrelavent in today's evolving culture, touching bases from music to societal issues and the like. Highly remmocended.

Two Towers is my favorite of the three. It has the great battle involving the Rohan. It has the introduction of Faramir. It has the Frodo being dead scare. It has the return of Gandalf.
I am not sure picking Two Towers was a good example for your argument that the middle is not great (another example of the middle being great is "Empire Strikes Back").

LOL +1

Compared to NotW, it's not as good.

Compared to 95% of the 'literature' that comes out nowadays, it is awesome.

Just imo.

Coincidentally I am rereading LOTR because it's been, what, 15 years since I read it last.

For avid readers, I thought this passage I just came across would be of interest:
Samuel ibn Tibbon, twelfth century scholar in Toledo, quoted by Mark Kingwell, in Descant 153

I'm jealous. Wish I could go back to the beginning with Lin. Looking forward to Roberts upcoming release, supposedly next month.

I appreciate that everyone has an opinion. I just happen to think that yours is wrong . Let me try to convince you:

1. I already mentioned that I prefer to consider these kind of trilogies/series as singular, long stories rather than individual books. We could end here but..

2. Tolkien never meant to have LotR viewed as a 3 volume series but rather as a single book with the Silmarillion serving as the 'prequel' where much of the worldbuilding had already taken place and as a source of backstory. His publishers disagreed for financial reasons. To make things more complicated each of the three 'books' of the LotR trilogy are divided in half, making a total of six (though almost always still sold as 3 physical volumes).

3. I am speaking solely about the books here and not the movies. The movies left out one of the best parts of Fellowship in Tom Bombadil and greatly abbreviated Return of the King. They completely cut out the hobbits initial return to the Shire after Aragorn is made king where they find that the war they have been fighting in distant lands has made it back to their doorstep. Very little is removed from TTT save the long deliberations of the Ents.

4. I like Star Wars as much as the next geek but I never read any of the books. Empire is great but it has Lando ffs. All bets are off when Billy Dee Williams is involved:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pK5HmuCMBM

5. I never said the middle isn't great. I used LotR as an example because its something everyone who has an interest in high/epic fantasy can relate to.

Out the books I've read recently that I would definitely recommend, 'Surely you must be joking, Mr. Feynman!' and 'Moon walking with Einstein' are both really good reads imo.

I agree with your first point. The whole book is one story. You could still not like a book in the middle of a story, just like you could dislike a chapter in the middle of a story.
I just don't think Two Towers is a good example of your argument, specially since as you point out, Two Towers wasn't even meant to be a book, but part of a book. With most second books in trilogies, the authors know the book is in the middle and can try to make it somewhat self-contained. I don't think Tolkien tried that. It was a book split apart, instead of a book published in the middle when the end is not even written yet.

In any case, I am just nit picking. You have good reasons on why a middle book has a disadvantage and why in trilogies we should probably hold judgment until we read the full trilogy.

I forgot Shantaram at work so on a recommendation from a decently respected/reviewed author, i got Giraldi's "Busy Monsters". This book just seems fail-proof awesome

it opens... ""Stunned by love and some would say stupid from too much sex, I had to drive down South to kill a man"

Eeesh. Stop after 1. If you make it that far.

reading Martin Dressler, maybe re-read Heart of a Soldier by James Stewart [Pulitzer winner] one of the best non-fic reads of the past decade.

Reminds me of the famous opening line/page from Chandler:
'A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained-glass window.'

Got back to Australia recently and pulled a huge number of books out of storage at my dad's place, where they've been sitting for a long time. Thousands of books, and like revisiting old friends. One that I thought I'd lost but discovered in a box is Shibumi by Trevanian. So I'm reading it again. While the novel certainly has its faults, I just love it for its philosophy and the fact that the writer is never preachy. Can't stand goddamn preachiness in a writer.

Those books arent very good? I've thought about getting into them.

No, they're pretty much awful, even compared to other King. [Most of which I've read.]

best opening line ever in a book?

Lies. Book 2 is one my favorite books ever. Fantastic opening.

Love some of those Chandler lines. Here's another: "Even on Central Avenue, not the quietest dressed street in the world, he looked about as inconspicuous as a tarantula on a slice of angel food."

Funny I was just coming in here to say I was umderwhelmed at best by the first book and whether it would be worth it to continue. I don't want to spend 1500 pages wading through various flashbacks to figure out what the hell is going on. That's enough for me.