First Time Reading: Lord of the Rings

[Nrblex]

My grandmother passed away many years ago and through the various dramas and tribulations of family my mother and her siblings are largely estranged from one another today. However, one of my aunts (who won't speak to my mother at all) still tries to maintain good relations with me. One of the ways she has attempted to do this is by shipping me a large box full of books from my grandparents' house.

In this box, I found a number of novels and grammar books in German, which wouldn't be of much use to me though I'll keep them for sentimental value. However, I also found a set of three novels--The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. I guess these must have belonged to one of my uncles or else my grandmother had tastes I was unaware of, as the books were printed in 1978 and were sold for $2.50 a piece. Right up the alley for a teenage boy or young man with a taste for the fantastic.

I have never read the Lord of the Rings before, but I've decided that I'm going to now. Since there are apparently a lot of people who are fans of Professor Tolkien on this board I thought that I'd cover my reading in this thread here. As I work my way through I'll update where I am, and hopefully people who are more knowledgable than I am can point me in the right direction if there's something I'm missing or some particular gem I should pay attention to.

Basically, this is the exact opposite of Ask the Expert. This is more like Tell the N00b.

Tonight I'm going to work through Professor Tolkien's "new foreward" written for this edition, the prologue and "Note on the Shire Records."

[Orual]

Be warned: it starts slooowwwww.

[Exy]

Now that you've told us, you'll lose face if you give up in the middle. I liked the Lord of the Rings, on balance, although what Orual said is right. It's also slow at various other points.

I probably would never have finished it if it weren't for the movies keeping me interested.

[OtakuLoki]

One of the things that I feel that the Ring Trilogy does well is that it reads a lot more like an actual history - with seemingly unrelated actions going on all over the place. It does not appear a tightly focused narrative when you start it.

Part of that is that the professor had a phenomenal amount of backstory that he had worked out, so it truly is only a chapter in the history of the world he'd worked out. And for whatever reason, he was reluctant to give that up.

I think you might do better to start with The Hobbit, instead - it would give you a bit of a feel for the world, and I think offer you some promise that the slogging you'll have to do that Oural mentioned is going to be worth it.

[Exy]

I think you might do better to start with The Hobbit, instead - it would give you a bit of a feel for the world, and I think offer you some promise that the slogging you'll have to do that Oural mentioned is going to be worth it.

For the record, I disagree with this. I really didn't like the Hobbit at all. I thought it was even more cutesy than the Lord of the Rings, and for the most part I don't really want to read books aimed at 8 year olds.

[Nrblex]

Oh, I've read The Hobbit before. I read it when I was around ten or eleven, I think. I'd picked up a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring in my teens, started reading the first chapter, went, "ack!" and gave up right there.

I will make it through this. :grim:

[Nrblex]

Before anything written by Professor Tolkien himself, there is an introduction written by Peter S. Beagle dated July 14, 1973. In this he talks about how the books explodes into popularity almost overnight after having languished in obscurity and says:

The Sixties were no fouler a decade than the Fifties--they mearly reaped the Fifties foul harvest--but they were the years when millions of people grew aware that the industrial society had become paradoxically unlivable, incalculably immoral, and ultimately deadly. In terms of passwords, the Sixties were the time when progress lost its ancient holiness, and escape stopped being comically obscene.

An interesting take on the 1950s that isn't often heard. It seems as though whenever the 1950s come up at all, they're being revered. The argument is set in terms of: "THE FIFTIES--NEARLY PERFECT OR UTOPIA?" Obviously that hadn't really been the attitude of everyone in the decades that immediately followed.

From there, we move into Professor Tolkien's foreword written for this edition. He talks about having begun this story as soon as The Hobbit was finished and even before it was printed, but between various things happening in his life and a little thing I like to call World War Two it had to go on hold. Then, before he could finish the great saga he had to go and write this grand history. He says that it was very linguistic in nature and he doubted anyone other than himself would ever find it interesting.

He mentions the shortcomings of the books and his greatest regret with them--that they are too short.

He also talks a bit about the difference between allegory and allusion. He said that allusions are impossible to avoid and exist in the mind of the reader as an expansion on the story, while allegories are a conscious act by the author and limit the story instead. He mentions the claim by some that the books were written about WWII (something I've asked What Exit? about before) and says that had the books been meant as an allegory, then:

...certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-Dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own research into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held Hobbits in hatred and contempt; they would not long have survived even as slaves.

In the prologue, we're reintroduced to Hobbits. The history given is more lengthy and fleshed out than in The Hobbit itself, though. Already, I can tell this was written by someone with a lengthy history in academics. It's very scholarly and reads more like an anthropological description than backstory for a fantasy novel. One thing that shocks me here is that it describes Bilbo Baggins having lied about how he got the Ring. It doesn't say it explicitely (yet) but I'd assume that must have been the corrupting influence of the Ring.

In "Note on the Shire Records" he details how this story was supposedly compiled and kept, which is interesting. His background in linguistics shows here. Most people would be content to simply write a story. Some ambitious people might come up with the world history he created. Only someone with a very particular frame of mind would think, "Yes, that's all good, but how did the story get preserved?"

Tomorrow, "A Long-Expected Party."

[What Exit?]

This should prove interesting, my daughter just started reading the LotR too and is on the second chapter.

Oddly 1978 would have been around the time I bought the LotR & The Hobbit.

It is worth noting that the Hobbit & LotR are very different in tone and style. The Hobbit is a long kid's book. A very long faerie story or fireside story. The Lord of the Rings is a true Epic and defined modern fantasy in almost everyway and seriously affect both fantasy role playing and through it all the fantasy computer and console games.

I am probably one of the few that love the opening. I love "A Long-Expected Party" and I loved

Tom Bombadil

. It was only in the Two Towers I ever found the books bogging down.

[Exy]

I enjoyed the Long-Expected Party. That sort of flavor chapter may not directly contribute to the final story but it was interesting. But

that guy you mentioned

is just intolerable. Uck,

that guy

has no real significance or role in the story and the whole

bit involving that guy and the stuff with the barrow-dudes right after

can be seemlessly removed, as they did in the movies, leaving everything even better afterward.

[Clothahump]

Skip over the gawdawful poetry and just read the prose.

[Orual]

Skip over the gawdawful poetry and just read the prose.

This is not strictly necessary. However, if you find that Hobbit bath-songs are sapping your will to live, you won't miss much by skimming.

And Tom Bombadil is a perfect waste of time.

[Nrblex]

Okay, I really REALLY did finish reading "A Long-Expected Party" last night. And then I fell asleep and had class today. But I'll write up what I thought about it later.

First thought: huh. The movie version of the party totally fucked it up.

[OtakuLoki]

I realize I'm the only neo-Luddite left on the whole bloody planet - but can you describe what, in your opinion, the movie fucked up about the Long-Expected Party?

[Nrblex]

I realize I'm the only neo-Luddite left on the whole bloody planet - but can you describe what, in your opinion, the movie fucked up about the Long-Expected Party?

I haven't watched the movie since I was a teenager, but I remember Bilbo being very nervous during his speech, faltering and sweating and such. That wasn't even implied in the book whatsoever. He was approaching it all as a grand joke and was very nonchalant up until he and Gandalf have their face off over the ring.

It's also interesting to note that back before the movies, way back when the books wouldn't have been popular knowledge, what kind of impact this would have had. The reader, familiar only with The Hobbit, suddenly starts getting these little hints that the Ring is something more. But not even Gandalf realizes it yet. Maybe that's why I had a hard time reading the book before. I didn't know what I know now from the movies, and so this seemed like a bunch of needless drama about a trinket instead of, in retrospect, deeply disturbing foreshadowing.

This little innocuous thing is immensely powerful and incredibly corrupting and not even Gandalf realizes it yet.

[What Exit?]

I haven't watched the movie since I was a teenager, but I remember Bilbo being very nervous during his speech, faltering and sweating and such. That wasn't even implied in the book whatsoever. He was approaching it all as a grand joke and was very nonchalant up until he and Gandalf have their face off over the ring.

It's also interesting to note that back before the movies, way back when the books wouldn't have been popular knowledge, what kind of impact this would have had. The reader, familiar only with The Hobbit, suddenly starts getting these little hints that the Ring is something more. But not even Gandalf realizes it yet. Maybe that's why I had a hard time reading the book before. I didn't know what I know now from the movies, and so this seemed like a bunch of needless drama about a trinket instead of, in retrospect, deeply disturbing foreshadowing.

This little innocuous thing is immensely powerful and incredibly corrupting and not even Gandalf realizes it yet.

Well said, plus the extra hijinx from Merry and Pippin felt silly and gratuitous to me.

[Nrblex]

Well said, plus the extra hijinx from Merry and Pippin felt silly and gratuitous to me.

Oh, yeah. I far prefer what I've seen of them so far (which admittedly isn't much). Merry might be young, but he is clearly a good and loyal friend to Frodo and is perfectly responsible when it comes to dealing with the crowd after Bilbo's disappearance.

One thing I enjoyed about this chapter is how it really focuses on the things that would been important to hobbits. It's like the focus on funerary rites in The Iliad, because that was very important and showed a great deal about their grief. This celebration and the aftermath really show who the hobbits as a people are.

And I get the feeling Tolkien had genealogy charts for the Shire going back generations.

[OtakuLoki]

And I get the feeling Tolkien had genealogy charts for the Shire going back generations.

There's a simple reason for this.

He did.

[What Exit?]

There's a simple reason for this.

He did.

With an amazing number of edits and changes as he wrote and rewrote the books.

Tolkien really paid a lot of attention to detail.

[Nrblex]

That's awesome. I love it. All of the little agendas and relations between the different hobbit families.

[What Exit?]

That's awesome. I love it. All of the little agendas and relations between the different hobbit families.

In the Appendixes at the end of the Return of the King are the final version of the 4 genealogies of the major Hobbit families. You'll find the Baggins, Tooks and Brandybucks overlap a lot. I would hold off though until the end. Though as you have already seen the movies, there are no actual spoilers in them come to think of it.

[Nrblex]

Well, I saw the movies when they first came out. There are a ton of details I either didn't pick up then or have forgotten or were changed or just never elaborated on in the movies, I'm sure. It's like I've got the barebones of the story, but every bit I read is something new, too.

With Thanksgiving and all kinds of fun last minute stuff I'm not going to be able to finish chapter two until probably tomorrow night. I shall post then about my observations. I'm hoping this one starts getting into more of the Ring and what it really is!

[Orual]

Any updates for us Nrblex?

[vison]

On at least one of the Tolkien-related sites I post at, or used to post at, there was a thread entitled The Tolkien Virgin. This was quite cool.

I've read LOTR at least 120 times, yes, 120 times over the past, um, 43 years. I remember I loved it from the first reading and still do. I more or less hated the movies on most levels.

The Hobbit is twee and silly and I don't care much what they do to it, but I'm looking forward to it appearing in movie(s) form since it will breathe life into my favourite fan sites and revive the old Purist/Revisonist Flame Wars which I sigh nostalgically for.

*sighs nostalgically*

So, come on, nrblx. And, I haven't forgotten teh scifi story I'm writing about you, either. I thot you'd gone away or something.

[Nrblex]

Whoa, sorry guys. I started reading and completely forgot to come back update the thread.

I just finished chapter eight.

I was really shocked that about twenty years goes by in the second chapter before anything else happens. Even by Hobbit standards, that's a pretty significant span of time. Frodo goes from being just barely an adult to being at the age where people are waiting for him to start settling down. It makes sense, though, and I'm glad that Tolkien let it take so long. Gandalf had a lot of things to learn in that span of time and it's not as though he could just learn them by doing a Google search. He had to travel and find people and dig through ancient histories.

Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin are all a lot more likable in the book than they were in the movie for me. Frodo isn't some wide-eyed innocent whining about everything. He recognizes the dangers and the burden, he's upset about it, but he makes the decision to leave the Shire on his own, out of a desire to protect all of the people around him. That's pretty damn admirable. And then his incredibly loyal friends are ready to go with him, without him asking--or, hell, practically without his permission!

I greatly enjoyed reading about the preparations for their journey and the start of it. The suspense of the lurking Black Riders is building nicely and the trip through the woods with the trees and paths moving around is nicely creepy.

And then fucking Tom Bombadil shows up.

The whole tone of the story changes. The fawning and begging from the Hobbits to have him come with them and their joy and love for him and his "pretty lady" comes off as completely false to me, because he's all spritely and rhymy and dancing around and it just. Doesn't. Fit. The whole book up until this point has the feel of some ancient, lost epic. Tom Bombadil feels like he was stolen from a shitty nursery rhyme. I mean, maybe he was supposed to be some sort of reference to old fairy tales or something, but that giggly light-hearted crap is not in the old stuff. It's retarded Victorian romantacizations and I had to put the book down and walk away a couple times just to get through it.

I'm at the start of chapter nine now, though. The Prancing Pony. I trust that stupid little man won't be showing up again.

(And why the hell was he not tempted by the Ring at all? Is he some kind of minor deity or just the first Gary Stu?)

[Orual]

And then fucking Tom Bombadil shows up.

... Is he some kind of minor deity or just the first Gary Stu?)

Pretty much. He's a character that Tolkien invented for his kids (based on a toy they had), that he shoe-horned into LOTR. I believe the explanation is that he's an artifact from before JRR realized the sort of grand epic the story of the One Ring would turn into.

Which doesn't really hold water for me, because - editing.

And no, Merry Dolly Darling Diddly Dumblefuck will not be back.

[What Exit?]

I'm in the minority that liked Tom and Goldberry. He served two real purposes besides allowing Tolkien to recycle and older character.

He is the unexplained mystery and he could rescue them from the Barrow Wights which will unexpectedly and eventually set something else up.

He was apparently popular in the 60s among the Flower Children that loves the Lord of the Rings.

[Nrblex]

Pretty much. He's a character that Tolkien invented for his kids (based on a toy they had), that he shoe-horned into LOTR. I believe the explanation is that he's an artifact from before JRR realized the sort of grand epic the story of the One Ring would turn into.

Which doesn't really hold water for me, because - editing.

And no, Merry Dolly Darling Diddly Dumblefuck will not be back.

That's good. I mean, maybe he'd be at home in a kid's book or something, but he contrasts so horribly and so starkly with everything else that it was extremely jarring. I didn't like him at all. Aside from clashing with the tone, he just seemed...anachronistic. A late 19th century idea of a wee prancing fairy man in an ancient tale.

[Orual]

He is the unexplained mystery and he could rescue them from the Barrow Wights which will unexpectedly and eventually set something else up.

These things justify the character, but not the tone of that section. There could have been an unexplained, mysterious (possibly divine) presence in the woods that rescued the hobbits from the barrow-wights. That character did not have to a Victorian gnome who sounded like he'd gotten lost on his way to an L. Frank Baum Oz book.

He was apparently popular in the 60s among the Flower Children that loves the Lord of the Rings.

Ain't that the truth. My dad takes great delight in reciting long excerpts of his dang songs. :Shake:

[Nrblex]

So what you're saying is that Tom Bombadil is entertaining if I smoke some pot or drop acid?

[Orual]

Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin are all a lot more likable in the book than they were in the movie for me. Frodo isn't some wide-eyed innocent whining about everything. He recognizes the dangers and the burden, he's upset about it, but he makes the decision to leave the Shire on his own, out of a desire to protect all of the people around him. That's pretty damn admirable. And then his incredibly loyal friends are ready to go with him, without him asking--or, hell, practically without his permission!.

I do think that Merry and Pippin were two of the characters who were less well-served by the movies than the books. I didn't MIND them as comic relief, but they did seem a lot ... dimmer. For me, the only main hobbit who was really spot-on was Sean Astin's Sam.

But I'm forgiving on that point because of a couple of characters

(Boromir mostly, and Arwen)

that I think got a much fairer shake from the movie.

So what you're saying is that Tom Bombadil is entertaining if I smoke some pot or drop acid?

Pretty much. Listening to some Led Zeppelin wouldn't hurt either.

[What Exit?]

So what you're saying is that Tom Bombadil is entertaining if I smoke some pot or drop acid?

Pretty much.

I do think that Merry and Pippin were two of the characters who were less well-served by the movies than the books. I didn't MIND them as comic relief, but they did seem a lot ... dimmer. For me, the only main hobbit who was really spot-on was Sean Astin's Sam.

But I'm forgiving on that point because of a couple of characters

(Boromir mostly, and Arwen)

that I think got a much fairer shake from the movie.

Pretty much. Listening to some Led Zeppelin wouldn't hurt either.

Agreed overall, especially on Led Zep. But I hated the enlargement of Arwen's role.

[eleanorigby]

I LIKE both Tom Bombadil AND The Hobbit. I vastly prefer the Bilbo in TH to the one in LOTR. And I think Tom is just this odd, mystical character (sort of like the pagan Green Man) who doesn't belong in the sage, true, but fits perfectly because, like so many other sagas (the Bible and the Icelandic sagas spring to mind here) there are bits that don't fit with the "story line" or make much sense when taken alone. IOW, it adds to the validity of the tale by not er, adding to the telling of the tale.

well, it made sense to me as I typed it!


I am very somewhat less than patient with the whole Tolkien's world is just the greatest EVER stuff. He's longwinded and picayune. His characters are made of cardboard (Aragorn for one--talk about hero archetype! The man never has a single doubting moment. His ego is bigger than James Cameron's!).


Enjoy the books. I still prefer TH for pure adventure with a twinkle. IMO, LOTR gets weighed down by its own back-story and "significance. Also, don't bother with introductions--read those after you've read the books. They'll make a ton more sense. (I suppose I'm too late for that....)

[Laughing Lagomorph]

These things justify the character, but not the tone of that section. There could have been an unexplained, mysterious (possibly divine) presence in the woods that rescued the hobbits from the barrow-wights. That character did not have to a Victorian gnome who sounded like he'd gotten lost on his way to an L. Frank Baum Oz book.

Ain't that the truth. My dad takes great delight in reciting long excerpts of his dang songs. :Shake:

Did you purposely use an almost direct quote from the famous movie version of The Wizard of Oz after an L. Frank Baum reference?

Cause if you did, that's totally awesome.

I disagree with Jim about the enlargement of Arwen's role in the movies vs the books. I remember being confused the first time I read the books when Arwen is re-introduced after about 2,000 pages with nary a mention. And the Elf she supplants at the Fords in the movie simply has to get a better agent, that's all there is to it.

[ivan astikov]

After flying through The Hobbit, aged about 11, I picked up LOTR expecting more fanciful shenanigans about little folk with big, hairy feet. I really wasn't prepared for what lay ahead of me, and threw it down in disgust upon reaching the first nonsensical elvish poem and vowed to go no further.

Flash forward 7 years and I'm in a prison cell listening to my radio, when I hear that Radio 4 is doing an adaptation of LOTR in 26 30 minute shows. After listening to the first episode, the next day I went to the library, got out the book, and read it to the point where the radio show had left off. I think there was a few occasions when I continued reading after the episode until I nodded off, but it never kept me up all night. I enjoyed the radio version because it stripped away all the guff, while leaving plenty for the imagination to work with, but the book, despite being gripping in parts, was mostly a chore.

I tried it again after seeing the movies, but my tolerance hadn't improved.

[Nrblex]

Well. Thanks for the whole '60s flower child mention here, now every time I come across a reference to Tom Bombadil in the book I get this playing through my head:





I just finished chapter ten. SO! Now Strider/Aragorn has joined their party and I've discovered why Gandalf never met up with Frodo. I'm a little confused as to why the hobbits were acting so very stupid in the last two chapters, though. They know the Black Riders are after them and there's all sorts of major bad mojo out there, so they dance on tables, tell stories about Bilbo, disappear in front of a crowd, and Merry goes wandering all alone in the streets at night?

Do they just not grasp how serious the situation is or what?

[What Exit?]

Do they just not grasp how serious the situation is or what?

Very simply, YES.

They don't get it yet. Frodo has the best idea, the other three think this is a adventure like Bilbo's. They don't really have any plan if you think about it beyond getting to Rivendell and letting Elrond and/or Gandalf take care of the problem. Despite Black Riders and Barrow Wights they do not yet understand what the stakes really are.

[Feirefiz]

Do they just not grasp how serious the situation is or what?

One thing that is easy to overlook if you know the general outlines of the story is that at that point the hobbits don't know yet who the Black Riders are.

[eleanorigby]

I believe if you looked in a dictionary of the time, the hobbits' faces appear next to the word "naive".


I do hope you like pots and pans.

[Orual]

::cough::

Have you made it out of Rivendell yet?

[vison]

*waits patiently*

[Nrblex]

D'oh. I kinda set the book down and...yep, still sitting just where I left it.

I'll continue now!