The Lord of the Rings (The Lord of the Rings, #1-3)

ISBN: 0618517650
ISBN 13: 9780618517657
By: J.R.R. Tolkien

Check Price Now

Genres

Classic Classics Currently Reading Fantasy Favorites Favourites Fiction Sci Fi Fantasy To Read Tolkien

About this book

The Fellowship of the Ring, part one of J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic masterpiece, first reached these shores on October 21, 1954, arriving, as C. S. Lewis proclaimed, “like lightning from a clear sky.” Fifty years and nearly one hundred million American readers later comes a beautiful new one-volume collector’s edition befitting the stature of this crown jewel of our list. With a text fully corrected under the supervision of Christopher Tolkien to meet the author’s exacting wishes, two large-format fold-out maps, a ribbon placemarker, gilded page edges, a color insert depicting Tolkien's own paintings of the Book of Mazarbul and exceptionally elegant and sturdy overall packaging housed within an attractive slipcase, this edition is the finest we’ve ever produced.

Reader's Thoughts

Paul

Wow - I have just stumbled on this fantastic quote about Tolkien from China Mieville (via GR friends Traveller and Cecily!) and it absolutely sums up the problem with Tolkien - even though I read him many years ago and even though I was enthralled and read him all over again, every word here is true :"Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.That is a revolting idea, and one, thankfully, that plenty of fantasists have ignored. From the Surrealists through the pulps - via Mervyn Peake and Mikhael Bulgakov and Stefan Grabinski and Bruno Schulz and Michael Moorcock and M. John Harrison and I could go on - the best writers have used the fantastic aesthetic precisely to challenge, to alienate, to subvert and undermine expectations." - China Mieville

Audrey *Ebook and Romance Lover*

January 11th, 2014Lord of The Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien better surprise me :)Loved the movies and also the two hobbit ones that were recently made :)Its 1,178 pages...so wish me luck my friends! I know this will be a five star for me. It might take me a month at least.

Manny

Considering that The Lord of the Rings is one of the most popular books of the last century, it's surprising to see how few reviews there are here. I get the impression that many people feel guilty about liking it. It's a phase you go through, and the less said about it, the better. I think this is unfair to the book, which, I am prepared to argue, is a whole lot better than it's generally made out to be; I don't think its huge success is just evidence that people have no taste. It's something that can be read at more than one level, and, before dismissing it, let's take a look at what those levels might be. On the surface, it's a heroic fantasy novel, and quite a good one. It's a gripping, well-realized story, with an interesting fantasy world as background. Under the surface story, it's also clear that there's a moral discourse. It's not an allegory; as Tolkien points out in the foreword, he hated allegory, and we certainly don't have an in-your-face piece of Christian apology by numbers. None the less, the author has constructed some inspiring and thought-provoking symbols. The Ring confers great power, but the only way to defeat Sauron is to refuse that power, and destroy it, even at great personal cost. Frodo's self-sacrifice is quite moving. I also think that Gandalf is an unusually interesting Christ-figure; sufficiently so that many people refuse even to accept him as one, though, at least to me, the argument on that point seems convincing. He comes from Valinor, obviously the Heavenly Realm, to help the Free Peoples of the West. A central part of his message is the importance of mercy, as, in particular, shown by the memorable scene near the beginning, when he rebukes Frodo for wishing that Bilbo had killed Sméagol when he had the opportunity. As we discover, Sméagol is finally the one person who can destroy the Ring. And let's not miss the obvious point that Gandalf is killed, and then returns reborn in a new shape. I find him vastly more sympathetic than C.S. Lewis's bland Aslan, and he is the book's most memorable character.But I don't think the morality play is the real kernel either. What makes LOTR a unique book, and one of the most ambitious experiments in literary history, is Tolkien's use of names. All authors knows how important names are, and use them to suggest character; though when you think about what is going on, it is rather surprising how much can be conveyed just by a name. Proust has a couple of long discussions about this, describing in great detail how the narrator's initial mental pictures of Balbec, Venice and the Guermantes family come just from the sounds of their names. Tolkien goes much further. Most of his names are based on a family of invented languages, linked by a vast complex of legends and histories, the greater part of which are invisible to the reader and only surface occasionally. The astonishing thing is that the technique actually works. The interrelations between all the invented names and languages make Middle-Earth feel real, in a way no other fantasy world ever has. When some readers complain that characters and locations are hastily sketched, I feel they are missing the point. Tolkien was a philologist. He loved languages, words and names, and tracing back what the relationships between them say about their history. In LOTR, he's able to convey some of that love of language to his readers. You have to read the book more than once, but after a while it all comes together. To give just a few obvious examples, you see how "hobbit" is a debased form of the word holbytla ("hole-dweller") in the Old Norse-like language of Rohan, how the "mor" in "Moria" is the same as the one in "Mordor" and "morgul", and how Arwen Undómiel's name expresses her unearthly beauty partly through the element it shares with her ancestor Lúthien Tinúviel. There are literally hundred more things like this, most of which one perceives on a partly unconscious level. The adolescent readers who are typically captivated by LOTR are at a stage of their linguistic development when they are very sensitive to nuances of language, and programmed to pick them up; I can't help thinking that they are intuitively seeing things that more sophisticated readers may miss.Perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate the magnitude of Tolkien's achievement is the fact that it's proven impossible to copy it; none of the other fantasy novels I've seen have come anywhere close. Tolkein's names lend reality to his world, because he put so much energy into the linguistic back-story, and before that worked for decades as a philologist. Basically, he was an extremely talented person who spent his whole life training to write The Lord of the Rings. In principle, I suppose other authors could have done the same thing. In practice, you have to be a very unusual person to want to live that kind of life.Writing this down reminds me of one of the Sufi stories in The Pleasantries of the Incredible Mullah Nasrudin. The guy is invited to a posh house, and sees this incredibly beautiful, smooth lawn. It's like a billiard table. "I love your lawn!" he says. "What's the secret?""Oh," his host says, "It's easy. Just seed, water, mow and roll regularly, and anyone can do it!""Ah yes!" says the visitor, "And about how long before it looks like that?""Hm, I don't know," says the host. "Maybe... 800 years?"

Tyler

This trilogy, which really is just one book divided into 6 parts (like acts), is one of the most amazing written works ever produced. Tolkien is a genuine genius in bringing about a story that touches every genre: humor, mystery, action, fantasy, war, sci-fi, romance...it's all in there. It's beautifully crafted, very consistent, and even has multiple languages, one of which is a complete language created by Tolkien for this story. Many might think that the beginning of the story is slow, but one must read and take in all the foreshadowing that Tolkien introduces in the first two parts. The beginning is the most powerful and interesting of it all--which is saying a lot.Last, but not least, for those who think watching the films allow one to experience the story: You're wrong. While the films are rich and very powerful, the different medium does not allow for comparisons. What you will find in the written story is so fulfilling--in different ways. Do not let that deter you from picking up this book and experiencing what many others love to experience time and time again.

Brad

Twenty-five years ago I'd have given The Lord of the Rings my highest possible praise. I came to Tolkien's masterpiece on my own, and that meant much to me at twelve. The only books that had been reached by me alone were books on mythology and horror. Everything else I read, from DH Lawrence to Hemingway to Dickens to Shakespeare (and this also included Dracula and Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde because they were "true" classics), was suggested and sanctioned by my mother (for which I will always owe her deeply).But The Lord of the Rings was mine and mine alone. It is easy to forget that The Lord of the Rings was not a pop culture phenomenon in the seventies and early eighties. It was a fringe book (at least in North America), something that was not yet considered a part of the canon, something that was not a name on every boy's lips (even if they were just getting to know D&D) let alone every child's lips. Sure it was respected and loved by those who knew it, but knowing it was not a foregone conclusion as it is today, and its audience was almost completely genre oriented. In my little community (my school and the blocks surrounding my home), I was the first kid to read it.And that first reading was a revelation. Sure I'd read The Hobbit, but that didn't prepare me for the breadth and depth of The Lord of the Rings. Middle Earth in its grandest incarnation. To create a fantasy world is one thing, but to breathe life into ages of that world, to keep all the pieces together with such magnificent detail and rigour, to create character after believable character and make us care about most of them, even poor Smeagol/Gollum, that is a literary labour of Hercules. And by pulling it off, Tolkien created the single most important manifestation of Fantasy that has ever and will ever be written. The Lord of the Rings has rightly been named a classic. It is part of the canon, and it deserves its place. It is entertaining, it is weighty, and it is loved by nearly all.Aye...and there's the rub.Its indisputable greatness has made it indisputable. It has become dogma among fanboys and fangirls that the bastions of The Lord of the Rings are unassailable. Criticize Tolkien's work -- academically or otherwise -- and you put yourself in almost as much danger as a chatty atheist trying to engage in a theological discussion in a coliseum full of Jehovah's Witnesses (how many of those folks will make it into the afterlife? Isn't there a limit?).Feminist critics point out the lack of women in The Lord of the Rings, and that those women who are present fulfill only the narrowest stereotypes. Éowyn's strength is dependent upon adopting male gender qualities, a typical stereotype of "powerful women in fantasy," and she is alone amongst the Rohirrim as a woman who can and will fight. All other women in her culture are present as a reason to fight rather than as integral parts of the struggle. Arwen's place (in the books, at least) as a maiden waiting for the hand of her king takes the "reason to fight" to even greater heights. And the only powerful female, Galadriel as the terrible, beautiful elven Queen, is too far removed from mortality and reality to be anything more than a mid-tale deus ex machina, thereby removing her from the realm of women and men and making her a pseudo-god whose power is allowed only because it is arcane and mysterious. Post-Colonial critics have latched onto the racism inherent in The Lord of the Rings, pointing out the hierarchies between the races: from the "superiority" of the elves, to the "chosen" role of "European" Men of the West under the leadership of Aragorn, to the lesser races of Dwarves and Hobbits (the former are "lesser" because they are "too greedy" and the latter are "lesser" because they are children). Post-Colonialists look to the "orientalization" of Sauron's forces and the configuration of evil as an inherent quality of Orcs and "the dark folk." They point out Tolkien's family's history as a cog in the mechanism of English Imperialism, and his own birth in one of the most blatantly racist colonies of all, South Africa (while he did leave at three years old, his family's presence there at all suggests that some of the classic colonial opinions about the colonized "dark races" helped form the man who wrote these books), as possible reasons for this racism. These criticisms further suggest, at least to me, that the archetypal source of all fantasy's entrenched racism -- even those books being written today -- is The Lord of the Rings. Those fantasy authors who have followed Tolkien consistently and inescapably embrace his configuration of the races (yes, even those like R.A. Salvatore who try and fail to derail this configuration) and the concepts of good and evil that go along with them, which leads to the stagnation and diminishment of their genre.The fact is that these flaws do exist in The Lord of the Rings. They are present. They are easy to find. But few of Tolkien's rabid fans want to hear about them. And even when the criticism is not necessarily suggesting a flaw in Tolkien's work but merely the presence of some subtext, the dogmatists react with rage and condemnation. A fine example of this is when Queer and Gender theorists point to the overwhelming relationships between men, and how the relationship between Frodo and Sam is homosocial, at least, and possibly even homosexual. The only true intimacy in the book occurs between the men, after all, and to ignore that fact is to ignore one of key components of why The Lord of the Rings is so emotionally satisfying, especially to young men. Even faced with these ideas supported by convincing arguments, however, many fans either strive for ignorance or attack the messenger. This may have much to do with the worry -- unreasonable though it is -- that to admit that a flaw or something uncomfortable exists in any of these books, which so many people love so deeply, is to accept that The Lord of the Rings is neither great nor worthy of love.But this is not the case. I love The Lord of the Rings even though I subscribe completely to the post-colonial criticism, and see the merits in both the feminine and queer criticisms, not to mention the countless other criticisms and subtexts that are floating around.The books are racist; they are sexist. They are not perfect. And I must criticize the elements of The Lord of the Rings that make me uncomfortable and deserve no praise. But my complaints and the complaints of critics make Tolkien's achievement no less great. Tolkien created the most magnificent imaginary world ever conceived, and, for good or ill, Fantasy would be nothing today were it not for him. The Lord of the Rings is a triumph on countless levels, but it is not the word of God, nor should it be elevated to such heights.I love The Lord of the Rings, but I love it with reservations. I love it because of its place in my personal mythology, its genuine originality, its creativity, its power, but I love it with my mind open to its flaws, and I refuse to make excuses for Tolkien or his work.Twenty-five years ago I'd have given The Lord of the Rings my highest possible praise. Not today. But I am still willing to admit my love.

Geoff

This buch was wreckomeaned HIGHLY to me by MJ NICHOLLS. He is an writer to who wrote a buch called The Postmortem Blech which I havenot read bycause I haven’t solved the maize puzzle on the coover yet. (Spoiler it’s hard!) But I sure likked this Ring trilogism. There was short people with big feet and weird people who lived in the woods and I knew who all the evil people were because they looked the least like beautiful Caucasians. What else to say? MJ Nicholls has opened my reading lifes up to so many things, like Donnald Tart’s The Goldfinch, which one book of theyear on Goodreads and is feminist I think. MJ wrote a review of that that people yelled at. Okay bye.

Baylee

Leggi la recensione su Lovely Dreams!La mia storia d'amore assoluto con Il Signore degli Anelli è iniziata quando avevo 12 anni. Me lo prestò una mia amica - sia benedetta! - e mi tenne incollata alle pagine fino alla fine (Appendici comprese). Da allora credo di averlo riletto almeno (e sottolineo almeno) una volta l'anno. E ogni volta mi emoziona come la prima.Credo sia impossibile rimanere indifferenti di fronte alla bellezza - alla perfezione - di questa trilogia. Non c'è niente che sia stato lasciato al caso, ogni elemento, ogni personaggio, ogni descrizione è lì per un motivo, per incastrarsi con precisione per formare il disegno della narrazione. Tolkien è semplicemente il Dio Creatore del suo universo e la sua Provvidenza dà il giusto Ordine agli eventi.Nessuno che dica di amare il fantasy può permettersi di non aver letto questo capolavoro. Sembra quasi un trattato sul fantasy tanto le sue pagine sono dense di significati. Non è mai banale, ma è al contempo è grandioso e magnifico, semplice e umile. Tolkien amava la bellezza e ne ha riversata con generosità nelle sue opere - e non solo la bellezza abbagliante degli Elfi, ma anche quella quotidiana e casalinga degli Hobbit. Ma conosceva anche l'orrore della guerra e lo squallore dell'odio: mai come ne Il Signore degli Anelli si avverte la follia del Male, ma anche la sua forza persuasiva.Il Bene vince, ma a quale prezzo: quello che è rotto non può tornare alla primitiva bellezza. Chi è stato ferito a fondo non può godere della vittoria, sempre memore dell'antica - e perduta - bellezza. Ma egli non ne sarà dispiaciuto: altri godranno della pace, prospereranno e vivranno la vita che lui non può vivere. E non è questa la suprema vittoria del Bene?

Shawn

I first read The Hobbit and the three volumes of Lord of the Rings (earlier editions, obviously)in the late summer of 1969 after being given The Hobbit by a friend I'd worked with that summer on an archaeological dig on Washington Island, Wisconsin. I'd scoffed at the idea of college students reading these (as I described them) "children's books", but when she gave me the book I promised I'd read it and began late one night shortly after, while I was staying at my parents home before heading off to start my senior year. I was just finishing when my father got up to go to work. I napped for a couple of hours until the book store opened and went to purchase the trilogy. During the next three days, I read them all, stopping only for food and sleep. I was entranced, and my parents thought I had gone insane in the course of my summer on the island.I read all of the books twice more in the 80s and 90s, and even read The Hobbit in German. Today I suppose I'd give them 4 rather than 5 stars, but at the time there's no doubt that I found them absolutely amazing. Thanks, Anne, wherever you are!

Sakura87

Concedetemi un po' di autobiografismo, perché Tolkien non può essere recensito.Era il gennaio del 2002 quando gli amici del liceo mi invitarono a vedere un film d'avventura. Il Signore degli anelli, questo il titolo della pellicola, e per le mie conoscenze letterarie d'allora poteva benissimo essere la biografia di un gioielliere. Andai tuttavia a vederlo con loro, entrando in sala senza alcuna idea di ciò che avrei dovuto aspettarmi.Due ore e mezza dopo, uscii dalla sala con la bocca ancora aperta.Diciotto ore dopo tornai a vederlo da sola.Avevo finalmente ricondotto il titolo del film a un volume ingiallito e dalla rilegatura scassata che vagava periodicamente in giro per casa (la storica edizione Rusconi), continuamente prestato e restituito reciprocamente tra mio padre, mio nonno, mia zia e mio zio -di chi fosse quella copia, poi, mai si è saputo con certezza- da vent'anni a quella parte. La lettura, però, dovette attendere la trasposizione cinematografica de Le due torri, quando cioè compresi che non avrei mai potuto aspettare un anno per conoscere la fine della trilogia.Sono trascorsi quasi dieci anni dall'uscita del primo film, rivisto innumerevoli volte insieme ai suoi seguiti; un'altra volta ho letto il libro dopo la prima; una copia l'ho regalata a una persona per me importantissima, riuscendo a invogliarla al mondo della letteratura e del fantastico, e quella persona importantissima a sua volta mi ha fatto dono dell'edizione illustrata che ho appena finito di leggere. Adesso la copia ingiallita la sta leggendo mio fratello minore, e dopo essere passata tra le mani di mio nonno, mio zio, mia zia, mio padre, mie, credo sia giunto il momento che vada a lui.

Dolly

I read Lord of the Rings first when I was about eleven or so, and then stayed up all night at a hip boy/girl party in the bathroom with Nathan O. ... talking about ents and elves and whether Tom Bombadil was God. Yes, I was a geeky child. However, all these years later, the story has stuck with me. First a warning: Don't read Tolkien if you don't appreciate true-omnicient-narrator-style epics. Tolkien isn't a master character builder: he leaves all that to the reader's imagination. The agony in the Aragorn/Arwen romance -- so blatant and operatic in the movies -- was a longing look on Strider's face at Rivendell, an odd comment from Bilbo, and a short no-nonsense Appendix. As with many of the themes in this work, the romance and deep character relationships must be picked from between the lines.And there is so much between the lines here. The world of Middle-earth lives, utterly lives. Instead of tugging on what-ifs, this fantasy forces readers to imagine. Tolkien's work is the fullest realization of literary world building ever penned.It is also sophisticated writing, drawing on older forms (epic, romance, tragedy). Tolkien doesn't waste time writing snappy dialogue: the story is too epic to dwindle to individual persons. However, voice shifts subtly depending on point of view: chapters dealing with hobbits contain much more dialogue and detail; chapters dealing with Rohirrim have a poetic rhythm reminiscent of extant Middle English works; chapters dealing with elves are magic and blurry and hard to wrap a mind around. These shifts in style, far from being a novice writer's oops, are intentional and serve as mass characterisation of races and groups. So, what Tolkien foregoes in terms of dialogue he replaces with style and action: a classic example of show not tell.Having just spouted all that praise, I have to admit that all the criticisms are true: the story does resound with Luddite anti-industrial metaphors, overt Christian themes of salvation and spirit, a structural decision to include songs that doesn't quite work, and fantasy tropes that are now cliche ... now that everyone else has copied them, that is. The thing to remember is that this book started the genre: everything fantasy, from Philip Pullman to George RR Martin, exists in the shadow of this opus.So, no, it isn't a popcorn read. Get over it. If you invest the time and spirit to read this work, you will be glad you did.

colleen the contrarian ± (... never stop fighting) ±

2.5And so begins my avoidance of epic fantasy.I like the story of LotR - I like the idea of it. I appreciate it's role in history, and the breadth and depth of Tolkien's world-building and involvement. (Though considering that it really is a take on Norse myth and all that, I sometimes wonder if we don't give Tolkien a little bit too much credit for creating the world.)But, anyway - while I like the idea of the story, and the gist of it, my problem comes with the telling.There are tangents and back-histories of people's father's fathers that aren't really relevant. And the poems - my gods, the poems. Written in another language that then had to be translated, taking up another 5 pages.And with Tolkien begins the overly-descriptiveness of minutae that many writers of epic fantasy seem to think is necessary for world-building, but is really just odious.Oh, I know I'm in a minority - a fan of fantasy who thinks Tolkien is not a god. Like I said, I give him credit for what he did, but I think he could've used some serious editing. Also, aside from the above, I *hated* the way the telling was broken up, where we went through a whole section of time from Sam and Frodo's perspective, and then went back and went through the same thing from everyone elses perspective. It wouldn't flowed so much better if the stories were more intertwined.I can't fathom the people who love this book so much they reread it every year, but to each their own. I can respect that. But I found it a struggle to get through it just once - and that was with a prodigous use of skimming the find the plotline when he went off on one of his tangents.Note for modern writers - just because you have some backstory, or some detail, that you have in your mind, doesn't mean it has to be written into the story. If it's not directly relevant to the plot, then let it go. Seriously. It's ok.Even some fans of the book admit that characterization is a bit thin, and perhaps that's my biggest problem. Some people get lost in the details. They become enraptured in the world via these details, so that they feel like they can see and breath the world.For me, I'm all about character. I need to empathize and care. This is my ticket into any book or movie. I ate up a book many didn't like - Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell - precisely because I was enthralled and intrigued by the characters from the start.But the characters in this book are, by and large, role-playing pieces in order to fit the raid, erm, story. By the way, the only reason I came back to write a review on this is because I'm so tired of reading about how you have to read Tolkien because he's sooo wonderful. I mean, great, if you love the books then I'm happy for you and I can see why people do like them - I really do, even though I struggled with them. But to act like it's some sort of blasphemy to not like them really irritates me. Which is why this is more of a half-coherent rant than a review. My apologies - but I don't think anyone is an idiot for liking the book, and I'm tired of hearing the implication that I'm some kind of idiot because I found it less than enthralling.I wish I liked it more - I really do.Anyway, it's really a shame, though, because if Tolkien had built the world and the ideas and given them to a better story-teller, then this could've been so much better. All the elements are there - it's just the telling is a drag. And, in some ways, that's exactly what Tolkien did - and perhaps that is his true legacy.That said, I liked The Hobbit. Maybe it's because he wrote it for his children, or because he didn't feel the need to cram in so much academia and minutae, but The Hobbit just reads as a better story.

Paul

J.R.R. Tolkien has received so much attention over the last several years that it is becoming a popular sport to claim a dislike for his works. The title of "Father" of modern fantasy fits him well and anyone who has such unmitigated success is bound to attract a significant number of naysayers. For my own taste I find Tolkien to be charming and delightful, the stereotypical English county gentleman. His work is well crafted, the storyline is one that easily suspends disbelief. That is provided that you are willing to believe in magic rings and elves. However, I find real genius in the work of Tolkien, the savant father amongst lesser offspring.Reading LOTR again and again I find the genius of Tolkien is in the details. Like a finely crafted antique chest, the story is dovetailed to fit the cultures of so many diverse creatures. Tolkien was a linguist which explains his fascintion for the languages of the elves, orcs, ents, and various tribes of men. Beyond the languages though are the stories. One gets the feeling that if you were to follow the fellowship forever that the goldmine of endless stories of the realm might never run out. Everywhere that Tolkien took us in Middle Earth there were stories. Many of these stories were old, some ancient, but everyone and everything had a story. The true magic is in the interconnection of all those stories, each one weaving into the next. In the realm of great storytellers Tolkien may be the one that rules over all.

Gemma

can be summarised as: walking, walking, walking, bit of fighting with orcs, walking, walking, walking, anguish, walking, walking, walking, bit more fighting with orcs, walking, walking, walking.

David

Anyway, all my nerdy friends love this book and still talk about it- 25 years later. I certainly loved the Hobbit; but my goodness, what a bore LOTR is. I felt guilty, surely I had missed something. I read again (how eager to please I am); well at least join in their animated discourse. On my second read I think i nearly got to the top of Mount Doom with Frodo when I figured: 'Enough! Be gone with you wretched book. I will not be one of many and succumb to the clutches of peer pressure.' I returned to my chamber and lived happily ever after. So I thought. Jackson appeared with clever and powerful propoganda. My friends once again rubbed their hands and chirped in excited chorus. Again, against my will, I was drawn to the power of the book that would unite us all. I did watch the 3 films. I did fall alsleep in the 2 Tower ordeal. I perservered 'the Return'. Jackson did well. He maintained the detailed boredom of the book.

Jamey

This book got me started reading. It's the reason I grew up and got a PhD, became a scholar, and so on. I spent hours and hours on a sofa in my parents' basement reading Tolkien and listening to a single cassette tape over and over and over again: "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" (Pink Floyd), "The Court of the Crimson King" (King Crimson), and the intro part of "Time" (Pink Floyd). Somehow it took me another ten years to realize that although this experience was pretty much the crucible in which my identity was formed, there was absolutely nothing unusual about reading Tolkien and listening to Pink Floyd all the time. An entire generation of people was doing the same thing at roughly the same moment. For years I actually thought this had been the basis of my individuality. That's like thinking you are who you are because you like chocolate. Surely only a handful of other people out there like chocolate... I once read a comic about a brain in a vat, and the brain grows legs and escapes from the vat, and crawls around the lab thinking "This is way bigger than the vat!"

Share your thoughts

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *