Rating: 
Summary: Childhood Fantasies
Review: These books captured my imagination like no other books ever have. Tolkien's vision is astounding. His ability to use words to paint such an enormous and vivid picture is without equal. I cannot get enough of Middle Earth. Although these are fantasy novels, everything is so real. There is no way I can do justice to Tolkien's masterpeice with these few words. Middle Earth is a place where childhood dreams, nightmares, and fantasies all come true in bright, vivid colors.
Rating:
Summary: Startling, like lightning from a clear sky.
Review: I've just finished reading the Lord Of The Rings for the second time. My first reading of it was about three years ago. Amazingly, (and I think this says something of the quality of the story itself) I would say I enjoyed it even more this second time around. It is so sweeping and wide that it still thrills, never losing any of its unpredictablity even if one is already familiar with the ending. Tolkien's Middle Earth is so immense, such an entire "sub-creation" (as the author himself referred to it)... complete with its own creatures, history, languages, and breathtaking landscapes... I believe it is without parallel in fantasy literature of any era. This book is myth, rather than allegory. By that I mean that there is not really meant to be any strict one-to-one correspondence to specifically theological, political, or psychological aspects of our own "real" world. No-one in Middle-Earth is named Mr. Worldly-Wiseman or Mr. Evangelist or Mr. Charity. No, here we meet people and things like Tom Bombadil, Gollum or Treebeard... hobbits, elves, dwarves, ents, orcs and yes, even Men. And yet, as with great allegorical works all of these characters gravitate to one of two poles or extremes that can be seen as "good" or "evil". The Lord of The Rings is truly about a grandiose struggle between the FORCES of good and evil. In Chapter 2 of Book 2 we read that "Good and ill have not changed... nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men." An interesting thing about the book is how Tolkien's brand of "dualism" very subtly points to the reality that ultimate Good or Evil is something yet greater (or beyond) any of the characters that try to perpetrate either of them. This is most clear in a statement by Gandalf in Book 3 during "The Last Debate" where he says "Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." If Sauron (who throughout the book appears as the evil to be reckoned with) is "but a servant or emissary"... then we must consider the question... an emissary of what? Or whom? And similarly, if all of the "good" that the Fellowship of The Ring strives to achieve will yet not "master all of the tides of the world"... then where is this locus of ULTIMATE good? Gandalf makes it clear that their own "goodness" is limited to the years wherein they are set. At the end of The Lord of The Rings, the future yet belongs to the good AND the evil that lie beyond the powers of any of the characters that have played a part in the present conflict. Maybe we are supposed to wonder... who IS the Lord of the rings? Almost 50 years ago C.S. Lewis, a friend of Tolkien's, said of The Lord of The Rings: "Such a book has of course its predestined readers, even now more numerous and more critical than is always realised. To them a reviewer need say little, except that here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart." And I too, could go on forever about it, but my best suggestion is for you to quit reading this, and just read the book. Or re-read it! The best review would be terribly inadequate. Tolkien's Middle-Earth is as impossible to imagine before you go there as it is to forget about once you've been.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings
Review: The centenial birth of Tolkien brought us a very special LTR with illustrations by Lee. The book is published with high quality paper and the art work is second to none. I highly recogmend this book if you can afford it. It truly is eye candy and a classic story that is timeless !
Rating:
Summary: Lovely Lord
Review: Originally, I bought the movie tie-in box set and thought
'that's all I need.' Boy, was I wrong! While surfing Amazon.com,
I came across the Alan Lee illustrated box set. I was awestruck!It's printed on glossy paper and has easy to read type. Alan Lee's illustrations are superb: see THE PRANCING PONY come to life, or see Galadrial and her famous mirror. The watercolors
are beautiful. There are maps on the inside covers, and it comes with an index
so one can look up Shadowfax and find out who owns him--Theoden,
not Gandalf! It's a lovely Lord--it sits handsomely next to
my illustrated Hobbit and illustrated Sillmarillion in my library. Best of all at Amazon.com it costs $59.99 including shipping.
Everywhere else it's $80 plus tax. So do yourself a favor
and buy this set today! ps. The glare is extremely minimal--I checked it out myself.
Rating:
Summary: Best Fantasy Series Period
Review: these books have opened new worlds for so many people. The movies dont compare to the books, and the story is so entertaining that it's so easy to lose track of time when reading. I would suggest reading the Hobbit before reading this book and follow it up with the Silmarillion which explains any questions that may be left after you're done. this is a must read and will sweep you away to a more entertaining world.
Rating:
Summary: Lord OF THe Rings
Review: What can u say bout LOTR that hasnt already been said? Its a classic. Although not my all time favorite books, its still one of the best.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacks believable characters
Review: The first time I read LOTR I was fifteen and I discovered that Tolkien's style of writing is not easy to read. I found pages of minute description and background history that was fascinating yet lent very little to the pace and purpose of the story. Some parts of the books were amazingly slow while other parts led up to action sequences that never happened or were disposed with in one paragraph. For those who have just watched the movie it should be noted that the fight with the Balrog was much better on screen than in the book. However, years later I went back to LOTR's and read them again thinking that maybe I was just young and the books were meant for a more mature audience. I found many of the same nagging questions I had the first tiime around. For instance, the true nature of the magic rings are never really described in detail. We know the One Ring controls all of the rings but what does that mean? We know that Gandalf has one of the elven rings along with Elrond and the Elf Queen but how do they ever benefit from them? More importantly we know Gandalf is a wizard but when does he cast a useful spell? On top of this I realized the books lack vivid and accurate characters. I never really identified with any of the characters because they all seemed so inhuman and predictable. So many things in the books just didn't make sense to me. For instance, if the Nazguls are so powerful (and immortal) why don't they just land in the middle of an army and decimate the warriors? Why are the elves leaving to the west? What do the orcs eat if the eastlands are all desolate waste? What the hell is Tom Bombadil dancing around for all the time? Why are there no female characters? In short, the books do have literary merit and Tolkien was one the first people to write such a compelling fantasy story. However, he did not invent the fantasy genre as so many claim, and his books are not without flaws. But if imitation is the measure of genius than Tolkien deserves the utmost respect.
Rating:
Summary: The Lord of All Books!
Review: "The Lord of the Rings" is usually found in a single volume, or in three volumes: 1) "The Fellowship of the Ring", 2) "The Two Towers", and 3) "The Return of the King". My recommended reading age is 13+ years old, and I recommend reading "The Hobbit" first. When I was 15 years old in high school, I had to read "The Hobbit" for an English class. After reading that book, the teacher then let us borrow "The Lord of the Rings". Before I had started "The Return of the King", I had bought my own set of books. After I had read both books, I actually liked "The Hobbit" better than "The Lord of the Rings" at first - because the "The Hobbit" was brighter: a fun, grand adventure with more humor, whereas "The Lord of the Rings" was darker: a serious, grim life and death struggle for world survival. But by the time I was about 16, the historical significance of "The Lord of the Rings" began to appeal more to me. This is especially true if you read Appendices A and B of "The Lord of the Rings", and also read the "The Silmarillion". You begin to understand the rich history of Tolkien's Middle-Earth/ Beleriand creation. How the "The Silmarillion" brings out the significant events of the First and Second Ages, while the events in "The Lord of the Rings" are the culmination of the Third Age...each Age lasting thousands of years and ending with an immensely significant event. It was 25 years before I read "The Lord of the Rings" again, but Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, Legolas, Gimli, and many more had become household names! I had matured over those years, and my tastes changed. I was no longer a big fantasy/science-fiction reader: instead I was reading military history. I didn't expect to still love "The Lord of the Rings" the way I did as a teenager. I was happily wrong! This is still an exciting book, but I discovered what I really love...it is allegory-type stories. J. R. R. Tolkien himself has said that "The Lord of the Rings" is not allegory, because he hated allegory where he felt the author is dictating to the reader what is in their story...and that any other interpretation is incorrect. Tolkien wanted a reader to apply their own experiences and tastes to influence what they were reading. OK, but in real history one can still get allegory if their own experiences and tastes allow it. How many can learn about World War II and not apply the basic allegorical interpretation that good triumphs over evil? I've heard of, and can understand, several allegorical interpretations of "The Lord of the Rings". Frodo is like Jesus Christ: bearing the greatest of burdens for world salvation while being tempted to stray from his purpose, and the weight of the ring is similar to Christ's cross . The One Ring is like the atomic bomb: the ultimate weapon that corrupts whoever uses it, despite even good intentions, into a power-hungry creature of evil. There's an ecological message with the Ents trying to protect trees; and also the natural beauty of various places throughout Middle-Earth, while evil beings try to destroy it all (including the use of mechanical and polluting progress). I also get out of "The Lord of the Rings" a sense of a military mission: that Frodo & Sam are behind enemy lines on a mission that could end a war, and that Frodo realizes that getting back home or even staying alive doesn't matter - just completion of the mission...that's also sacrifice, perseverance, & camaraderie so prevalent in the military history I've read. There's prejudice with years of animosity between elves and dwarves, and how small, kind gestures can begin to erase all those blighted years...also, how people or races can put aside differences to solve a common problem. There's the recognition of the small, common people (citizen soldiers) that perform the greatest, toughest, and most necessary duty in any war. There's world peace in peril and that something needs to be done before it's too late. There's avoiding the easier way out, and facing one's problems and seeing them through to a conclusion despite severe hardships. I feel that Tolkien saw a little bit of himself in many of the good races of his world. The hobbits are like Tolkien because they love food, company, and talking about family. The ents are like Tolkien because of their unbounded love of trees. Gandalf the wizard is like Tolkien because of his exceptional intelligence and purpose of guiding others along the right path. Some men are like Tolkien because of their inner strength and gallantry, while other men show weakness by succumbing to evil...very realistic. But I believe he saw the beauty and enchantment of the elves in his wife, and why he loved both most dearly: that's why on their gravestone Luthien appears after his wife's name, and Beren appears after his name. The dwarves don't seem to resemble Tolkien, but they are present in much folklore, which is linked to his personal love of medieval languages. "The Lord of the Rings" is a masterpiece in my opinion, and it's size (over 1000 pages in any printed format) is pretty daunting, but give it a shot! It'll be time well spent. And get ready for adventure, terror, excitement, love, treachery, devotion, monumental historic events, unforgettable battles, military strategy, exotic languages & culture, etc. See what you get out of the book! I think most people will enjoy it and/or be moved by it. And who knows, maybe it'll become your favorite book too!
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings
Review: This is by far the best book i've ever read. It's exiting, adventureous and all out good. I highly reccomend this book... I mean they even made a movie out of it!Any book with that skill has my vote.
Rating:
Summary: ..and the books will still be there when we stop being..
Review: I loved these books - 15 years ago - now - and I am sure I'll still love to read them in 20 years from now. I have read LOTR in German and English but like the detail in the original English version better. Tolkiens LOTR is timeless. It is about good and evil - which we'll face in every century of our time and can relate to. Go get them - if you are unsure, start off with a paperback version.
|
