The Return of the King

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.