Book Report - "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" by J. R. R. Tolkien
Over the past several months, I have read through both "The Hobbit" and all three (six?) books of "The Lord of the Rings." I was tempted to write on each of these works individually, but I decided that I didn't want to tie up a third of the year on Tolkien, and would just write on all of them at once. Since I won't count "The Silmarillion," and I would never read it anyway, these books cover my entire exposure to the world of Middle Earth.
Since these phrases get me the most dirty looks and criticism of anything related to literature, I'll go ahead and throw them out there. 1, I've never seen any of the LotR movies, and I have only seen the first "Hobbit" movie, and only because some friends were going to see it in theaters and they invited me along. 2, I did not really enjoy "The Lord of the Rings" books. I'll expound more on both of these, but I didn't want to mislead any readers and get their hopes up that my opinion would differ.
I started listening to "The Hobbit" because I wanted to consume what is considered by many to be the king and crown jewels of high fantasy. If Tolkien didn't create high fantasy and many common elements of the genre, he popularized them and put them into the hands of numerous readers. Maybe starting with Tolkien would ruin the rest of the high fantasy genre for me, but it would give me a background and exposure that I could build on with subsequent books.
In hindsight now, I will point out that I enjoyed "The Hobbit" more than any of the books in "The Lord of the Rings." It was long enough to build up some interesting story arcs, but short enough that each of the arcs was resolved before I got bored with it, or forgot some vital piece of information about them. There were some humorous points, some sad or serious points, and even some suspenseful points.
One of the few things about "The Hobbit" that I truly disliked was the number of strange and difficult to pronounce names. Names of places, names of characters, just so many names. I realize that Tolkien is a master of creating lore, but sometimes, the lore is just so nuanced and overwhelming that it becomes difficult to keep up with the important people and places in my head. Sure, that makes sense for building a world, but I genuinely feel that it makes me enjoy the book less if I have trouble remembering who was who, or why I should care about them.
Case in point, nearly every encounter in "The Hobbit" includes Tolkien naming off every one of the thirteen dwarves in the party. Each of these dwarves does have a name and a history, but rarely do they come into play for the plot of the book. Hence, we could have left off these lists of names, and replaced it with "the other dwarves," or something to that effect.
Similarly, the names of locations and the geography of Middle Earth were heavily emphasized in the story, but actually getting these places straight in my mind was impossibly difficult. I looked up maps several times while reading, and I still had a hard time keeping up with where the party was located, and where they were headed, from one plot point to the next.
Beyond the names of places and characters, my disdain is focused directly on the songs and poems. Many readers that I have spoken with say that when they see a block quote or italicized text, they skip right over it. Listening to the audiobooks, I didn't have that option. The songs of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" occasionally contribute to current events, but they mostly seem to be used to give context appropriate lore in a more naturally incorporated format. I get this, and I see why Tolkien would want to set the mood and give readers some insight without using some sort of narrator-driven explanation.
The problem is that the songs and poems are just so long, and the reader (Rob Inglis in this case) insists on adopting this particular voice. Not only do the songs take longer to hear than normal text, but the singing voice that Inglis uses makes it harder to understand the words anyway. Couple this with the fact that the content of the songs is rarely significant, and it just makes me want to skip over them. Toward the end of "Return of the King," I started to. I wasn't obtaining any valuable information from the songs, they were annoying to hear, and skipping them allowed me to get through the books faster. Maybe your lore hounds are more interested in them, but I just want to get on with the story.
Speaking of getting on with the story, I adopted my own variation on a quote from the series: "One does not simply walk into Mordor, they run." So many of the plot points are just so paced and burdened with unnecessary frills, it feels like Tolkien could've condensed six logical book divisions of "The Lord of the Rings" into three, and effectively cut the length of each physical book in half. I didn't need to know half of what I was listening to, so he could have left that out without any real consequence.
Specifically, segments like the council of Elrond and the council of the ents were painfully boring to me. Unlike the songs, I did need these parts of the books for some pretty consequential information, but I was beyond ready to continue on the journey before they were finished. Several members of my book club loved those segments, and considered them some of the best parts of the entire series. For me, I just wanted to get them over with. Give me the TLDR and let's hit the road.
Alas, I have to concede that the removal of these details would probably hurt the books for the fans of the lore. For anyone who has read "The Silmarillion," the core books probably didn't have enough detail. So from Tolkien's perspective, the books as they were published are probably the perfect amount of lore and backstory. I could have done with a little less, but surely some readers would have preferred a little more.
What I disliked about "The Hobbit" was exponentially increased with "The Lord of the Rings." Being so much longer, the songs and lore building felt even slower and annoying. Toward the end of "Return of the King," I just wanted to reach the conclusion. I had invested too much time to not hear the story out.
Now that I have finally finished the books, I want to go back and watch the movies. While they are long in the context of movies, they are each significantly shorter than the books. I have the theatrical cuts of "The Lord of the Rings" on bluray, and I can find "The Hobbit" movies somewhere. Nearly every book to movie media is universally accepted that the book is better, but "The Lord of the Rings" is one series that I have heard more of a balance. Some prefer the books, but some definitely prefer the movies. With my opinion on lore in the books, it sounds like I might fall into the latter category. Eventually, I'll get around to watching the movies, and I hope that I enjoy them more than I did the books.
So overall opinion, "The Hobbit" was pretty good and "The Lord of the Rings" was just alright. I don't mean to criticize Tolkien as an author, but the expansive lore building just isn't for me. These works paved the way for numerous other high fantasy pieces, but the source material was a drag. Perhaps actually reading the books would be better, since I could skim through the songs and poems at a faster pace, but the audiobooks were far too long. Here's hoping that I like my next high fantasy read a little better.
Resources:
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Fellowship of the Ring. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 1990. Audiobook, 16 compact discs.
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Hobbit. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 1991. Audiobook, 10 compact discs.
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Return of the King. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 2000. Audiobook, 16 compact discs.
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Two Towers. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 1990. Audiobook, 14 compact discs.
I started listening to "The Hobbit" because I wanted to consume what is considered by many to be the king and crown jewels of high fantasy. If Tolkien didn't create high fantasy and many common elements of the genre, he popularized them and put them into the hands of numerous readers. Maybe starting with Tolkien would ruin the rest of the high fantasy genre for me, but it would give me a background and exposure that I could build on with subsequent books.
In hindsight now, I will point out that I enjoyed "The Hobbit" more than any of the books in "The Lord of the Rings." It was long enough to build up some interesting story arcs, but short enough that each of the arcs was resolved before I got bored with it, or forgot some vital piece of information about them. There were some humorous points, some sad or serious points, and even some suspenseful points.
One of the few things about "The Hobbit" that I truly disliked was the number of strange and difficult to pronounce names. Names of places, names of characters, just so many names. I realize that Tolkien is a master of creating lore, but sometimes, the lore is just so nuanced and overwhelming that it becomes difficult to keep up with the important people and places in my head. Sure, that makes sense for building a world, but I genuinely feel that it makes me enjoy the book less if I have trouble remembering who was who, or why I should care about them.
Case in point, nearly every encounter in "The Hobbit" includes Tolkien naming off every one of the thirteen dwarves in the party. Each of these dwarves does have a name and a history, but rarely do they come into play for the plot of the book. Hence, we could have left off these lists of names, and replaced it with "the other dwarves," or something to that effect.
Similarly, the names of locations and the geography of Middle Earth were heavily emphasized in the story, but actually getting these places straight in my mind was impossibly difficult. I looked up maps several times while reading, and I still had a hard time keeping up with where the party was located, and where they were headed, from one plot point to the next.
Beyond the names of places and characters, my disdain is focused directly on the songs and poems. Many readers that I have spoken with say that when they see a block quote or italicized text, they skip right over it. Listening to the audiobooks, I didn't have that option. The songs of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" occasionally contribute to current events, but they mostly seem to be used to give context appropriate lore in a more naturally incorporated format. I get this, and I see why Tolkien would want to set the mood and give readers some insight without using some sort of narrator-driven explanation.
The problem is that the songs and poems are just so long, and the reader (Rob Inglis in this case) insists on adopting this particular voice. Not only do the songs take longer to hear than normal text, but the singing voice that Inglis uses makes it harder to understand the words anyway. Couple this with the fact that the content of the songs is rarely significant, and it just makes me want to skip over them. Toward the end of "Return of the King," I started to. I wasn't obtaining any valuable information from the songs, they were annoying to hear, and skipping them allowed me to get through the books faster. Maybe your lore hounds are more interested in them, but I just want to get on with the story.
Speaking of getting on with the story, I adopted my own variation on a quote from the series: "One does not simply walk into Mordor, they run." So many of the plot points are just so paced and burdened with unnecessary frills, it feels like Tolkien could've condensed six logical book divisions of "The Lord of the Rings" into three, and effectively cut the length of each physical book in half. I didn't need to know half of what I was listening to, so he could have left that out without any real consequence.
Specifically, segments like the council of Elrond and the council of the ents were painfully boring to me. Unlike the songs, I did need these parts of the books for some pretty consequential information, but I was beyond ready to continue on the journey before they were finished. Several members of my book club loved those segments, and considered them some of the best parts of the entire series. For me, I just wanted to get them over with. Give me the TLDR and let's hit the road.
Alas, I have to concede that the removal of these details would probably hurt the books for the fans of the lore. For anyone who has read "The Silmarillion," the core books probably didn't have enough detail. So from Tolkien's perspective, the books as they were published are probably the perfect amount of lore and backstory. I could have done with a little less, but surely some readers would have preferred a little more.
What I disliked about "The Hobbit" was exponentially increased with "The Lord of the Rings." Being so much longer, the songs and lore building felt even slower and annoying. Toward the end of "Return of the King," I just wanted to reach the conclusion. I had invested too much time to not hear the story out.
Now that I have finally finished the books, I want to go back and watch the movies. While they are long in the context of movies, they are each significantly shorter than the books. I have the theatrical cuts of "The Lord of the Rings" on bluray, and I can find "The Hobbit" movies somewhere. Nearly every book to movie media is universally accepted that the book is better, but "The Lord of the Rings" is one series that I have heard more of a balance. Some prefer the books, but some definitely prefer the movies. With my opinion on lore in the books, it sounds like I might fall into the latter category. Eventually, I'll get around to watching the movies, and I hope that I enjoy them more than I did the books.
So overall opinion, "The Hobbit" was pretty good and "The Lord of the Rings" was just alright. I don't mean to criticize Tolkien as an author, but the expansive lore building just isn't for me. These works paved the way for numerous other high fantasy pieces, but the source material was a drag. Perhaps actually reading the books would be better, since I could skim through the songs and poems at a faster pace, but the audiobooks were far too long. Here's hoping that I like my next high fantasy read a little better.
Resources:
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Fellowship of the Ring. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 1990. Audiobook, 16 compact discs.
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Hobbit. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 1991. Audiobook, 10 compact discs.
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Return of the King. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 2000. Audiobook, 16 compact discs.
Tolkien, J. R. R. The Two Towers. Narrated by Rob Inglis, Recorded Books, 1990. Audiobook, 14 compact discs.
Comments
Post a Comment