The Lord of the Rings

[Magnum Valentino]

I've always regretted not reading this when my friends were, round about the time the first or second film came out, and for a few years I've really fancied the nice box of the versions with the Alan Lee paintings.

I'm not sure I could be bothered reading it, though. Think I missed my window twenty years ago.

Anyone want to vouch for reading the books for a longtime fan of the film's?

[madhair60]

I read the graphic novel version of The Hobbit

am I fuck looking at lord of the rings again. Horse shit and badly written.

[JaDanketies]

I tried reading the book when I was about 15 and got through about 50 pages before realising it absolutely definitely wasn't for me. I also watched the first movie in the cinema and was bored out of my face so I have never watched any of the others.

hope this was helpful!

[Mr Vegetables]

I got to Farmer Maggot and gave up— it was all weirdly unfantastical at that point, like listening to my grandmother talking about her relatives in excruciating detail.

The films are great, though, and they have a lot more impact on me these days. I think it's a subtler story than it's given credit for— almost a subversion of the genre Tolkien inspired, which I'm not sure it really belongs to. People say it's a hero's journey, but perhaps it's more about providence which pretends to be a hero's journey: everyone believes an innocent heart can resist the pull of the ring, and everyone is wrong.

"How naive!" Sauron might think. But behind that story is a series of events he hasn't noticed that end up destroying him: pity stays Bilbo's hand, Sam won't give Frodo up, the men of Gondor fight although there is no longer hope— because Frodo's story is a feint for something bigger, which the eye is unable to see

[bgmnts]

Read it as a late teen and I suppose I'm one of the few that actually really enjoyed it. Sometimes I do wonder if I conflate the memory of the films, and the emotions they evoked within me (I do genuinely think they are masterpieces) with the novels, which can indeed be a tad dry.

They definitely need a re-read, but there just seems something so anciently historical and fantastical about the world the story tames place in, and it has such a sense of magic and nature at its core. There is also an almost poetic nature to some of the prose and dialogue as well, which I enjoy.

Might be old fashioned to like it, but fuck it I think it's ace, and I usually don't re-read things but might give it another go.

Edit - although I'd disagree with others and say it has a bit more going for it than straightforward plodding d n d adventure style stuff. There is something innately magical and beautiful about it I can't quite describe.

[AliasTheCat]

I would recommend giving the original BBC radio dramatisation a go. As a kid I adored the book ( I have a signed copy of the Alan Lee illustrated version from the early 90s) but honestly reading it was always a bit of a slog and there are chunks of it that have been wisely excised from all adaptations.

Until the films came along this was the definitive adaptation, and I had the whole thing on cassettes that I listened to endlessly. I would also say that Peter Woodthorpe is still the best Gollum...

I haven't checked all the files but there seems to be a complete playlist of all 13 episodes here:
https://soundcloud.com/inkmore/sets/lord-of-the-rings-radio

[Norton Canes]

First read them in 1982 (a.k.a. The Second Age) and really enjoyed them as a straightforward adventure full of all the D&D type stuff I was also getting into. They may be long but like Orwell's works they're written with clarity and economy, as might be expected of a professor of languages. Okay it all gets a bit cod epic by the third book but no reason why they can't be a simple pleasure (apart of course from the unreconstructed racism).

[Endicott]

I read the graphic novel version of The Hobbit

am I fuck looking at lord of the rings again. Horse shit and badly written.

It's beautiful prose and you're an uncultured buffoon.

[Endicott]

I've always regretted not reading this when my friends were, round about the time the first or second film came out, and for a few years I've really fancied the nice box of the versions with the Alan Lee paintings.

I'm not sure I could be bothered reading it, though. Think I missed my window twenty years ago.

Anyone want to vouch for reading the books for a longtime fan of the film's?

It's not a difficult read. But you won't know unless you give it a go.

[Old Thrashbarg]

I suppose I'm one of the few that actually really enjoyed it.

I reckon there's more than just a few people who really enjoyed one of the most popular and successful novels ever written, which spawned some of the most popular and successful films ever released.

Must be 20 years now since my last read through (which I finished just before watching The Two Towers I think) and I'd like to give it another go at some point. But I think my versions of the characters, certainly those who weren't in the The Fellowship of the Ring, would now be distorted by the films. Which is fine I suppose; apart from some of the Elves the films did about as good a job as possible with bringing the characters from the page to the screen. It just wouldn't quite be the same as when I was building up the imagery for myself.

Ideally I'd erase all memory of the films, read through the novel again, then watch the films again.

[bgmnts]

I reckon there's more than just a few people who really enjoyed one of the most popular and successful novels ever written, which spawned some of the most popular and successful films ever released.

Sorry I meant in this thread!

[Pavlov`s Dog`s Dad`s Dead]

"How naive!" Sauron might think. But behind that story is a series of events he hasn't noticed that end up destroying him: pity stays Bilbo's hand, Sam won't give Frodo up, the men of Gondor fight although there is no longer hope— because Frodo's story is a feint for something bigger, which the eye is unable to see.

That's a wonderful paragraph, thank you for raising that perspective. I'm not sure I'm 100% persuaded just at this point, but what you say speaks to me; there's a lot to ponder.

[Critcho]

Ideally I'd erase all memory of the films, read through the novel again, then watch the films again.

The films are great but it can be quite hard not to just replay the visuals from the film when reading the book nowadays, which is a shame. The old animated films are interesting in a way because they remind you that there used to be quite different ideas about how Tolkien stuff should look and feel.

The books are great but I wouldn't blame anyone (in fact, if they're struggling I might even recommend it) for skimming through the stretch of episodic chapters between Frodo leaving the Shire and arriving at the Prancing Pony. The films cut those bits out, and in the book they feel like Tolkien getting bogged down in aimless Hobbit-ish whimsy at a point where you're probably waiting for the story to get into gear.

Most of the more wearisome bits are early on. Once you get past the first book (as in, the first half of Fellowship) the pace keeps up and I found it smooth sailing for the most part.

[bgmnts]

One of the things I liked in the book that I don't remember in the film was the form the ring's temptation of Sam takes, when he bears it temporarily:

Spoiler alert

His thought turned to the Ring, but there was no comfort there, only dread and danger. No sooner had he come in sight of Mount Doom, burning far away, than he was aware of a change in his burden. As it drew near the great furnaces where, in the deeps of time, it had been shaped and forged, the Ring's power grew, and it became more fell, untameable except by some mighty will. As Sam stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself, a vast and ominous threat halted upon the walls of Mordor. He felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows. Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dur. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.

[close]

As an unashamed Romantic and lover of Tolkein's nature descriptions, Sam's humility, pureness and heroism and its link with being a humble gardener, is an aspect of the book I love.

And of course literally anything to do with the Ents is perfect.

[Pranet]

I went though a Tolkien phase when I was a kid, and like sometimes happens with things you have a youthful enthusiasm for I ended up despising him, seeing him as a part of childhood I was well shot of and was a bit embarrassed by. Couldn't imagine ever reading him again, had no interest in the films (I don't think I've ever seen them all the way through).

During lockdown I re-read the Hobbit and thought it was great.

So I might before I die read Lord of the Rings again.

[FredNurke]

That's a wonderful paragraph, thank you for raising that perspective. I'm not sure I'm 100% persuaded just at this point, but what you say speaks to me; there's a lot to ponder.

For what it's worth, I imagine it's a reading that JRRT would have endorsed (with inevitable caveats, because that's the sort of person he was).

[Glebe]

I'd love to have the Alan Lee illustrated edition meself. Reread it awhile ago but I sacked off the Appendices.

[madhair60]

It's beautiful prose and you're an uncultured buffoon.

lord of the rings? more like flawed of the rings.

argument won. log off.

[Endicott]

Pity stayed his hand. "It's a pity I've run out of bullets", thought Bilbo. Bored of the Rings

[Video Game Fan 2000]

lord of the rings? more like flawed of the rings.

argument won. log off.

with you on that this

what's the only line people remember out of the whole thing? "butter over too much toast" and its a deliberately folksy saying made up for Selfish Cunto

want to write something about Bombadil a some point though, that's easily the best part of any Tolkein book

[Toki]

Nah, Lord of the Rings is good. I don't think I'd like it as much as I do if the ending wasn't so bleak though. Really doubles down on the trauma. Without that it would be what people who haven't read it think it is.

[bgmnts]

want to write something about Bombadil a some point though, that's easily the part of any Tolkein book

It's definitely a part yeah.

[superthunderstingcar]

Quoting myself from another thread:

I love Tolkien's books, but I can understand why so many people bounce off them - it's because each of his three major works all begin with the hardest part.

The Hobbit kicks off with the arrival of Gandalf and thirteen dwarves at Bilbo's house, so you immediately have 15 characters to cope with (although, let's be honest, only about three of the dwarves really have personalities that matter over the course of the book) and it takes what seems like ages for any adventure to happen. When I was young and impatient, the book only got good once we reach the encounter with the trolls.

Lord of the Rings likewise starts in the Shire, with a massive amount of exposition about hobbits, a party with loads of (irrelevant) minor characters, and a very similar, small-scale feeling of threat to a lot of The Hobbit. As an adult who has read the book multiple times I can appreciate the clever way in which the threat escalates over the course of Book I (i.e. the first half of Fellowship of the Ring), but I can see the point of view of those who claim it only gets good once the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell and we get adventure on a more epic scale.

TL;DR - you don't have to read The Lord of the Rings, but if you never try, or if you bounce off the first few chapters, it's your loss.

Also, the BBC radio adaptation of LotR is the greatest thing the BBC has ever produced.

I would also say that Peter Woodthorpe is still the best Gollum...

This is an objectively correct opinion, precious.

[iamcoop]

Haven't read it in years but used to love it a few years ago.

I used to use it as almost a therapy tool - it's a very long journey and I enjoyed it for that reason. A bit like why I like Test Cricket or other people like fishing - the length of it and the wasting of a day is part of the appeal.

Like any book(s) of that length though there are sections that are barnstorming and long, long sections that are absolute dogshit.

It's the sum of its parts though.

[Ron Maels Moustache]

Lord of the Rings likewise starts in the Shire, with a massive amount of exposition about hobbits, a party with loads of (irrelevant) minor characters, and a very similar, small-scale feeling of threat to a lot of The Hobbit. As an adult who has read the book multiple times I can appreciate the clever way in which the threat escalates over the course of Book I (i.e. the first half of Fellowship of the Ring), but I can see the point of view of those who claim it only gets good once the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell and we get adventure on a more epic scale.

I re-read some of Fellowship earlier this year and I have to agree, I was impressed by how well-structured it actually is considering the piecemeal nature of the writing process, and the fact that the direction and tone of the story changed dramatically over the course of it's development. I also maybe the only person who enjoys the early parts with the hobbits just ambling about before the "real" story begins the most, I think when I first read it the whole journey up until they get to Rivendell was my favourite part of the book.

I also genuinely like Tom Bombadil and I've never quite got the level of disdain for that whole section of the book. On the page it works perfectly for what it is, a dreamlike interlude in a much larger narrative. I mean, I can understand why it would never appear in any film adaptation, it's the kind of thing you could maybe put in an episode of a long-running TV show but it's too superfluous for a film script. It has a really vivid oddness that stuck with me for years afterwards, it's has a properly unsettling fairy tale vibe that doesn't appear anywhere else in the whole saga.

[greenman]

I re-read some of Fellowship earlier this year and I have to agree, I was impressed by how well-structured it actually is considering the piecemeal nature of the writing process, and the fact that the direction and tone of the story changed dramatically over the course of it's development. I also maybe the only person who enjoys the early parts with the hobbits just ambling about before the "real" story begins the most, I think when I first read it the whole journey up until they get to Rivendell was my favourite part of the book.

I also genuinely like Tom Bombadil and I've never quite got the level of disdain for that whole section of the book. On the page it works perfectly for what it is, a dreamlike interlude in a much larger narrative. I mean, I can understand why it would never appear in any film adaptation, it's the kind of thing you could maybe put in an episode of a long-running TV show but it's too superfluous for a film script. It has a really vivid oddness that stuck with me for years afterwards, it's has a properly unsettling fairy tale vibe that doesn't appear anywhere else in the whole saga.

I do think a lot of the appeal of Token ends up being he's sucessful in building an atmosphere of a somewhat "normal" landscape with a sense of history and/or the supernatural to it. Even The Old Forrest and the Barrows you only get the overtly supernatural impinging on things right at the end of those sections.

[shoulders]

Edoras comes across in the book as a bigger, grander kingdom capital city than the hilltop clutch of dwellings Peter Jackson created.

[Vodkafone]

I re-read some of Fellowship earlier this year and I have to agree, I was impressed by how well-structured it actually is considering the piecemeal nature of the writing process, and the fact that the direction and tone of the story changed dramatically over the course of it's development. I also maybe the only person who enjoys the early parts with the hobbits just ambling about before the "real" story begins the most, I think when I first read it the whole journey up until they get to Rivendell was my favourite part of the book.

I also genuinely like Tom Bombadil and I've never quite got the level of disdain for that whole section of the book. On the page it works perfectly for what it is, a dreamlike interlude in a much larger narrative. I mean, I can understand why it would never appear in any film adaptation, it's the kind of thing you could maybe put in an episode of a long-running TV show but it's too superfluous for a film script. It has a really vivid oddness that stuck with me for years afterwards, it's has a properly unsettling fairy tale vibe that doesn't appear anywhere else in the whole saga.

I think a lot of people find that there are a lot of pages in Fellowship where not much happens, so there is a bit of a hump to get over. But once you're over that it's great all the way so definitely worth persisting with. If you're finding the Bombadil sections hard going just have a strong coffee to carry you through to Bree where it all kicks off.

[Vodkafone]

Edoras comes across in the book as a bigger, grander kingdom capital city than the hilltop clutch of dwellings Peter Jackson created.

Yeah the film version is like the disappointing version when you view it with the letting agent. "What do you mean 'small', it's got a stables"

[Chollis]

what's the only line people remember out of the whole thing? "butter over too much toast" and its a deliberately folksy saying made up for Selfish Cunto

"like butter scraped over too much bread" actually you idiot, toast hadn't been invented yet