The Lord of the Rings

[AlishaIsMyName]

It's so cool. Once you pick it up, how can you not read it? ;)

It was written as one book but published in six; and these six books are contained within three volumes. They are named so:

#1 The Fellowship of the Ring
Very short Summary:
The forming and deeds of the Fellowship (Gandalf, Legolas, Boromir, Gimli, Aragorn, Meriadoc, Peregrin, Samwise and Ringbearer Frodo) are recorded in this one.

#2 The Two Towers
Very short Summary:
Orthanc and Baradur (he two towers) have an associasion. Trouble will tramp out of Isenguard...

# 3 The Return of the King
Very short Summary:
Recollecting the great and amazing deeds of the remaining Fellowship, the final stand against The Enemy and the coronation pf Lord Aragorn.

[Granny5]

If I had to pick my favorite books, it would be The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. I've read them about 10 times since I was twelve and get something new out of them every read.

[AlishaIsMyName]

Good! :D

I've just read "The Lord of the Rings" for the first time not long ago, and "The Hobbit" a couple of times. They're my faves, too. :)

[manolia]

The lord of the rings is my favourite book too :D I have read it 3 times. Two times in greek and one in english :)

[Hira]

I was truly obsessed with Lord of the Rings once. Read 4-5 times. One of my favourite books still! And everything else written by Tolkien (haven't read the History of the MiddleEarth though). I am forgetting a bit of the lore now.:(
Still one of the best books!

[bazarov]

What is the purpose of this thread?

[Hira]

What the title says?

[AlishaIsMyName]

The purpose of thsi thread is to discuss "The Lord of The Rings." I put it in book recommendations as I recommend it.

[Splendour]

I love it and read it for like 4-5 times along with the Silmarillions and the Unfinished Tales. But of course, I must say the book is hard for any random person coming across it to pick up, the first part of the Fellowship is downright boring.

[Tersely]

I've seen the movies but never read it. I think I'm the only one left in the world. But I do own the nice hardback version of every book thanks to the hubby. He loves em.

[AlishaIsMyName]

I must agree with Splendour on some things. Any random person can not merely pick up the book, they must have just a little experience with reading because it is a complex and entwining story filled to the brim with wonderful details on everything including locations, characters and history. But I do not agree with the first half of FOTR being boring. This is where each character (some of the characters, I should say) start off. Throught the story, people change. They do things later they'd be uncapable at the start, and Tolkien really made it so that you can feel that very gradual developement. I mean, later on (ROTK) Frodo's all like "Don't worry about tomorrow... it probably won't come, anyway." or something like that. He's got this "I'm saving the world or I'll die trying." attitude that was definetly gradually developped.

[PeterL]

But of course, I must say the book is hard for any random person coming across it to pick up, the first part of the Fellowship is downright boring.

I'm a bit surprised that anyone would find the beginning of the Fellowship boring, especially someone who has read it trilogy more than once. The beginning sets the scene and shows what the conflict is about. Together with "The Harrowing of the Shire" in The Return of the King, the beginning gives completion to the novel as a whole. I really missed the Harrowing in the movie, and I think that it was a mistake for that part to be left out.

I do agree that not everyone enjoys the LotR.

[Splendour]

I'm sorry have I left a wrong impression? Let me clearfy myself. First of all, I DID find the first part boring, and that was on the first read. But what I meant in my post was that any random person would be very bored in the first part of Fellowship because there is much less action (if you compare it to the later parts) and one will be highly confused. And that part lasts more than 200 pages or so, past the normal 50 pages limit for "boringness" allowed in a new book.

[Idril]

I'm sorry have I left a wrong impression? Let me clearfy myself. First of all, I DID find the first part boring, and that was on the first read.

I found it boring too. I've read it many times, I count it among my all time favorite books but there were a few times in the first half of FOTR when I was ready to put it down but I kept with it, of course and was richly rewarded. I found the pacing to be a little slow in the beginning and the course kind of meandering, I didn't feel it had a lot of focus until they got to Bree and met Strider. You know what the beginning of FOTR reminds me of? The Hobbit and it's probably not surprising that I didn't enjoy that book as much as LOTR. :p

[Shea]

I love LOTR! I agree, PeterL, that the harrowing of the Shire should have been left in the movie. It shows all other hobbits what could have been and you really get a sense from the book that they understood and appreciated what the other 4 went through, especially Frodo. I kind of felt that in the movie, because you see that the 4 are satisfied with the fact that they were able to preserve the hobbit way of life, but honestly, the book leaves a much stronger impression.

[Shea]

I hope that made sense, I'm having trouble stringing coherent sentences together today.

[Kent Edwins]

I think the first part of the Fellowship was boring for me my first time through. However, it proved to be a favorite of subsequent reads. It's so lighthearted, and then the books gets dark until the end.

I liked the Scouring of the Shire and saw it as pretty essential to the book's resolution. I'm still baffled as to why it was left out?

[PeterL]

But what I meant in my post was that any random person would be very bored in the first part of Fellowship because there is much less action (if you compare it to the later parts) and one will be highly confused. And that part lasts more than 200 pages or so, past the normal 50 pages limit for "boringness" allowed in a new book.

I suppose that the first section might be boring for someone who expects that there should be constant action, but I didn't find it boring the first time I read the book. Perhaps am that atypical.

[PeterL]

I hope that made sense, I'm having trouble stringing coherent sentences together today.

That made perfect sense. The movie didn't complete everything that it started, and it didn't really tell the same story as the novel did.

[PeterL]

I hope that made sense, I'm having trouble stringing coherent sentences together today.

That made perfect sense. The movie didn't complete everything that it started, and it didn't really tell the same story as the novel did.

[Idril]

I suppose that the first section might be boring for someone who expects that there should be constant action, but I didn't find it boring the first time I read the book. Perhaps am that atypical.

I think it just all depends on what you, personally respond to. I don't have patience with meandering, with light hearted adventure and I feel bad about that, I really do. I recognize there is so much great literature I miss because the whole time I'm thinking, "Where is this going and when is it going to get there?". It's not that I need constant action really, I just need to feel things are moving forward and I didn't feel that upon the first read through. In subsequent readings, I've felt a little more tolerant of it but I still skip passages here and there. :blush:

I think the beginning of LOTR and the end, the Scouring of the Shire were perfect bookends. The book ended in the same place and the same tone as it began, it brings such a nice sense of completion and resolution. That said, I did find it a little anti-climatic but still, I can recognize the genius of the form and it really was wonderful to read about the successes of the 3 Hobbits and to know that they were forever changed by the journey and unlike Frodo, for the better.

[PeterL]

I think it just all depends on what you, personally respond to. I don't have patience with meandering, with light hearted adventure and I feel bad about that, I really do. I recognize there is so much great literature I miss because the whole time I'm thinking, "Where is this going and when is it going to get there?". It's not that I need constant action really, I just need to feel things are moving forward and I didn't feel that upon the first read through. In subsequent readings, I've felt a little more tolerant of it but I still skip passages here and there. :blush:

I once almost made the mistake of putting aside a book, because the beginning was dull. I decided to persevere for a few more pages, and I was rewarded. I haven't read LOTR recently, so I don't recall the beginning in perfect detail, but I just didn't find it dull. I found it to be well written and descriptive of a land that was worth knowing about. Tolkein didn't write the beginning just to fill space. Some of the things that oyu skipped over might have related to something that happened later.



I think the beginning of LOTR and the end, the Scouring of the Shire were perfect bookends. The book ended in the same place and the same tone as it began, it brings such a nice sense of completion and resolution. That said, I did find it a little anti-climatic but still, I can recognize the genius of the form and it really was wonderful to read about the successes of the 3 Hobbits and to know that they were forever changed by the journey and unlike Frodo, for the better.

It is my opinion that the beginning and the Scouring were the main parts of the book. The rest was development toward the Scouring. Remember how little things about the Shire came in now and then that suggested that things weren't well there? As you wrote, the ending resolved the conflict.

[aabbcc]

I cannot swallow it, I really dislike Lord of the Rings, and going through it equalled a torture for me. I supposedly have read the trilogy when I was much younger (with large parts only skimmed), however, I found it to be so incredibly boring that I do not remember much. In addition, I have watched the film (or films? I do not know...) - or at least I attempted to - but the overall experience was equally as bad as trying to read it. All I know about trilogy is a very brief outline of the story, and that there is some Arwen who dies in the - I think - appendix of the last book. I also think she was an elf. And that she was in love with some human guy whose name I cannot remember. And such few random details are what had remained in me of that book. All I feel about trilogy is a clear remembrance of boredom spreading all over me.

Unfortunately, I own not one but two sets of the trilogy, one of which I got in translation for a birthday when I was much younger by some friend, another one which I got as an award on some competition or something of the kind, and this one is in English. Both of them would now be in somebody else's collections had they not had written dedication to me, so I find it to be somewhat inappropriate to just give them to somebody, even though at times I wish they would be of some use to somebody who likes them, since they only collect dust in my library, somewhere behind the books I read, "hidden", as I never use them. Or used. Below the dust they probably still have that smell of a fabric and of a never-opened new book. (When I attempted to read it I was reading a copy from library, as it was before I had any set.)

So I suppose it just is not my cup of tea... It is possible not to like it. ;)

[Idril]

Tolkein didn't write the beginning just to fill space. Some of the things that oyu skipped over might have related to something that happened later.

Oh, I've read it in full. I've only skipped passages here and there during subsequent rereads. I've read it many times, sometimes I read it through word for word and sometimes I don't but I do at least know what is of significance and what isn't. ;) An interesting thing I read about the writing of LOTR in the History of Middle-earth series is that he really didn't have any idea of the big picture when he started writing. He started off writing a sequel to The Hobbit and continued in that vein without any real thought to where it would go. And of course as the darker tone took shape and he realized this wasn't going to be The Hobbit 2 he did many rewrites but I still feel that hesitation...that's not quite the right word...lack of focus and a clear intent in those early chapters.


It is my opinion that the beginning and the Scouring were the main parts of the book. The rest was development toward the Scouring.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I've never seen it that way but I think that is more colored by the fact that I'm just more fascinated by the world of Men and Elves than the world of the Hobbits. I do remember the hints that all was not well in the Shire and it's clear that the idyllic world and way of life of the Hobbits was a very intregal and emotional part of the novel.


So I suppose it just is not my cup of tea... It is possible not to like it.

Of course it's possible, as you say, it's not everyone's cup of tea. ;)

[Stardust97]

Well, The Hobbit is the best, in my opinion. I couldn't finish the second book, so I stopped. Good for light-reading, but not when your feeling bored. LOL :D

[Stardust97]

Well, I guess The fellowship of the ring was great. So was the Hobbit. But, I lost interest after that. I understand u PeterL. Totally...

[JBI]

A snore fest best left unread in my opinion. I don't care how much work he put into it, a story with that slow a development, that many boring characters, and essentially no real purpose or relevant themes is mediocre.

[1n50mn14]

I am a personal fan of LOTR. I read those books probably in Grade 4 and about 1000 times since, aha. I appreciate the richly crafted world, I fall into it every single time. The history, the descriptions, it's so vibrant and enthralling.

[farnoosh]

i havent read it yet .i dont know if i should read it or not because my english is not very good.
what do you say?

[andave_ya]

I love it I love it I love it I love it I love it I love it.

:D

[farnoosh]

thatnk you andave.
is there anyone else who loves it?

[Shea]

i havent read it yet .i dont know if i should read it or not because my english is not very good.
what do you say?

As with anything, I say, give it a try. It's well worth the read. But, if you find yourself feeling lost, try putting it aside for a while, until your English is stronger.

[Shea]

no real purpose or relevant themes

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: You either never read it through, or are too young to understand what Tolkien was saying.

[B-Mental]

OK.....may I say? Frodo...whatever. Sam Gamgee...pure gold roxtar of the books. He NEVER let the ring corrupt him, and he carried the burden of the world....in his little hobbit arms to the point that THE WORLD OF MAN SURVIVES...that is heroism...

Why does Frodo go with the Elves, and why does Sam not go?

[AimusSage]

OK.....may I say? Frodo...whatever. Sam Gamgee...pure gold roxtar of the books. He NEVER let the ring corrupt him, and he carried the burden of the world....in his little hobbit arms to the point that THE WORLD OF MAN SURVIVES...that is heroism...

Why does Frodo go with the Elves, and why does Sam not go?
But doesn't Sam, at the end of his life, which was still ahead of him at the time, go to the grey harbour and also took the ferry? :D He was last seen by Elanor.

Which reminds me, I have to re-read the entire trilogy. The movies have befuzzled my memory of them.

[papayahed]

OK.....may I say? Frodo...whatever. Sam Gamgee...pure gold roxtar of the books. He NEVER let the ring corrupt him, and he carried the burden of the world....in his little hobbit arms to the point that THE WORLD OF MAN SURVIVES...that is heroism...

I've always thought that as well.




Why does Frodo go with the Elves, and why does Sam not go?

Rosie Cotton.

[Rogers_68]

I've never read any of these books. Do I need to start with The Hobbit or is it OK to start with the LotR trilogy?

[Stardust97]

LOTR is something I really want to read, but never can finish.:flare:

[Aeltya]

I've never read any of these books. Do I need to start with The Hobbit or is it OK to start with the LotR trilogy?

It's easier if you start with the Hobbit since it lays the foundation, is shorter, and is a somewhat easier read. There is so much history in LOTR that it helps to go in armed, so to speak.

[Idril]

I've never read any of these books. Do I need to start with The Hobbit or is it OK to start with the LotR trilogy?

You really wouldn't need to read The Hobbit first, I started with LOTR and didn't have any trouble. Of course it does introduce a few characters, Bilbo, Gandalf, Gollum, Elrond and a few others and it does contain the finding of the Ring but you won't have any problem understanding the story if you skip it. But remember, if it seems a little dull in the beginning, don't lose heart. ;) :p :lol:

[Shalot]

I've never read any of these books. Do I need to start with The Hobbit or is it OK to start with the LotR trilogy?

I tried reading The Hobbit first and I never could finish until I read The Lord of the Rings. After I read LOTR, I wanted to know as much as I could about where the ring came from etc.

I think LOTR is much better. But I've heard other people say that they can read the Hobbit but not Lord of the Rings. I myself don't understand that because there is more going on in LOTR and it's just overall, a wonderful wonderful book.

[Idril]

I think LOTR is much better. But I've heard other people say that they can read the Hobbit but not Lord of the Rings. I myself don't understand that because there is more going on in LOTR and it's just overall, a wonderful wonderful book.

I'm totally with you there. I found The Hobbit so hard to get through and I feel really bad about that, I really do but that's just the way was for me.

[PeterL]

Oh, I've read it in full. I've only skipped passages here and there during subsequent rereads. I've read it many times, sometimes I read it through word for word and sometimes I don't but I do at least know what is of significance and what isn't. ;) An interesting thing I read about the writing of LOTR in the History of Middle-earth series is that he really didn't have any idea of the big picture when he started writing. He started off writing a sequel to The Hobbit and continued in that vein without any real thought to where it would go. And of course as the darker tone took shape and he realized this wasn't going to be The Hobbit 2 he did many rewrites but I still feel that hesitation...that's not quite the right word...lack of focus and a clear intent in those early chapters.

The best books write themselves, regardless of what the author may try to do.


That's an interesting way to look at it. I've never seen it that way but I think that is more colored by the fact that I'm just more fascinated by the world of Men and Elves than the world of the Hobbits. I do remember the hints that all was not well in the Shire and it's clear that the idyllic world and way of life of the Hobbits was a very intregal and emotional part of the novel.

I found the worlds of men and elves interesting, but he got the history wrong. In the real war, it was men, dwarves, and halflings against the elves, horrible, primitive, cannibalistic creatures.

[andave_ya]

You're welcome, farnoosh.


I found the worlds of men and elves interesting, but he got the history wrong. In the real war, it was men, dwarves, and halflings against the elves, horrible, primitive, cannibalistic creatures.

Wait, what? How's that? Men against the ethereal Elves? When? And I'm not talking about Legolas, either.


OK.....may I say? Frodo...whatever. Sam Gamgee...pure gold roxtar of the books. He NEVER let the ring corrupt him, and he carried the burden of the world....in his little hobbit arms to the point that THE WORLD OF MAN SURVIVES...that is heroism...

Mmhmm. I agree with you whole heartedly. Much as I succeed in telling myself I like Frodo, I always have an underlying suspicion that he's a wimp -- white-collar intellectual regardless. Book Sam, however, is much better than movie Sam.

[PeterL]

Wait, what? How's that? Men against the ethereal Elves? When? And I'm not talking about Legolas, either.


Long before the dawn of history, when men had to fight their some near relatives, and ally with others, for dominance and for survival, allied with Dwarves they fought against the filthy, cannibalistic, but lovely voiced Elves and defeated them. Tolkien wasn't familiar with the actual events, only with the idealized stories that turned the story upside down. Today little is known about what Elves really were like, except that they were small, pale skinned, and had pleasant voices with which they could seduce people into thinking they were good.

[Idril]

Book Sam, however, is much better than movie Sam.

You can say that almost all the characters. :p

I really do believe that Sam is the heart of the novel. His strength isn't the same kind of strength as Aragorn or Eomer or Legolas but it's a much more valuable and rare strength. Everybody had their part to play but without Sam, it would've been all for naught.

[Dori]

I tried reading The Hobbit first and I never could finish until I read The Lord of the Rings. After I read LOTR, I wanted to know as much as I could about where the ring came from etc.

I think LOTR is much better. But I've heard other people say that they can read the Hobbit but not Lord of the Rings. I myself don't understand that because there is more going on in LOTR and it's just overall, a wonderful wonderful book.


I'm totally with you there. I found The Hobbit so hard to get through and I feel really bad about that, I really do but that's just the way was for me.


I've read The Hobbit three times already and it's one of my favorite books. LoTR, on the other hand, I have yet to finish. I quit at the end of The Two Towers.
I'll probably end up reading The Hobbit again this year. :)

[Idril]

I've read The Hobbit three times already and it's one of my favorite books. LoTR, on the other hand, I have yet to finish. I quit at the end of The Two Towers.
I'll probably end up reading The Hobbit again this year. :)

It's funny because I've known so many people who like one or the other and not as many people who like both equally. They are just so different.