Wanting to try LotRs, but I is scared-ed

[Tower75]

Hi, all.

I'm been thinking for a while now about trying to delve into the world of Lord of the Rings/Middle Earth. However, I'm a little hesitant and I was wondering if my worries are founded.

I was in my early teens when Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings hit the cinema and that was my first taste of Tolkien's work. I'd never heard of the books, being about 13-14 summers old I just thought Lord of the Rings was a pretty impressive fantasy film. To my young eyes they'd never really been anything like it before.

Now, flash forward to 2014 and the world's been seeded with umpteen video games, films and "fan fluff" about Middle Earth and Tolkien's work.

My fear is that my "view" of Tolkien's work is all of the post-Peter Jackson ilk, not that I dislike it per se , I've seen all the films and I've played my share of Middle Earth games.

If I pick up the Fellowship of the Ring, for example, would I enjoy it as an untouched origin, the Middle Earth Prime if you will, or have I been so blasted by 10+ years of "Jackson LotRs" that the original novels be so far removed from what I think LotRs is, it'll ruin it for me?

 

[thaddeus6th]

I got the book after seeing the first film, I think. To be honest, I do prefer the films. However, I like The Silmarillion a lot (it's sort of a theogeny/bible of how Middle-Earth and other realms came about).

You can always try downloading a sample and see what you think.

 

[HareBrain]

I don't know about the effect of the films, but I personally think (blasphemy alert!) that if you don't first read LOTR as a teenager, you might have missed the boat. I love the books, but I think that if I read them for the first time now, I might well not get on with them.

On the other hand, I might.

Anyway, why not try it? Do you have such a short time to live that you have to be cautious about spending time with the first couple of chapters to see if you like it? Why would you rely on our opinions anyway?

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

I think you should read it. Be prepared for pages and pages of info dump about some king ancestors and useless drivel about things that don't seem to make any contribution to the plot. But if you approach it with a healthy disrespect for walls of text it makes a good read. (I am a picky fellow)

There are bits that were skipped from the film that should keep it fresh. I though the films kept pretty near the story line myself

You need to read it because if you don't you will get nothing from

"Bored of the Rings" a much more concise version to be read after the first.

Enjoy

 

[HareBrain]

You need to read it because if you don't you will get nothing from

"Bored of the Rings" a much more concise version to be read after the first.

Ha -- you're right, that is an excellent reason to read it.

 

[The Judge]

I can't recall when I first read TLotR** -- my only copy is a three volume affair published in 1984, but I'm pretty sure I knew the plot and everything well before the 1981 radio serial. Anyhow, I think I'd have had much the same reaction on a first read ten years ago as I did back in that dim and distant past, namely that some of the wordier bits went on a tad too long (though TEIN's comment about pages of info dump should be read knowing his propensity to tongue-in-cheek exaggeration), the Tom Bombadil stuff was interesting in parts but could be omitted without pain, and the lack of women in the book who actually do things said an awful lot about Tolkien and his attitudes to females generally. Overall, though, I loved it, and still do. However, I can well imagine for a younger person raised on a diet of crash-bang-wallop books, films and video games, it is going to seem somewhat slow, because it isn't an action book as such, it's a book about ideals and myth and sacrifice.

But I'd urge you to try it. Put the films completely out of your mind and read it for what it is.


** Pedant alert. There's a "The" in the title, folks. Remember it.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

i thought "Bored of the Rings" was a Spectrum game. It was the first computer RPG I played. "Would you like to jump off a cliff?" "YES" "You are now dead, would you like to experience resurrection?" "Umm... maybe."

I waded through the recent films and made my way through them - I couldn't get through the books. I personally found the world fantastic, characters flat and story dull. Personally I thought it was slow and I loved the likes of "What Katy Did" and "Little Women". However, if you don't like it you can always put it down. You maybe one one of the many who adore it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

However, I'm a little hesitant and I was wondering if my worries are founded.

Why not simply pick it up? It's hardly going to cost you much to do that.

Besides, while the film focused on covering characters and action, it never really brought to the fore the strength of his world-building and mythology. IMO the books felt far more epic than the films.

 

[River Boy]

I had the same dilemma with Last of the Mohicans. I liked the film so much I thought why bother reading the book, eventually I did and found it to be so much better and has left me with a desire to see it filmed properly, even though I can still enjoy the Michael Mann version. Perhaps you'll have a similar response.

I still think the main difference between TLOTR book and films is the characterisation. I disagreed with how many characters were interpreted by the actors and script writing, so maybe that would be the biggest boundary to overcome from watching the films first.

If you're curious though, as you seem to be, I'd ask what's the dilemma? Curiosity is the key to reading and usually if you're curious indulging in it is a rewarding experience rather than a disappointing one. Also the books are more about experiencing the world of Middle Earth as opposed to just experiencing the action that occurs within a plot, which is what Jackson goes for.

 

[Boaz]

I agree with Thad that you might enjoy jumping into The Silmarillion. It goes from Creation up until about 6,000 years before the War of the Ring. It deals with the God of Tolkien's universe, his angels, the rebellion of Melkor, the appearance of Elves, the rebellion of Feanor, the appearance of Men, and the heroes of the First Age during the wars with Morgoth.

I also agree a bit with Hare... there is a magic to be found in reading fantasy before you are an adult. I know John Carter is schlock, but I read it when I was thirteen.... so I'll always love him.

River, I agree completely regarding Last of the Mohicans. Why would Hollywood go through all that to name a movie after the book when they've changed all the pertinent facts of the story? If the movie was titled, The Forest Fox, Revenge, The Limit, Extremities, Coming of Age, or even Frontier Adventure During the French and Indian War, I'd not have a problem with it. But Michael Mann redid all the romances and half the motivations... even so, I liked it.

Tower, the same is true for The Lord of the Rings... in my opinion. What if you saw something called Peter Jackson's Epic Fantasy Movie inspired by The Lord of the Rings. Would you still have concerns about reading The Lord of the Rings? Or would that actually want to make you go and read Tolkien? I'm going to state right here that Jackson never understood what motivated Gandalf, Theoden, Aragorn, Elrond, Faramir, Denethor, Treebeard.... in fact he does not understand anyone who's actually in charge of anything... and that's baffling because he was the lead guy on these movies.

For instance, in The Two Towers why did Gandalf and Aragorn encourage Theoden to meet Saruman's army in open battle? Everyone knew the Uruk-hai outnumbered them at least four to one. Even with their superior mobility and speed, the Rohirrim would have been foolish to just let the orcs take the Hornburg (Helm's Deep)... they'd never have rooted them out.

For instance, Jackson wanted to show Aragorn's decision making process and strengthening of will, I get it. But Aragorn had already committed himself to become the King of Arnor and Gondor and become engaged to Arwen thirty-eight years before the Black Riders entered the Shire. There was no longer any doubt about his purpose or his goal.

For instance, Elrond despises Aragorn in the film. Wait! From Third Age 1976 - 3019 (that's 1,034 years) Elrond has hidden, protected and cherished Aragorn's family. Why? Because they are the descendants of his long dead twin brother.

For instance, Aragorn let Gimli lounge upon the throne of Gondor (or was that Denethor's seat)... either way the disrespect is enormous. Sure, Denethor was insane. But the Stewards of Gondor held Aragorn's inheritance in place for him for the last thousand years! And if it was Aragorn's future throne and the ancient royal throne of his forebearers.... why would Jackson let Gimli lounge upon it? Would Gimli have stood by while Merry and Pippin used Balin's sarcophagus as a jungle gym?

For instance, Treebeard has no clue of Saruman's predations nor any inclination to help, but calls an Entmoot anyway. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? An ignorant and apathetic Treebeard would have been an anathema to Tolkien.

And Faramir was the worst representation of all. Jackson makes him like Boromir. No, Faramir was the anti-Boromir. He is patient and wise. He binds himself to his promise. He is as noble as Aragorn.

In all fairness to Jackson, I loved The Fellowship of the Ring. I loved the shot of the moon over Henneth Annun. I loved the shots of The Charge of the Rohirrim. Sean Bean, Ian McKellan, Brad Dourif, Liv Tyler (and I don't even like Liv Tyler), Miranda Otto and Christopher Lee, were about as perfect as perfect can be. And Samwise's fight with Shelob encapsulated so much of the major theme of Tolkien... fight the good fight no matter the odds, do it for your friend, do it for your country, do it 'cause it's right... and you just might get a bit of supernatural help along the way. That scene alone was worth it.

But in a film adaptation, characters and scenes get cut. There are some memorable minor characters: the Gaffer, Ioreth, Beregond, Bergil, Fatty Bolger, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Bill Ferny, Quickbeam, Tom Cotton, Barliman Butterbur...

Tower, just remember Tolkien is not writing a gritty, acton packed tell-all. He's creating a legend... so there are no sordid details about the heroes. The only one might be Turin (in The Silmarillion), if you consider him a hero.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I watched the cartoon version before reading the book. I'm glad I read it but I did find it padded and dumpy in parts.

 

[ratsy]

I haven't read these yet...which is very odd since I love me some epic fantasy. I asked for the collection a couple of Christmases ago, and got them. I read The Hobbit right away and loved it, but have yet to make the plunge into the LOTRs

Once my TBR pile is a little cleaner I plan on getting to them, so I think by the end of 2015 i will have read them. Its scary to have a reading schedule, but there is so much out there.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The books are much different from the film; as is the case in 99% of book-to-movie adaptations. Having watched the films first you will be surprised at some of the things that happen in the book, but you will have a much better idea as to the look and feel of some of the places, such as Minas Titrith and Moria. It is to Tolkien's credit that these places are so well described to paint a picture in the mind's eye that when you see them in film they look no different. But it was awesome to gave on such places in the films.


One area in which books can usually better movies is that you get to know more about the characters; their hopes and fears, their aspirations and the reason why they do what they do. As much as I love TLOTR, most of the characters are two-dimensional, and it is very much a case of evil characters being evil, and good characters being good with very little in between . For me the books are more about describing an amazing fantasy world , wonderful creatures and exciting, often scary adventures; that doesn't make it any worse than say Donaldson's The Land, with characters like Covenant of who we know all their inner feelings - it is just different. And for that reason many like or dislike it.

But yes read the books, if only to get the proper story and more importantly the proper ending.

 

[Tower75]

Think I'm convinced, Sample's downloaded to the Kindle.

 

[Boaz]

Tower, please enjoy. Happy reading. Don't hurry.... but I think we'd all like to read your assessment.

 

[G.D. Lascelle]

Hi Tower, I haven't got a lot to add to what others have said really.

Personally I loved the films despite their flaws. I think Jackson got as close visually to Tolkein's vision of Middle Earth as it would be reasonable to expect without actually having had Tolkein's brain transplanted. I will never forget watching the Fellowship of the Ring and catching sight of the Argonath, as the fellowship travelled down the great river, and the first sight of Jackson's Minas Tirith. They were so like the images I had in my head since first reading the books at the age of 14 some 30+ years before, I actually felt the hair on my arms stand up.

On the other hand the problems that some have mentioned with some of the character's motivations are also true. His interpretations of Faramir and Elrond being the worst. The second of those I believe came from his desire to have a female character who was not just the cardboard cut out that Tolkein had created. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that beefing up Arwen's role did violence to the historical context of Middle Earth and hence to Elrond's motives.

The books on the other hand are rich and full of depth, and have a sense of the grand epic sweep of history. They are overwritten in places, wordy, and some of the characters are not as fully developed as they could be but my imagination has always more than made up for any lack. I can't imagine what it would have been like coming to the books after the films, but I am looking forward to reading about your experience.

 

[J Riff]

It is a worthwhile study in how to write a trilogy. The first 50 pages build the world beautifully and completely. There are some large blocks like TEIN said but once it gets going it's very good.

 

[Boaz]

I think Jackson got as close visually to Tolkein's vision of Middle Earth as it would be reasonable to expect without actually having had Tolkein's brain transplanted. I will never forget watching the Fellowship of the Ring and catching sight of the Argonath, as the fellowship travelled down the great river, and the first sight of Jackson's Minas Tirith. They were so like the images I had in my head since first reading the books at the age of 14 some 30+ years before, I actually felt the hair on my arms stand up.

Amen.

On the other hand the problems that some have mentioned with some of the character's motivations are also true. His interpretations of Faramir and Elrond being the worst.

All too true.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I read it about 1968 ...
But I think in all but rare cases Films and Books are complementary. A Film shouldn't really be the same as the book if you want to make a good film. Also some of us have our own real time MGI built in and don't need CGI.
Similarly a novelization of a Film needs a good author and can be better or worse than film.

If you are a keen avid reader generally you'll prefer the source books. If you don't read much you'll find The Lord of the Rings a bit heavy and Silmarilion like reading the entire Old Testament in a week. IMO the Silmarilion is deliberately as if written by many people long ago in archaic styles. The Hobbit is in the most Accessible English. The Lord of the Rings is excellent if you like Epic Fantasy. If you can read more than 10 volumes of Wheel of Time or more than three of the Thomas Covenant Chronicles without giving up you'll really enjoy The Lord of the Rings. The Silmarilion is more different from The Lord of the Rings than the Hobbit is in the other direction. A slight echo of it (not in the same league) is the Riven Codex.

 

[Boaz]

Silmarilion like reading the entire Old Testament in a week.

I agree and yet disagree. The Silmarillion does not have chapter upon chapter of laws regarding cleanliness, censuses, genealogies, listing of tribal gifts for the Tabernacle, and prophecies. But there are huge sections of the OT where the narrative just goes and goes... and that is how The Silmarillion is like the OT.

As a theology professor once told me, "All scripture is equally inspired, but not equally inspiring."

For me, the extended personal stories of Beren and Turin, but also of Tuor and Earendil, are Tolkien's homage to Beowulf and other Norse/Germanic epics. Or perhaps the stories of these heroes show an influence of the book of Judges... Samson, Gideon, Ehud, and Deborah.

Edit: I think there are certain people and works that are crucial to a person's understanding of a particular field of interest.

Imagine someone claiming to be an avid soccer fan, but not knowing who Pele is. Imagine someone writing a thesis on Elizabethan theatre and never mentioning Shakespeare. Imagine someone extolling the works of Michaelangelo, yet never having seen the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I think if a person wants to speak intelligently of fantasy literature and yet has never read Tolkien, then their understanding of the tropes, purpose, and evolution of the genre is critically flawed.

And that is the reason why I read The Eye of the World, the first book in the series The Waste... oops, I mean, The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan. After Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, it must be the most read fantasy series. I cannot speak intelligently of the entire series, but I can say I know where the story started, who some of the principal characters are, and what I think the main themes are.

Fantasy lit has grown greatly in popularity, volume, and in method during my life. I cannot keep abreast of all authors... even the best. Of the fifty-three featured authors on the Chrons, I've only read books by twenty-nine of them... and only multiple books by ten of them. I don't consider myself an expert (especially at sci-fi), but I do think I have a decent perspective of fantasy from reading Tolkien, MacDonald, Lewis, and Howard and that I see where it is now from reading Jordan, Martin, Abercrombie, Erikson, and Rothfuss.

So merely to say that you are informed, I'd recommend The Lord of the Rings.