The Lord of the Rings

So I watched the movies ages ago and loved them, but despite having had the books for ages (years!) I'd never got round to reading them!

I finally have, although when I say ‘read' I mean I've listened to the audiobooks (saying that, having the books myself, I did follow along in the books). They were narrated by Rob Inglis and they were soooo good!

Listening to all three books from start to finish took me ten days. I'm not sure how long it would've taken if I'd read them by myself (a lot longer than that, is my guess!).

I think alot of the enjoyment of listening to it came from Rob adapting his voice to all the different characters! He did such a brilliant job of that. Well, that and bringing the story to life!

I'm sure I would have enjoyed reading on my own, but hearing the narration was a 100% better with the voiceovers!

Another reason for enjoying listening to the books was because it meant hearing the correct pronounciations of characters, places, etc.

Gelezen, en herlezen, en herlezen en herlezen. Ik zou er al zijn punten aan gegeven hebben waren het niet van Tom Bombadil, en die eindeloze liederen.

Wat me verbaasde, bij het bezien van de films, trouwens, is dat de overgrote meerderheid van de uitstekende dialogen rechtstreeks uit het origineel komen.

Hear ye! Hear ye! Step right up and allow me to tell you about how freaking awesome this book is. Since this book was technically supposed to be one story and not three, I am willing to say that this is definitely the best single volume fantasy ever. Especially if you include the fact that he wrote this almost completely from his own imagination without any help from other fantasy authors or movies to gain inspiration. I wouldn't say that it was the best fantasy series though because there's just so many good ones especially since they have more books written to continue the lore. I will say that his battle scenes are subpar but that's okay. His world building and folklore is top notch. I apparently hated the first book when I read it last year and gave it 2 stars...what a freaking “ruhtard” that guy was. Thankfully I have redeemed myself into a new man, have changed the review appropriately, and can enjoy this wonderful book but now I'm pissed at the movies for being so different from the book. Saruman's end in the book was so much better than in the movie!!

It's a timeless classic and a cornerstone of the genre. While elements may seem cliched, it is the originator of many, and the popularizer of others. You'll see into a lush, fleshed-out world that seems genuinely alive, and that's both frustrating and wonderful all at once. I read this for the first time as a young teen, and found skipping the essays at the beginning rather useful for my first go-around.

The Lord of the Rings is the epic. One cannot have a serious discussion about fantasy if they do not mention The Lord of the Rings. Many recent competitors have popped up (Harry Potter and Game of Thrones), but The Lord of the Rings will stand the test of time. Centuries from now, our descendants will point to The Lord of the Rings as the most epic tale ever written.

I concede it can be slow to read sometimes. But most of the book is very entertaining. History fans like myself will marvel at the depth of the world Tolkien creates, rich with millennia of its own lore.

There are also common criticisms with which I agree. The absolute distinction between good and evil is one. Generally, such a distinction will seem cheesy in many normal novels. Tolkien manages to still make an incredibly story in spite of this polarity.

There's probably not much more to say about Tolkien and Lord of the Rings than what's already been said a thousand times over by a million different people, but nonetheless I'm going to give my 2 cents anyway.

This one was an interesting one for me. Tolkien and LoTR had always been (to me) hailed as an untouchable work of pure fantasy and imagination. Tolkien himself, godlike in name and fantasy fiction personified. At least in my circles, and the reputation that precedes the name, Tolkien appeared to me as the culmination, the high point, of the fantasy genre.

So when I cracked it open at last and found flaws in the work, I was a little confused at first. I suppose it's kind of like opening up the Bible expecting pure and literal God-like perfection, but finding story and allegory about the shortcomings of humankind instead. It's not bad per se, it's just not what everyone around you tells you it's about.

In a way, this may represent the end of childhood naivety: doctors give perfect diagnosis and prognosis, parents always know what's best for their children and themselves, society is always looking out for you, etc. etc. In much the same way a child grows up, I begun the journey wide-eyed and a little ignorant on the nature of the world. But as we all go along, we learn things aren't always as they seem. Not everything is perfect, and there's a dark side to life (at times). Just is. Always has been; always will be. Nothing's perfect – everyone and everything has flaws.

So with that, I realised and accepted Lord of the Rings isn't perfect. It, like everything else, was created by a human being. With all his own biases and flaws. But, of course, with all their strengths too.

This in a way allowed me to see Tolkien and LoTR for what it really is. One of many, many books out there in the world. But, at the end of the day, regardless of all that it does, is still, just a book. I would say in fact it made me appreciate LoTR, and books in general, in a different light. I'm not sure why yet, but it has somehow left me with a greater sense of appreciation for books. Unfortunately I can't see that being an intention of the book, so I won't bump it's score for it.

But without further ado, I'm giving Lord of the Rings overall a 3.5-star. Despite it's flaws, I still enjoyed it. So let's break it down:

The GOOD:
- Tolkien is an excellent writer. His prose is fun to read, purely for the craft in and of itself. Even when the story drags, his skill keeps it alive (although sometimes barely)

- The world building. Although I'm not fussed about this in books since I like many books that aren't particularly fleshed out, Tolkien has done an incredible job. The people's, the languages, the history... it's all great. Very fascinating and fun to learn about. Unfortunately, a lot of it isn't actually in this book. See below.

-The Fellowship of the Ring is an incredible read. It's some of the most fun I've had with a book in a long time. It's magical, it's thrilling, and really gives you a sense of the fear and scope of the world. It's a really fun adventure book.

The MEH:
- The Two Towers is... well... meh. For me it marks the begin of the decline. It's still good, and I did enjoy it a lot. But as far as internal consistency goes, it's not as good as Fellowship in my option. The pacing speeds up, the characters are split apart, and this means each group gets their own half of the book. We don't spend as much time with everyone and things start to get skipped over. References begin to be referenced without much explanation, Google searches begin being required, re-reading of passages is needed. The world building starts to get in the way of the journey.
- The length of the book. This book either had to be a lot smaller (to keep it tight knit), or a lot bigger (to keep the pacing and detail the same as the beginning of the book). Instead it tries to do both and loses some of its identity along the way.
-The appendices. The appendices are fleshed out, and fairly interesting. However, the fact I have to refer to them at the end of the novel so I can get the rest of the story that gets skipped over is a little jarring. It was cool it's there, I like the idea of appendices as general further information. But to have to read it so I know what was happening in the rest of Middle-earth wasn't my favourite thing. But it was by no means a bad thing.

The BAD:
- The Return of the King isn't very good. King continues what Towers begun. Pacing speeds up even further, even more references are being made, things are brought up with not enough explanation, even more Google searches are being entered, time absolutely flies by. Whereas Fellowship describes each day on the road fully fleshed out, King will just skip days out a time in a single sentence. Internal consistency of the book from Parts 1 -3 are completely lost here with the pacing. King completely ignores the rest of Middle-earth. Which would be fine, if the story remained about the Fellowship, but it balloons to encompass everything. Which it simply cannot do with the structure of the rest of the book. And it suffers for it. We have no idea what's happening anywhere else, but it feels like we should. The Dwarves, the Elves, anywhere that's not Gondor? No idea. Had to Google it and read appendices that fill in the rest of the story that's missing. It's redeeming feature is that it concludes the story begun in the Fellowship.
- The ending. I'm all for a happy ending, but this was absolutely ridiculous. In a story where there's an attempt for so much realism; the history, the language etc., my goodness is the ending so over the top. It's pretty much 5 chapters to say “and everyone lived happily ever after (except like maybe one or two people, but apart from that, everyone lives in complete and utter pure bliss”). Middle-earth is such a rich fantasy world, the ending of LoTR doesn't do it justice.

To sum up:
The Fellowship of the Ring: 4.5 / 5 Stars
The Twin Towers: 3.5 / 5 Stars
The Return of the King: 2 / 5 Stars.

I hardly need to review this book; everyone knows it, except for those who probably wouldn't like it anyway. Although I like it, overall, it's not one of my top favourite books: I like some parts of it, but have to tolerate other parts that I don't really enjoy. In particular, although I don't strongly dislike Gollum—he's the product of his experiences, and perhaps pity is appropriate—I don't seem to enjoy reading about him.

Tolkien was, I suppose, inspired by the legends of old, and wanted to create his own legend in the same style. He managed to do this while at the same time writing something that would appeal to 20th century readers, which is a neat trick. I don't normally read the legends of old, they're not my kind of fiction; but I'm willing to read this. The introduction of the hobbits was surely the key to this achievement; we can relate to them relatively easily.

Glancing at a few other reviews of this book, I found someone who was bored by it. Well, fair enough; it doesn't bore me, but your reactions are as valid as mine.

I also found someone who complained about it being politically incorrect in some ways (sexism, racism, etcetera). I have less sympathy with this. Tolkien was born in 1892; if he had any notion of political correctness, it wouldn't be much like yours, and it's silly to expect it. Furthermore, he was trying to emulate the legends of old, when political correctness meant being polite to the king, and sexism and racism were merely normal human behaviour. Bearing all that in mind, I think the political incorrectness of this book is relatively mild.

There is also the fact that what we have here is a struggle between Good and Evil. I don't normally like that: I prefer characters who are more like normal people, neither wholly bad nor wholly good. But Good and Evil seem more acceptable in the context of old legends, and I can tolerate them here.

Sauron seems evil to the core, as far as we can tell; although he remains out of sight throughout, so we know only what his subordinates do, and what his enemies think of him. Perhaps he loves his cat? It's not clear what he gets out of life, nor what he wants to get out of life.

Gandalf and Galadriel seem prime examples of good; but both of them avoid the Ring because they fear being corrupted by it. Which suggests that they're not really good to the core; at least, they don't believe they are.