That’s right, I’ll be the first to put down my foot and say The Lord of the Rings is actually really good.
Sarcasm aside, I finished reading The Lord of the Rings books a little more than a week before Christmas. I “read” the books in sixth grade, but I’m fairly confident I didn’t fully finish them, nor did I comprehend and appreciate most of what I read. I also watched the movies at that point, renting1Thanks, Hollywood Video. each one around the time I finished each book.
Since then, I’ve watched the trilogy twice: once in 2020, and once earlier this fall. I read The Hobbit this fall, which was an advanced reading book in fifth grade that I know I didn’t finish; between completing that book and my most recent viewing of the movies, it was inevitable that I would read the full trilogy with an adult perspective and appreciation for what Tolkien did.
One point of interest is the format in which I read the trilogy. I purchased a single volume eBook that contained someone’s Forward, but also two extensive Author’s Notes by Tolkien himself. Those set the stage in a way I didn’t anticipate, as they taught me a few key things about the structure and history of the books.
First, the story is published in a trilogy format, but is really six books: each of the three standard trilogy books are “parts” of the story, and are split into two books each. I’m not sure if my paperback set from middle school has this delineation — I forgot to check before traveling for the holidays — but I certainly didn’t recall this organization if it did. This additional structure makes for interesting storytelling, because we do not ever see a “back and forth” in perspective between the main thread of Frodo and Sam, and the sub-plots of the rest of the Fellowship. The first books in The Two Towers and The Return of the King focus strictly on the non-Frodo contingent, while the second books in each get us up to speed with what Frodo and Sam were up to during the events of the first book. While this could have led to some awkward pacing or confusing information, Tolkien does a masterful job calling back to events we experienced in the previous “book”, establishing a timeline so we can understand the context of Frodo’s situation.
Second, I learned about the massive revisions (purposeful or not) that the story underwent between editions; the differences between various American and British publishers; and ultimately the frustration and toil that Tolkien and his family have gone through over the years to establish a version that is as correct and true to the original idea as possible.2One fun bit of trivia is that pluralizations like “dwarves” and “elves”, and adjectives like “elvish”, essentially did not exist until Tolkien decided to use them over the original “dwarfs”. His editors thought they were doing him a favor by reverting these evident errors, much to his consternation. This strongly aligns with the voice and approach used in The Lord of the Rings: it is more akin to an ancient book of history, full of “facts” that we must take for granted among the flourishing subjective accounts, than to a narrative in the modern sense.
This was a striking change after having read The Hobbit. Rather, upon starting The Hobbit I was amazed by its jaunty, casual tone. It has the feel of an old children’s tale,3That explains why it was an assigned book for a precocious fifth grader, and The Lord of the Rings was certainly not. full of colorful characters with fun rhyming names, some hi-jinx to foil awful enemies, and very little in the way of gory detail.4The Lord of the Rings also contains minimal gore, but there’s a higher concentration of implied violence overall. It was a fantastically quick read, a joy through and through, so it was an odd turn to begin the sometimes encyclopedic, frequently dense pseudo-historical prose of The Lord of the Rings soon thereafter.
That turn was not off-putting, though. Tolkien’s language is always fitting, a blend of mystical prose with specks of poetry and just enough detail to get the point across, while still focusing on the feelings the situation evokes. I was clued into this when reading the posts about the Siege of Gondor on A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry. That blog’s author makes excellent points that while the movies must focus on action, the books tend to (and are better equipped to) focus on feeling. The results of the battles are not completely due to better military prowess, or Deus Ex Mountain Men, but rather strongly revolve around how our main characters are able to inspire their armies, and force their enemies to cower beneath shows of might. Tolkien frequently focuses on the mental anguish and joyous moments spread across Middle earth: How do they interplay, and how can they rapidly change the dynamic of a situation when one happens at just such a moment?
I’m not going to say much comparing the books and movies, except that with a better view of the books, I do prefer them. That being said, I’m happy experiencing each medium as separate, with different points of view on the same story.5It reminds me of the various approaches taken by the gospels of the Bible. The Lord of the Rings books seems analogous to the Gospel of Luke. The books are more about imagery and feeling, interspersed with the hard facts of the situation. They’re a detailed yet beautiful account of a key moment in the history of this world. The movies take some liberties, rearranging situations, providing glory and honor in different ways to some characters, as it must be streamlined. The movies are still excellent, but the story of the books has my vote.
I’m not sure The Lord of the Rings is incredibly high on my re-read list, but it was great to experience that story with fresh eyes. It’s an inspiring work of fiction, and a masterful example of historical writing as well, even if the subject matter isn’t real. The tools of language were wielded with care and Tolkien thus crafted a unique work that deserves every bit of impact and praise it has received since its publication.
- 1Thanks, Hollywood Video.
- 2One fun bit of trivia is that pluralizations like “dwarves” and “elves”, and adjectives like “elvish”, essentially did not exist until Tolkien decided to use them over the original “dwarfs”. His editors thought they were doing him a favor by reverting these evident errors, much to his consternation.
- 3That explains why it was an assigned book for a precocious fifth grader, and The Lord of the Rings was certainly not.
- 4The Lord of the Rings also contains minimal gore, but there’s a higher concentration of implied violence overall.
- 5It reminds me of the various approaches taken by the gospels of the Bible. The Lord of the Rings books seems analogous to the Gospel of Luke.