The Fellowship of the Ring

Summary of Trilogy: A hobbit named Frodo Baggins must go on a journey with his friend Samwise Gamgee to destroy a ring that, if it were to fall into the wrong hands, could be the end of the happy world they know. They are helped by a crew that includes two more hobbits, a wizard, and elf, a dwarf, and a couple of humans. It is a tale of friendship, self-sacrifice, and bravery.

I feel like I need to explain myself with this one. I'd like to emphasize the fact that my review reflects my enjoyment of this book, rather than the quality.

In short:

I love the films, I've seen them hundreds of times, and Tolkein's flowery and elegant prose was more of a detriment to me as a result. This felt like a MUCH slower paced version of the film, which made it really, REALLY tough to get through.

I read them back in High School and decided to try again.

در باب تفاوت بین کتاب و فیلم Fellowship of the ring
کتاب ها همواره با فیلم های اقتباسی از اونها تفاوت دارند. در اینجا هم همینطوره با اینحال پیتر جکسون یک تالکین فن خراب بود و تمام تلاشش رو کرده بود که بشدت به داستان اصلی و نحوه داستان سرایی تالکین وابسته بمونه و تنها قسمت هایی همچون tom bombadil رو حذف کرده.
با وجود اینکه تام بامبدل یک فصل کتاب به نامشه و در سه-چهار فصل حضور داره ولی به گفته خود تالکین در اصل داستان تاثیر مستقیم نداره و بگونه ای یک ماهیت فلسفی است (یعنی تالکین میخواد یک پیام ماورای داستان خودش رو بگه) که ذهن خود تالکین رو هم درگیر کرده بود.
همچنین بخش های کوچکی اینطرف و اونطرف و فصل Barrow-downs توی فیلم نیست.

در باب شخصیت ها
داستان تالکین بشدت به اصطلاح “آدم‌ها رو تو سفر میشناسی” پایبنده. داستان روایت منده و سوم شخص. با اینحال افکار شخصیت ها به خصوص فرودو بگینز که شخصیت اصلی است به خوبی تفسیر میشه. با اینحال بر خلاف فضا سازی داستان هایی همچون نغمه آتش یخ (نخوندم) در ژرفای فکر شخصیت ها نمیره. چون این شخصیت ها نیستند که معمای داستانند. بلکه واکنششون به شرایط دژخیمه که مد نظره و هر کدام در ماجراجویی و سفر پیش روی خود (دست کم در Fellowship of the ring) و خطرهای پیش روشون خودشونو نشون میدن. دوستی ها شکل میگیره، پرده ها کنار میره، نیت های شوم دیده میشه و افراد مشکوک بعضا محبوب میشن و وارونه این.

در باب دنیا سازی
“چی بگم که هرچی بگم کم گفتم” زیبایی دنیاسازی تالکین رو کنار بگذاریم از توصیفاتش رهایی نیست، اگر بگم پنجاه درصد کتاب توصیف فضاست بزرگنمایی نکردم. به زیبایی میشه حس کرد که تالکین تک تک لحظاتی که روایت میکنه رو قبلا در ذهن دقیق مجسم کرده و به طرز عجیبی براش مهمه، اینکه راهی که ازش میرن چجوریه، درخت ها، کوه ها، آثار طبیعی و انسانی همه و همه توصیف میشن.

در باب نویسندگی
نخستین چیزی که به نظر میرسه حرکت “Ticking Clook” تالکینه. دنیای کتاب به مراتب از دنیای فیلم کندتر پیش میره. در فیلم ماه ها حرکت رو به ده ساعت کاهش دادند. با اینحال در جای جای کتاب یک حس “بدو دیره” به خواننده داده میشه. هیچ جای داستان این حس دست از سر خواننده بر نمیداره. با اینحال تالکین با مهارت تمام حواسش بوده که میان دویدن ها، فرار ها و نگرانی و دغدغه ها، لحظه های آرامش و رهایی بذاره، بهترین نمونه اش حضور در lothlorien ه.

در باب شعر
بنظرم تنها دلیل و کافی ترین دلیل برای اینکه توصیه کنم کتاب رو در صورت امکان به انگلیسی بخونید همینه. تالکین دکترای زبان شناسی داشته، به زبان انگلیسی (جدید و قدیم) تسلط کامل و ادبیاتش در عین راحتی (به مراتب راحت تر از جورج آر مارتین) دقیق و ادبیبانه است.
اگر اشتباه نکنم بجز دو سه فصل از 22 فصل کتاب اول همه فصول دست‌کم، یک شعر در خودشون دارند (گاهی کوتاه، گاهی بلند) گهگاهی بیشتر از یکی.
شعر ها با وجود اینکه اگر نفهمید اصل داستان رو خراب نمیکنه، lore و ژرفای دنیای تالکین رو بشدت روشنتر میکنه. گاهی برای چند صفحه روایت های داستان (از رخدادهای تاریخی middle-earth) بصورت شعر میاد.
شخصیت های دنیای تالکین بدون شوخی و تمسخر و با جدیت به شعر جایگاه ویژه ای میدن در حدی که در rivendell تالاری مربوط به شعر خوانی هست. و شاعران جایگاه ویژه ای دارند (این بخش رو به عنوان یک انسان امروزی برام درکش سخت بود ولی به عنوان یک ایرانی آشنا) کاراکتر ها نه تنها به شعر ارزش میدن بلکه با جان دل گوش میسپارند و تلاش در جهت شاعری میکنند و اوج قدرت تالکین جایی خودش رو نشون میده که میتوانید حس کنید که مثلا فلان شعر ضعیف از بیلبو بگینز نمیتونه باشه.
جالبتر برای من اینکه حس میکنم در دوره ای که این کتاب نوشته شده نه دنیای فانتزی اینقدر پذیرفته بوده و نه این روش خاص از [فانتزی] نوشتن. ولی تالکین نوشت و موفق شد.

در باب توصیه به خواندن
این کتاب رو به دو قشر تنها توصیه میکنم
1) کسانی که یک کتاب رو نیمه راه رها نمیکنند، مهم نیست به دنیای فانتزی علاقه دارید یا نه، اگر از این دست هستید بخونید. چون حتی اگر پسندتون نباشه Book(بخش) دوم که برسید کتاب رو زمین نخواهید گذاشت.
2) به علاقه‌مندان دنیای فانتزی یا هرکس که میخواد لحظه ای از خواندن کافکا و کامو و اورول و آل احمد و... رها بشه شدیدا توصیه میکنم این کتاب رو بخونید. اگر نخستین کتاب فانتزی تون باشه مورد بهتری مد نظر ندارم (مگر اینکه شاهنامه رو فانتزی حساب کنید که البته ایرانیان امروزه نه توانایی کافی و نه رمق برای شاهنامه خوانی ندارند) اگر نخستین کتاب فانتزیتون نیست “نمیدونید چه چیزی رو از دست دادید”!

I know I risk a lot by giving this such a low rating. How do you articulate that you didn't enjoy something so beloved?

Pro: Tom Bombadill is a truly terrific character and why the story couldn't be about him, I'll never understand.
Pro: The linguistics in this book are off-the-charts incredible. The rhythmic speech was, at times, intoxicating. Almost dry, his rhymes are metered so well you can tell that Tolkeien was as much scholar, as anything.
Pro: Sam is such a terrific sidekick.
Pro: Without Tolkien, there may have never been a Robert Jordan, Patrick Rothfuss, or James Islington... unimaginable horrors.

Con: The story drug on. Pacing was awful, even for part one of a sweeping epic.
Con: Frodo's chief attributes, those which make him perfect for the task to which he's called, are mostly his lack of desire and his ignorance. “Frodo, we believe you really are the only one suitable to carry the ring because you do not understand its power and, if you did, it wouldn't matter because you have nothing driving you which would leave you susceptible to it's power.”
Con: The (incessant) singing. Which, much of the time, felt like a gimmicky plot device to pack-in exposition late.
Con: Too much of any good thing is bad and the bouncing, rhythmic wit of Tom Bombadill was completely lost when employed by other characters; Frodo, in particular.
Con: Did I mention the pacing?

I'm sorry. I promise I still love story. Just not this one.

Takeaway: Genre defining book, theologically more revealing than I think Tolkien intended. 

There is nothing that I can really write that hasn't been already written, and written better, about the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I am not a superfan. I have read the Hobbit three times I believe, but I think this is only my second reading of the trilogy and my previous reading was more than 20 years ago.

I decided to start the series because the Andy Serkis narrated audiobook was on sale at Audible. I had previously listened to the Rob Inglis version of The Hobbit, but several friends have raved about Serkis' version. Inglis' version is excellent, but I do think that Serkis' version is probably a little bit better. My only complaint about the Serkis version is that when listening with headphones, which is how I tend to listen, the dynamic range was a bit too broad. I understand why the dynamic range is wide, but I tend to listen when I am walking or doing chores around the house, and changing the volume is annoying.

I alternated between audio and kindle. I listened to good portions of the first and third books while reading the second almost exclusively. Song is so much a part of the writing that I am tempted to say that the books should be listened to primarily, but audiobooks do take longer than reading. I don't know how they prepared for the songs, but the singing portions were very well done with appropriate melodies and emotion. It does communicate a very different culture and I think that is part of why the songs are so important to the books.

I was musing on Twitter that war is my least favorite part of the trilogy. And by the end, there are far fewer battle scenes than I had remembered, probably because the battle scenes are so memorable from the movies. It is the quest and friendships that make the story, not the battles.

As I said I am not a Tolkien scholar. I have never read a biography of Tolkien and I have never read a commentary book on the Lord of the Rings, although I do have Fleming Rutledge's book and plan on reading that one. But I have understood that Tolkien did not think he was writing a “Christian” story and did not like people suggesting that there were Christian allegories in the books. That being said, I think that there is a lot of theology. Christian obligation and calling to do good and work toward justice, even if it is personally difficult is throughout. The concept of the way sin breaks not just personal, but social systems is very well illustrated. And the way that even good people with real virtue can be corrupted by access to power. The right use of power and the corruption that power brings is a very significant theme. I think there is some irony to Tolkien talking so openly about power and systems in the trilogy and the fact that there is so much controversy about the “Marxist” roots of that discussion today. There is also a nearly Christian sense of providence or election throughout the books without any referenced God or prophecy that was directing.

One critique is how much Tolkien uses the colors black and white to mean good and evil, and then references how people look to correspond with their goodness or evilness. The bible also uses black and white colors as a reference to good and evil, but the people of scripture were various shades of brown. There was no one in scripture that we would today call “White”. But the trilogy frequently speaks of the beauty and light skin and hair of virtuous characters and of the dark skin of the evil characters. In the context of our racialized history and racial hierarchy, the uniformity of Tolkein's descriptions suggests that there was an underlying understanding of race that was connected to sin in the books even if it was not explicitly described as racialized.

Early on in the books, the fighting was almost entirely between humans/hobbits/elves on the one side and orcs/trolls/other evil creatures on the other. That led to a more lightness, joking quality to the fighting. As time went on, the horrible reality of war was more clearly described. The way that war can impact people over a lifetime was communicated and as many have suggested, I do think Tolkien's experience with WWI was carried through. The broad anti-industrial language also likely reflects the reality of pollution in the UK during Tolkien's life. But I never really understood what these factories were doing other than creating pollution. They did not seem to be producing good, but only darkness. And maybe that was the point.

I think I probably need to read this trilogy again because it is designed to have layers of meaning. I know many people have read it 10 or more times. I won't ever read it that often. But I do think that I need to read it at least one more time. Maybe with my kids in a few years.

Hey there! So, I just finished reading “The Fellowship of the Ring” by J.R.R. Tolkien, and I thought I'd jot down my thoughts. Keep in mind, I'm not usually into fantasy books, but I decided to give this a shot since it's such a classic.

First off, this was my introduction to proper fantasy literature, and I've got to say, it kind of confirmed my suspicions that fantasy might not be my cup of tea. Don't get me wrong, the book wasn't bad – it just didn't blow me away.

The story follows Frodo, a hobbit who inherits a powerful ring and sets off on a journey to destroy it. Sounds exciting, right? Well, it kind of is, but also kind of isn't. The whole book felt like one long walking tour through Middle-earth. We meet new characters, visit different kingdoms, and face some dangers along the way. It's definitely an adventure, but sometimes I found myself thinking, “Okay, but when is something really going to happen?”

I will say that I enjoyed the characters and their interactions. Tolkien does a great job of making you feel like you're part of the fellowship. The friendships, the bravery, the scary moments – it all feels very real. But for me, the plot itself was a bit thin. It's basically “hobbit finds ring, hobbit must destroy ring” stretched out over hundreds of pages.

The writing style is pretty easy to follow, which I appreciated. However, I did struggle with remembering all the names of people and places. Seriously, does every character and location need such a complicated name?

By the end of the book, I wasn't super excited to pick up the next one in the series. I mean, I can see why people love it – the world-building is impressive, and there's a sense of epic scale to everything. But for me, it just didn't click in a way that made me want to invest more time in the story.

I'd give it 3 out of 5 stars. It's well-written and I can appreciate why it's a classic, but it didn't quite hit the mark for me personally. If you're into fantasy or want to check out a cornerstone of the genre, go for it! But if you're like me and prefer books with more straightforward plots, maybe think twice before diving in.

Remember, this is just my take as a casual reader. Millions of people absolutely love this book, so don't let my opinion stop you if you're curious about it!​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Well, I finally read Book 1 after much nagging from daughter. I really wanted to love it - I love many people who love it!

About a third of the way through, though, I was tempted to ditch it and say that it just wasn't for me. It took ages to get going, and some of the long passages of description and past deeds (with everyone having at least threes names) seemed to go on forever. And as for the songs...

In the end though, it won me over. The good bits were really good and became more frequent in the last third. The atmosphere and the characters eventually got to me and I became more invested as it went on, pretty much from the mountains onwards.

So I'm going to have a go at Book 2 - there, I said it!

Como qualquer livro de fantasia, foi moroso e confuso especialmente no que toca a nomes. Sei que acrescentam dinamismo, mas não fui grande fã das canções (se bem que a tradução não faz milagres). A nível de enredo, surpreendeu-me a rapidez com a qual se lidou com o desaparecimento do Gandalf, pela negativa.

I struggled a lot with what to rate this book. On the one hand, it's a classic and I have loved it since I was a teenager. On the other hand, on this read-through, I felt like I had jumped in to the middle of a series rather than the first book. There were so many more ancient-historical references (I'm talking Silmarillion old) than I remembered. I felt like it distracted from the characters and made it hard to read.

Age range: 15+
Read with a dictionary in hand, and a willingness to just blow past things you don't understand.

To tell you the truth, I was never a big fan of the film adaptation and it may have distorted my perception of the book a bit. But I'll try to be objective and see this first installment of the trilogy in all its glory, which everyone is rightfully praising.
The story is definitely out of its time, for which the author deserves a bow and a standing ovation. The first volume is so enriched with the history of a non-existent world that it feels almost real in places. History described in such depth that it may bore some readers to death, but extremely important to understanding the storyline.
I'm not rushing into the second volume, but it would be a shame to walk away from such a fantasy at the outset.