I have now failed for the third time to read Tolkein’s LOTR trilogy. My first attempt was in 1979, my second was in 1985. With the advent of the movies being released, I figured I’d give it one more try. I failed but this time I realized why I couldn’t get thru it.
Frodo Baggins is, ostensibly, the protagonist of the story. Fine. We go thru Fellowship, learn all about Frodo, and, to a lesser extent, his companions. There is an incident near the end of this book which separates Frodo from most of his companions.
Then we get to the Two Towers. Frodo is nowhere to be found. We read about the rest of his companions, but young Mr. Baggins is MIA. In other words, the hero of the book is gone. We read about the rest of the group, who IMHO, are nowhere near as interesting(or as likable). By the middle of this second book I completely lose interest in what’s going on because the person I thought the book was about has disappeared.
SPOILER SPACE
I know right after the point I mentioned, the narrative turns to Frodo and Sam. But, as I said, I pretty much have given up by that point. Why did Tolkein do this instead of alternating between the two parties? Did he want the reader to think Frodo was dead?
It seems like a poorly thought out narrative on Tolkein’s part. I’m really frustrated because everybody else gets great joy out of these books, and I can’t seem to get past this.
Can anyone help me put this in perspective?
I think its an excellent tool for Tolkien to use. What is the subject matter of Book 3 (the first part of TTT)? It’s Aragorn & Co. running all around Middle Earth looking for 4 lost hobbits who they think are captured. They don’t know where they are, we don’t know where they are. Book 3 ends with an incredibly exciting battle scene, a number of new characters, new plotlines and is a springboard for an even more incredibly exciting battle. And just when you get completely geared up for that, it turns back to Sam and Frodo, the ultimate purpose of all the machinations Aragorn et al. are going through.
It is not the fault of Tolkien. It is just how you think books should be written. Keep in mind the first book of the trilogy is not titled Frodo and The Ring. Through the first book we are brought into the world of several different characters. We see Sam’s emotion’s , Gandalf’s struggle …so on and so forth. The problem come’s from you assuming the book is about Frodo when it is actually about the Fellowship of The Ring. Try getting into what each character does and thinks and is about instead of just brushing it off as filler. I know the first time I read the books I was more interested in Strider than Frodo.
The snarky answer, of course, is that The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy at all; it’s a single book, split up by publishers into three volumes to make it less cumbersome and pricey. Tolkein, in the writing, would not have viewed The Two Towers as a separate work, and thus his plotting would not have seemed at all odd.
Which is sort of exactly the point I was trying to make in the OP; I just spent all of FOTR trying to absorb the storyline and understand the characters. Now suddenly we have this new stuff that, IMHO, doesn’t really build off of what we know, but tries to take the story in a different direction.
Seeing the whole thing as part of one LOOOONG book, it makes sense, Frodo’s only gone for one chapter then.
MrWhatsit agrees with the OP. We’re currently reading LOTR aloud to each other (we take turns reading chapters) and he told me that in his opinion, it’s better to read a chapter of the Frodo/Sam stuff, and then a chapter of the Aragorn stuff, alternating, and that way you don’t get so FREAKING BORED with the Frodo/Sam “we’re trudging toward Mordor. trudge. trudge. trudge. Gollum. trudge. trudge. trudge.” plotline.
Anyway, just thought I’d let you know that one person at least agrees with you.
In novels today, the same technique can be used (as MsWhatsit notes). However, in Tolkien’s day, such intercutting was rare.
My first reading, I made the same mistake you did – I thought Frodo was the protagonist, and I was annoyed at not getting back to him. However, the notion of Frodo as protogonist is inaccurate. This is a book of the history of Middle Earth, not the there-and-back-again adventures of a hobbit.
It is possible to make an argument that the Ring is the protagonist of the book, a sort of anti-hero, and the book is about the lives of those touched (however indirectly) by the Ring’s presence.
However, rise, may I suggest you skip or skim read the chapters you don’t like, and get over to Frodo and Sam and follow them, if that’s the part that you do like. (I find the chapters of Aragorn’s coronation to be long and boring, but I love the books, and have read them at least a dozen times. I just skim over a few chapters quickly.)
What’s it all about, Alfie? IMNSHO, I think the book (Nota bene: singular book) is all about G vs. E, and the Fellowship represents G. It can be thought of as a microcosm of society and the sundry types of creatures that you will meet in that society.
Alternately, the Fellowship can be thought of as the various aspects of personality that each and every one of us individuals posesses to some degree or other (i.e., we all have some courage, some strength, some magic, some pluckiness, some mystery, some ability to nance about on top of the snow, etc.).
Either way, when Frodo and Sam are offstage for hundreds of pages at a stretch, Tolkien is examining a different dimension of the individual personality (or of society) but eventually will recombine the parts. So there!..Tim
I was more interested in other characters throughout the book…each chapter or book made me interested in one character. So far my favorite is Legolas and Gimli, but the two young hobbits, Pippin and Merry, are also close. Frodo, Sam, and Strider are not my favorites. I never got into the book thinking it was all about Frodo. Also, I liked the way it was set…mini adventures or books within the book!
As far as Tolkien not “intercutting”, the fact that this storytelling technique was not common in Tolien’s day is certainly a good point. Also, I get the impression that Tolkien was writing for an audience with a longer attention span than today’s action-movie-influenced fantasy fans. In other words, an audience that could keep the Frodo/Sam story “on hold” in their minds for a longer time without getting impatient.
For what it’s worth, I’ve heard that in the “Two Towers” movie the story will indeed be intercut.
The (wonderful) BBC Radio adaptation from 1979 (starring Ian Holm as Frodo!) does the same thing.
Personally, I sort of like the way the book is set up – although the ending of TT and beginning of RotK form a really frustrating cliffhanger! – but for dramatic adaptations intercutting is the right way to do it, I think. Otherwise you lose track of things.
Having just trashed “Hyperion” which is nicely written, but pointless, I’m taking a chance supporting Tolkien’s work despite really lousy, amateur editing and plotting.
I also failed to finish “Lord of the Rings” a number of times. Subsequently, however, I’ve read it frequently.
All of Tolkien’s work is hugely flawed. No, I’m not going to retract this, but I will respond politely to questions. Unfortunately for literature, he was aiming for something larger that goes beyond a well-formed story. That larger goal proved to be unique, successful, and an important statement.
Tolkien failed to produce a novel according to modern standards, but explained quite well the extraordinary things confabulated in his mind. Sorry about this, riserius1, but I suspect you’ll be a fan once you work your way all the way through. (The appendicies may be omitted, completely.)
How is it a failure if it wasn’t what he was trying to do, by his own account?
“I have very little interest in serial literary history, and no interest at all in the history or present situation of the English ‘novel.’ My work is not a ‘novel,’ but an ‘heroic romance’ a much older and quite different variety of literature.” (Letter 329, to Peter Szabo Szentmihalyi [I’m not sure who that is; my copy of the Letters doesn’t say])
And how, precisely, was his project “unfortunate for literature”? Are you referring to the “Tolclones” or something else?
