The Rings and the Lord Thereof

[Eleven Mike]

I just finished reading the Lord of the Rings, and thought I would give some of my impressions.

Also, I wonder if you all will recommend the Peter Jackson films.  I haven't seen them, but I haven't heard anything bad about them.

I was surprised the world of LOTR was so detailed and so deep in background.  I had read long ago that he was a linguist and very concerned about having real languages for his characters to speak.  I didn't realize he would also have such a long and detailed history for his world, involving various races and kingdoms, multiple wars with Sauron, and the whole situation with the Undying Lands and Numenor.  I was also surprised to find that there is a single God, the One, and that he is so rarely mentioned.

I was also surprised that Tolkien had such an involved idea of how his world was layed out geographically.  I would have benefitted from some better maps.  I liked the fact that there were different communities of elves and of men, and that some were different from others.  I also found the distrust between different groups to be a touch of realism. 

I have been hearing in the past few years that there is a great deal of Christian symbolism in them, even though Tolkien apparently didn't intend to give them any sort of allegorical meaning.  The alienation of Numenor from the Undying lands, and its ultimate destruction seemed like an allusion to Eden and the Fall, even though I read that Tolkien actually had Atlantis in mind.  Gandalf dies and seems to go to Hell and defeat a Satan-like creature.  He returns dressed in white and riding a white horse, much as Christ in some Apocalyptic passages.  Frodo appears to die more than once, and has to give up power that he is tempted to use for himself.  Aragorn sojourns on the earth in humility, once serving in his own rightful kingdom.  Though he doesn't die in the story, he does heal and carries a sword that his broken and then restored.  And of course, he returns to claim his kingdom and bring peace. 

[Ben]

This coming from someone who actually was geeky enough to take a "Lord of the Rings" lit class in High School, but dude, yeah, you've gotta see the films. A little license taken from the books, but one of the best film adaptations of a book(s) that I've ever seen. Very nicely done, and in my top 10 films of all time.

[mtnbkr]

The films are great, but watch the Special Edition versions.  They're longer, but have more detail. 

Don't bother with Jackson's earlier works though.  They're mostly camp, entertaining, but not nearly as high quality as his LOTR work.

Chris

[Ben]

Oh yeah, second Mtnbkr -- definitely the extended version DVDs.

[Stickjockey]

Most definitely see the extended version movies. If you're in the Portland, OR area, I'll even lend them to you.

[Eleven Mike]

This coming from someone who actually was geeky enough to take a "Lord of the Rings" lit class in High School,

Ha ha.  I should have guessed, four-eyes. 

Thanks for the insights, all.

[Werewolf]

FWIW - Having read the Trilogy twice before I saw the movies IMO the 1st movie did not do the 1st book justice. Just too much left out.

Going into movie 2 I decided that just watching the movie as a movie and not comparing it to the book was the way to go and it was - for me.

As another mentioned see the extended versions of the movies. They don't fill all the holes but do a reasonable job.

Tolkien IMO was essentially using allegory to describe early to mid 19th century english culture. Elves being the out of touch and out dated nobility, humans and hobbits as the peasant, landed gentry, and merchant classes. Sauron and the orcs represented the rest of Europe.

[Eleven Mike]

That's interesting.  I'm puzzled that you could see the elves in a negative light.  If anything, I thought they most resembled angels in some aspects, Native Americans in others. 

[wingnutx]

I was also surprised to find that there is a single God, the One, and that he is so rarely mentioned.
 

The Silmarillion details that facet of the story.

[wingnutx]

Tolkien himself always denied that the LOTR was an allegory.

[Eleven Mike]

Tolkien himself always denied that the LOTR was an allegory.

Indeed. 

[grampster]

Let me second the motion that the movies are a good adaptation.  I read the books back in the late 70's when I was laid up with foot surgery.  I spent a couple weeks in an easy chair and continuously read all 4 four books.  I was aided in my immersion by modest doses of beer and specialized wildwood herbs.  It was a shining time.   

[Ben]

and specialized wildwood herbs.

Admit it -- it was Shireweed and you know it!!

[grampster]

Cough, ehem, ahhh.....I don't remember.

[Twycross]

Another vote for watching the movies. They do leave out a fair number of scenes for the sake of brevity, but overall stays rather true to the book.

I would also recommend reading the Silmarillion (and The Lays of Beleriand, and both Books of Lost Tales, and teaching yourself to speak elvish, but that is more than most people want).

[AZRedhawk44]

I'd recommend the movies.  Definitely the directors cuts.

It's like Peter Jackson descended into the bowels of my imagination and pulled the imagery for LOTR out of my own head.  so many places looked exactly as I would have thought, it was uncanny.

Any book that was actually written by JRR Tolkein is a good read, but stay away from anything vomited forth by Christopher Tolkein.  That leech has been living off his father's lifeless, unfleshed outlines of stories for decades.

Same thing goes for the Dune universe and Frank Herbert.  The son (Brian Herbert) cannot even write... he had to go out and get the assistance of such a literary pillar as Kevin Anderson (of such fame as Star Wars, X-Files, Titan A.E. and other works that other people created and he piggy-backed on) in order to resurrect the unfinished notes of his father's universe.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The movies are good.  I don't think any movie can compare to the original books, but the Peter Jackson flics make a good effort.  Reading the other books, especially The Silmirillian, is a much better use of your time than watching the movies, though.

[Werewolf]

That's interesting.  I'm puzzled that you could see the elves in a negative light.  If anything, I thought they most resembled angels in some aspects, Native Americans in others. 

Why puzzled?

The elves in LOTR were essentially (except for a few) superfluous to the victory over evil. Indeed - they were looked upon very favorably by humans and hobbits, not so much by dwarves and either ignored or despised by the other races. Their time had ended, they knew it and were in the process of leaving middle earth when the war started. Like the nobility of the mid 19th century their time and usefullness had passed.

In my experience most readers of the LOTR rings do see the elves in a positive light which I find hard to fathom. I do not view them in a positive light at all. They were arrogant, smug, elitists who generally either looked down on the other races or - at best - considered them children needing to be taken care of because they couldn't care for themselves - again - much like the nobility of 19th century Europe.

Even if - as one poster has pointed out - Tolkien did not consider the LOTR as an allegory for anything it is fairly easy to use it as one in many different ways. The comparison between the elves of LOTR and mid 19th century European nobility is just one example.

[Mannlicher]

I first read LOTR in 1964.  I guess I have all the associated books as well as several editions of LOTR.  The best published version in my humble opinion was the Unauthorized ACE Books set.  This is the first ones I read.
The movie?  Well, its better then nothing, and certainly better than the Ralph Bakshi version.  Still, there was no reason for so many changes, and changes that were not necessary for reasons of continuity, ease of production or because the changers produced a better product.  
That ugly twit that ruined Arwen's role was a travesty, as were all the other very innappropriate female actresses.
Leaving out The Scouring of the Shire was SO lame.  That small part was largely what the whole exercise was about in the first place.

[Cosmoline]

"LOTR" isn't really a religious allegory.  You may be thinking of CS Lewis' Narnia children's books.

In many ways, LOTR was a bridge between traditional fantasy literature and modern fantasy.  You can see the two traditions actually meet each other in the novels.  The Tom Bombadil character and the hobbit's journey through his enchanted woods is like something out of a Lord Dunsany story.  But the novels get much more serious as they go along.  Jackson rejects almost all of the "faery story" elements in the films, and even introduces romance. 

[Eleven Mike]

I was waiting for someone to bring up The Scouring.  I can see why they would leave it out.  After "Saving The World" tm down in Mordor, going home and kicking a few ruffians out of the Shire is anticlimactic.  Much more so on film than in prose.  When you're near the end of a long book (the whole "trilogy") you've got enough invested to want to know what's going to happen in the Shire.  But at the end of a 2-hour movie, it's not the same thing. 

[Eleven Mike]

"LOTR" isn't really a religious allegory.  You may be thinking of CS Lewis' Narnia children's books.

No, I'm not, and I didn't claim it was a religious allegory.  I know Tolkien denied any allegory in his books, but plenty of readers have found that the LOTR has Christian themes.  As you may know, Tolkien was quite the Catholic and one of those who influenced C.S. Lewis to turn from atheism to Christianity.  It would have been quite natural for Tolkien's Christian point of view to work itself into his masterpiece.

http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/threemon_articleThe%20Lord%20of%20the%20Rings.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Lord-Rings-Kurt-Bruner/dp/0842355715

[Eleven Mike]

arrogant, smug, elitists

  I never saw any of that.  But when someone is, what, several thousand years older than I, they might seem a little arrogant or elitist, and welcome to it.

I was only annoyed by the tendency of everyone, elves, hobbits, men, to carry on these long, boring songs in the middle of a good story.  But perhaps I'm just a smug elitist. 

[Ron]

In my experience most readers of the LOTR rings do see the elves in a positive light which I find hard to fathom. I do not view them in a positive light at all. They were arrogant, smug, elitists who generally either looked down on the other races or - at best - considered them children needing to be taken care of because they couldn't care for themselves - again - much like the nobility of 19th century Europe.

I always felt a little disappointed the Elves didn't help out more in the struggle against the darkness.

But it was the beginning of the age of man and they knew it, maybe they knew things would work themselves for the best.

I have read the books a couple times.

I thought the movies were great also.

[MechAg94]

You have to remember that the elves remembered Sauron's previous defeat personally.  They looked down on the short lives and short memories of men. 

At the end of LOTR, the two elvish nations attacked and defeated the remaining armies of the Necromancer's realm.  That was where Sauron was hiding out before he moved back to Mordor if I remember correctly.  Also, the elves supplied troops to help defend Helm's Deep from the Orc army. 

I actually got the impression that there weren't very many elves left. 


My biggest disappointment with the movie was how they treated the big battle at the gates of Gondor.  They had these little bitty catapults throwing 50 ton rocks a mile through the air.  The complete unreality of that just bugged me.  Then they had all those Trolls at the forefront of the battle within the walls of Gondor.  I thought that was unnecessary.  Later in front of the gates of Mordor, there were trolls again and I thought I saw sunlight also.  The trolls didn't turn to stone.  I really liked the first two movies and most of the 3rd, but the battle at the end of the 3rd movie really bugged me.