The Lord of the Rings

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.