The weakest point of the story is that the wrong side wins.
That is just…awful. Thank you. 
One thing I’ve noticed is that there seem to be two camps (and I’m sure a large middle ground as well) regarding how the latter two books splits into two timelines: Frodo and Sam’s journey vs. all the other stuff that happens to the rest of the Fellowship. I really enjoyed all the parts in Rohan and Gondor, all the battles, all the big events that happen. When I had to then read about Frodo and Sam slogging and slogging through Emyn Muil, the swamps Ithilien, yadayadayada, I found it deathly dull in most parts.
My spouse fell firmly in opposite camp, and when she read the books she couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the battles, the politics, everything else. She wanted to skip all that and read all about how Frodo and Sam were doing.
Missed edit window:
Re the OP, the whole premise of Frodo and Sam being the ones to take the ring to Mordor. Yes, I know, Frodo=Ring-bearer, meant to have the ring etc etc, but seriously, this is the most powerful/dangerous/important object in Middle Earth, and they let two inexperienced hobbits try and get it to Mordor? I know that’s the point of the book, but it always make me go meh.
Also, why Frodo didn’t just kill Gollum. Again yes, I know he is essential to the plot and to Frodo’s characterisation re mercy etc, but again, most important/dangerous/powerful object in Middle Earth and some grubby little oik would do anything to get it? Off with his head!
Best. Book. Ever, though.
And so it was foretold:
Since I first read LOTR in 1966, I have reread it 2 or 3 or 4 times a year, and that comes to a lot of readings. However, I don’t regard myself as a LOTR geek, since I read it for pleasure only and not for absorbing petty details in order to stun my fellow fans with the depth of my knowledge . . .I hardly ever win trivia contests on the subject and often fail to recognize a quote from even the most well-known bits of the book.
One of my friends from another messageboard has written a very scholarly book, which is due to be published this year, primarily about the writing of the Silmarillion. I think. I’ll buy it and read it because I know and love the author, but ordinarily I’m not that interested in anything except LOTR itself. Once it’s available I will post the link here for those who are interested.
The resurrection of Gandalf infuriated me when I first read it and it still does. Why kill him in the first place? I thought then, and think now, that it was dragging god into the book where I didn’t want god to be. It jarred me. One of the things I have always loved about LOTR was the lack of overt religiosity - and that bothered Tolkien, since he spent many of his last years hauling it around to be a Christian book. :mad:
The Army of the Dead was iffy in the books, but when it became the Scrubbing Bubbles of the movie, this reader was disgusted but not surprised: He-whom-we-do-not-name never neglected to include a CGI cliche if one was possible, and why should The Army of the Dead be an exception? takes a deep breath and refuses the temptation to go on and on and on and on and on about how awful the movies were except for the “look” of the thing
Of course, like many others, I also had a hard time with the Orcs. The concept of Orcs as degraded Elves is particularly troubling. But not as troubling as the other explanation of them as mere constructs that can be eliminated with fewer qualms than one ought to feel stepping on a cockroach. They were NOT just “things”. The conversations between Snaga and the other guy, the conversations Sam overheard in Moria, make it clear that THOSE Orcs, at least, were more like petty thugs who would sneak off to smoke a ciggy and gulp a beer whenever they got the chance. The Orcs were a poor idea, all around, IMHO.
Examined closely, idea by idea, LOTR seems to be a mess. Taken as a whole, the way I usually do, it is magnificent. The sum is much greater than the whole of its parts.
Having discussed all this for years and years on LOTR fansites, I will add only that I, myself, like Bombadil and feel that he was an important part of the book. However, it is just as well that he was not in the movies.
Personally, I don’t agree with many of the complaints about deus ex machina in LotR’s case. First of all, because it often IS deus ex machina (i.e., this is mythological battle againts a fallen angel, for crying out loud—the deus in this case has an actual stake and parts to play in the fight), and secondly, because the deus ex machina events are built up long in advance. Gollum biting off the ring? Payoff for the setup of Frodo’s mercy earlier. Eagles? Heck, you knew about them since the Hobbit! Moreover, Gandalf had earlier asked Radagast to keep in touch via birds, etc.–so that was irony, in fact (since Radagast had no idea that Saruman was all evil and stuff–he just thought he was communicating, not sending a rescue eagle).
Moreover, most of these “saves” only buy the fellowship some time–no single one wins the day. The ghostly oathbreakers panic the bad guys on the Corsairs, letting Aragorn take out one of many threats to Gondor, but he still has to haul ass up the coast and then use the recently enslaved sailors to fight a grueling battle vs. the Easterlings and Haradrim. Hardly a magic bullet. The Eagles keep the Nazgul occupied at the battle at the black gates, but they don’t spell victory by any means.
Why so many threads recently where I feel I have to put in my 2 cents? It must be Christmas.
If you still need more coals to heap on the the opus, my main complaint is with the beginning, where it’s clear that Tolkien still thought that he was writing The Hobbit II. Too much Merrie Olde Englande, talking foxes and the like. And I’ve never felt convinced of the revelation in the council of Elrond that The Shire and Bree have been closely guarded by the Dunedain since the fall of Arnor.
I like the Bombadil part, for some reason I haven’t explored closer. And really, several songs. Tolkien is IMO at his best in the nonsense rhymes and the Rohan stuff (the lament at the end of the battle of Pelennor makes me cry) though his love poetry makes me cringe. And I buy Frodo and Sam’s trek across Mordor (though the part where Sam prays to Galadriel for light and water grates on my nerves): Sauron must have emptied every base camp in the country, and then there’s the convenient fact that the sun never shines on The Realm of the Dark Lord. (It ought to be on the Not-to-Do list for Evil Overlords.)
The only part I think is much too pat to be realistic is Denethor’s madness and suicide, because naturally he too has had access to one of the incredibly rare palantirs and become influenced by Sauron. And so, Aragorn never has to face any opposition.
The covers on the old ACE paperback edition.
Truly, an epic miscarriage of justice – the other Ringbearerbearer, Glorfindel, gets to go into the West. Bill the Pony only gets sent back to the scoured Shire.
And he’s a plump pony, so those nasty hobbitses probably cooked him up and ate him for elevenses, since Sharkey’s men had scoured all the other food. tsk. so sad.
Ugh. You ain’t kidding. I would still kill for sturdy, compact hardcover editions of the three volumes, but they only make them giant-sized.
Random responses
- I’ve actually seen worse covers than the Ace ones. For a 10th anniversary or something, done in a Hildebrandt-ish style. Horrid
-Bill the Pony made it back to Bree, didn’t he? Where he was reunited with Sam. and not eaten.
-I agree with whoever pointed out the “two camps” of readers. I’m one who thinks the writing in the long slog through Mordor was the best writing in the whole saga. Definitely prefer it to the battles, at least the section in Rohan. and I like the amount detail - I read an article once where a medieval scholar praised it for showing what long journeys would really have been like back in the way back when.
-Yes, it’s handy that when the ring is destroyed that the major enemy in Middle Earth is overthrown. But, as Gandalf points out, another evil will rise up in time. Aragorn’s kingdom may have known peace, but eventually evil will come back, and will have to be fought again.
-I had to read the book 2 or 3 times before it annoyed me how easily Aragorn got the throne. (No, no - I know he prepared all those long years in the wilderness yadda yadda). Denethor offs himself & Faramir says ok. But, still, somehow, it works.
I kinda like those covers. They’ve got panache and get the epic “feel” across…plus Gaugin (I can’t spell it) the artist gives Gandalf a tall, pointy hat. How can you object to a tall, pointy hat on Gandalf. And I like the cover of Return of the King a lot, actually.
They’re better than the first Ballentine paperback editions–the “psychadelic” ones that looked like someone drank blueberry kool-aid and ate a plate of spaghetti…then threw up.
For those who don’t know what Qadgop and I are talking about, check out this page.
Yeah, I have to agree – they’re pretty awful.
As if the old Ballantine covers were any better? Eggplant trees??? :eek:
I remember as a 13 year old reading the books wondering when we were going to get to the parts the book covers showed. :o 
The weakest part of the book is the way the Professor wrote it. It makes for some agonizingly unhappy aspects. Instead of having the whole plot line thought out in advance, so he could make everything fit neatly, he just kind of rambled his way to the inevitable conclusions: the destruction of the Ring and the crowing of the King. I think that many of the more seemingly “contrived” parts of the books derive from the way the book was crafted. When I read the books, I think as I read about when exactly the Professor came up with what was happening just then.
I find it sad, but not surprising, that there are many who dislike the pace of the book, or its descriptive passages. One of the really sad aspects to modern American life is our insistence upon quick gratification. “Just the facts, ma’am!” seems to be our motto when it comes to books and movies. Yet one of the really wonderful aspects to literature from ages past is the detail that went into the telling of a tale. Yes, I know Dickens partially was motivated by the serialized aspect of his stories, but when you read his books, you really get the feel for the settings. It’s attention to the little details that makes this possible. Similarly, reading Gulliver’s Travels, you understand a large number of things about the places Gulliver visits because Swift didn’t just relate the important facts about who, what, when and where.
Most of what makes the books such a wonderful read is this attention to detail on the part of Professor Tolkein. You really know what is happening on Caradhras. You can see in your mind the sort of lands they are travelling through as they go. You can reconstruct the scene at Helm’s Deep in your mind. I NEVER needed a movie version of the book, because I already had it in my head. Dune was the same way, and I’ve heard the same criticism leveled at Herbert for it. No, it doesn’t read like Stranger in a Strange Land, or Harry Potter. I’m glad it doesn’t. 
Oh, and the book itself makes it pretty clear that Saruman is suspected of having some hand in the snowstorm on Caradhras. IIRC, Gandalf himself says, “Then his reach has grown long, indeed” or something to that effect. Not definitive, but pretty clearly more than just the “malice of the mountain.” IMHO. 
I was wondering how long it would take someone to equate a displeasure with Tolkien’s prolixity with some kind of overall decline in attention span. I will have none of it. There are details that serve a narrative purpose, and there are details for the sake of details – details usually included under the misbelief that they constitute “realism.” The “just the facts” attitude decried by the previous poster is the very attitude that seemed to drive many of Professor T’s narrative choices. Every writing workshop rookie learns that you don’t treat every detail with equal importance. As I said, it’s pretty obvious that the professor approached the story more as imagined history than as a simple adventure story. If you find it increases the believability of Middle Earth, power to you. I personally did not need that much convincing, and just because a thing is arduous to experience doesn’t mean it should be arduous to read about.
Off of soapbox. (For now).
And in the same vein, a great line from someone’s book review of (I think) a murder mystery where a stamp collector (for instance) was killed was “In the course of reading this book, I learned rather more about stamps than I really cared to know.” It’s great that you did all the research, but you don’t have to TELL us every single bit of it.
The business with the magic tree comes to mind. A simple “Oh and Aragorn found a sapling of the magic tree and planted it-Lo! He really IS da troo king!” (with appropriate foreshadowing beforehand-“Unless I plant this magic sapling, no-one will believe I’m the one true king” and, I dunno–maybe Saruman sending some Orcs to go uproot the sapling-so there’s some conflict) would have been better than the 17 (or however many) pages were spent detailing it.
Eh, Aragorn was justifiably pleased, but in a quiet way. It was a modest coronation by Numenorean standards; I’d hardly call it “crowing”.
You misspelled “Sauron”. (You may have been misled by someone-or-other.)
Gimli said “His arm has grown long indeed if he can call down snow from the North…” and Gandalf responded “His arm has grown long”. But Caradhras had been called “the Cruel” since long before Sauron had been meddling in local affairs.
I actually meant that the ACE covers fell off pretty easily…
:o
Heh. Those ACE covers were the first copies of the books I ever saw, when my big sister was reading them. Good times.
Another gripe: Theoden is scraping the bottom of the barrel for troops at the Battle of Helm’s Deep. Then he’s got a gigantic army just in time to ride to the rescue of Minas Tirith. I’d be asking, “Where the hell were you guys a few days ago?”