Fantasy Book Club discussion

I have read The Hobbit 3 times and always intended to read The Lord of the Rings. Deluxe edition but put it off for years for some unknown reason. At last i now read TLOTR and am really enjoying it, but i am glad i have a few companion books that have related maps and reference guides to help me along. From reading some background information i see that J.R.R. Tolkien had some problems with publishing. He wished the books to all be in the one volume, which at that period of time was avoided due to paper shortages. Then when it was divided into 3 novels he wished the final volume to be named ' War of the Rings ', rather then 'The Return of the King' as he felt the title would give away too much of the story. Later the novel was released in paperback in the USA and due to some copyright loophole, it was published by a company that paid no royalities to himself. 100,000 copies were sold without him receiving anything but he managed to get some payment later with support from his fan base. Many reviews were unfavourable to his book but as time has shown he had many more who enjoyed his books. The ammount of time he spent in compiling a history of Middle Earth sure help in his endeavour to write the Lord of the Rings, but he has always wished The Silmarillion to be published, which was never done until after his death.

The effort he put into his work has paid off in the end and its not surprizing it has became a classic. The back cover of LOTR has a review 'The world is divided into those who have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and those who are going to read them' so at last i can soon be the latter !

The copy I have has all three books combined like he had intended, which I thought was great to finally see. It's such a good read, it kept me entranced through the whole thing. I also have Children of Hurin, which was really good too. I think all I have left is the Silmarillion, and I'll be all caught up!

Who does this "J.R.R. Tolkien" (what a fake-sounding name!) think he is, screwing up the novelizations of Peter Jackson's magnificent Lord of the Rings movies? Couldn't they have gotten a decent writer to write the novelizations?

The Tolkien guy got so many things wrong that I can hardly keep track of them all. Who is "Glorfindel", and why does he take so many of Arwen's best lines? Why did he leave out Aragorn having given up the throne in the beginning? What about Aragorn's wild wolf ride? That ride will probably be the basis of a theme-park ride some day, but when children look in the books to find it, it won't be there! Plus the books really aren't written to the appropriate age-level anyway. Everyone knows that novelizations should be aimed at the lowest age-group of the movie audience, in this case teens. Tolkien doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.

And the Elves coming to save the day at the battle of Helm's Deep are totally missing - ANOTHER screw-up by that idiot Tolkien! Didn't he have a copy of the scripts to work from?

Why did he change Faramir's character to be the exact OPPOSITE of the way he was in the movie? He's supposed to be tempted and try to take the Ring for his father, NOT to help Frodo from the beginning! Tolkien quoted Faramir's line to give it the precise opposite meaning of what Jackson intended when he wrote and filmed it. That's unforgiveable!

The Ents - Tolkien got that wrong in so many ways, too. They had to be tricked into marching against Saruman. And they didn't divert a river; they just smashed a dam that Saruman had stupidly forgotten about. See, Jackson's original, brilliant vision makes the point that you should never build your stronghold in a place where it can obviously be wiped out by smashing a dam, while that incompetent Tolkien seems to have been trying to preach some stupid message about abusing nature.

Who is "Radagast the Brown"? Who is that ridiculous character Tom Bombadil, and why is Tolkien shoehorning him into Jackson's The Lord of the Rings? Someone should really have gone over the books before they were published and removed all the stupid, unnecessary characters that Tolkien added. Maybe Peter Jackson will do us all the great favor of removing them from future editions.

And where are all the Gimli jokes? Doesn't Tolkien understand that dwarves are supposed to be FUNNY? Dwarf-tossing is KEY to the character of Gimli! Legolas should have been written hunkier, too.

Tolkien's ridiculous ideas of morality are all wrong, as well. Who told Tolkien that he had the right to change Jackson's characters? People never do the right thing just because it's right; they must always start by doing wrong, and then be tricked into doing the right thing or realize that they made a mistake and seek redemption.

And what was with that stupid after-the end bit, with the hobbits returning to the Shire and finding Saruman? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! That's not in the movies.

The final straw is Tolkien going all crazy with the Appendices. All I can say is, this guy has some nerve, thinking he can change and expand on Peter Jackson's brilliant words. I suppose no-talent hacks like Tolkien deserve to make a living too,but not by sullying Jackson's brilliant dialog and plots.

I have to wonder who Tolkien slept with to get the novelization contract for The Lord of the Rings ? I just hope that they get someone GOOD to do the novelization of The Hobbit - maybe Jackson would be willing to do it himself.

/snark

Has anyone here read The Children of Hurin? I have it on my to be read pile, but haven't gotten to it yet.

Yes, I have. It was very good, but the map is completely different. Children of Hurin takes place in the First Age, and the lands it takes place in were lost to the sea at the end of the war against Morgoth in that same age. The land is called Beleriand, and if you look at the maps in Lord of the Rings, The Ered Luin in the North-West were once the Eastern border of Beleriand. Other than these mountains, there are only three other small locations that remain of Beleriand at the start of the Third Age, the other remaining locations having been lost with the Island Numenor in the Second Age.

The book is good, and it details an amazing part of middle-earth's history. Several characters you will recognize from Lord of the Rings, such as Glorfindel, Galadriel, and Celeborn as they are the last in the Third Age to remember the First Age. The book follows the story of Turin, whose family was highly distinguished in the fight against Morgoth, Sauron's master. Tragedy falls on the family, and Turin becomes a wandering warrior, fighting wherever he is against the forces of Morgoth.

I really enjoyed it. I felt at times that Turin makes some poor decisions, but that is part of the tale of tragedy that the the story tells. Definitely worth the read if you get the chance.

Peter... That was hilarious.

I have the single edition that contains all three books, as well as the appendices, etc. It weighs a ton, but I figure it's good for a workout as well as entertainment. ;)

We need more reviews by Peter, that was very funny.

Peter wrote: "Who does this "J.R.R. Tolkien" (what a fake-sounding name!) think he is, screwing up the novelizations of Peter Jackson's magnificent Lord of the Rings movies? Couldn't they have gotten a decent writer..."

LOL - nice post Peter - I must say that much of what you complain about I was also originaly upset at when I saw the movies. But over time I've come to peace with it and overall think they are pretty good. (Though it took me a long time). The fact that he had to cut things --- Oh look here are some swords for you hobbits - oh don't mind where they came from - that's not important -- I can live with after the books were long - but yes I too can not understand why things were added.

Still - With time and perspective I think they aren't that bad - and they introduced some to the work that probably would not have been exposed if it weren't for the movie.

Rora wrote: "Has anyone here read The Children of Hurin? I have it on my to be read pile, but haven't gotten to it yet."

I have not even read The Silmarillion my husband did - but it is a bit too "encyclopedic" for me - don't hate me Peter.

I would be interested in what others thing of CoH.

Robin... I understand what you mean about the Silmarillion! It is a bit like a dry, historical text rather than an exciting adventure like The Hobbit, or LOTR.

I would say to give it a try though, it does add another layer to the richness of Middle Earth, and helps to understand where Sauron came from and why...

Becky wrote: "Robin... I understand what you mean about the Silmarillion! It is a bit like a dry, historical text rather than an exciting adventure like The Hobbit, or LOTR.

I would say to give it a try thou..."

I probably will at some point - but I have a nasty TBR pile that stares me in the face at the moment - probably will read it just before I pick of Children of Heron.

Yeah, I have one of those glaring TBR lists too... I feel your pain! :)

I enjoyed The Hobbit, but I could never could get into LOTR even though I tried several times. It was too over descriptive for me. I know shouts of blasphemer and tomatoes are going to be thrown my way. :P

I will say I do love the movies very much and can't wait for The Hobbit movie.

That's alright Elise, we all have different preferences. I personally prefer LOTR to The Hobbit, but that's just me.

I would recommend steering clear of "The Silmarillion" though if you couldn't get into LOTR! ;)

I hate to bring this up but The Silmarillion is only the tip of the iceberg :-)

There's Unfinished Tales as well as the 12 volumes of Tolkien's notes in the History of Middle Earth (edited by his son Christopher).

And, not to toot my own horn, I have reviewed both The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin on this site:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59...

Yeah Terence, I know about those, but have never read them... I did try to read the Book of Lost Tales (which I understand is part of the "History Of Middle Earth" you mentioned, right?) but, being that I am not such a huge fan of reading verse (I even skim the lays in LOTR), I never finished it. I'm not even sure if it was the 1st or 2nd, but I think it was the 2nd.

I do want to read The Children of Hurin, and one day would like to revisit the "History Of Middle Earth"... I think I just have to be in the right frame of mind.

I'm off to look at your reviews now... :)

Hehehehe....I've never read the The Silmarillion, but I've completely exhausted the entire LoTR tree on Wikipedia! LOL! As a result, I got pretty much the same information, just not as written.

Idle time at work can be sooo much fun!

I've read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy several times and The Silmarillon three times. I trudged thru The Silmarillon the first time. Reread it a couple of years later and enjoyed it a little more. It didn't seem as dry the second time around. I read it the third time after I had read The Children of Hurin. To me, it was interesting to reread The Silmarillon after having just read The Children of Hurin.

Elise wrote: "I enjoyed The Hobbit, but I could never could get into LOTR even though I tried several times. It was too over descriptive for me. I know shouts of blasphemer and tomatoes are going to be thrown my..."

Elise, I think a lot of people felt that way about LOTR you shouldn't feel that you are a blasphemer. I liked them both - but there were times in LOTR where I was ....Okay okay let's just get on with it.

Brian wrote: "I've read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy several times and The Silmarillon three times. I trudged thru The Silmarillon the first time. Reread it a couple of years later and enjoyed it a little mor..."'

Brian - did you like Children of Hurin? I've been avoiding it - I saw a number of people really didn't like it. Was wondering your opinions...or the opinions of others on this subject for that matter.


--
Wife of fantasy author: Michael J. Sullivan | The Crown Conspiracy | Avempartha (April 2009)
Reviews: Fantasy Book Critic | Odysssey | Amazon | MidWest Book Review | Huntress Reviews

I thought Children of Hurin was pretty good. I have a comment about it up earlier in this thread. I really enjoyed it.

I can see where maybe people didn't like it. Turin makes many decisions that I found myself asking "Are you kidding me? That's so stupid!", but I think that's part of why I liked it. Turin and I were so at odds with our opinions and what was happening that it felt like I was experiencing the world through the eyes of a stranger. I liked it!

Peter's thing made me lol...I am a lotr nerd, but kinda get annoyed in parts of the books.
It is possibly one of the few novels which i prefer the film to the book...Tom Bombadil is a big mistake imho. Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring?
I respect tolkien's pioneering work, however for me he rips too much off mythology, and i prefer the works of later authors who use darker themes and wacky characters e.g. michael moorcock and robert jordan.

LOL, someone's been watching too much "How it Should Have Ended".

I thought the CoH was a pretty decent read. The story told in the CoH is an expanded version of a story explained in the Silmarillon, although it is not nearly as dry as The Silmarillon. The CoH is a complete story so you don't need to read the Silmarillon first.

Oscar wrote: Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring?

Oh yeeeeah! That WOULD seem to have been a much easier and better plan! But then, there wouldn't have been much of a story left.

I've read LOTR at least 3 times, I own a 13-part BBC audio play version (the actor who plays Gollum is absolutely superb, btw)and I own all three movies, so it's safe to say I'm a fan; however, the last time I read the series, I realized I no longer liked Tolkien's writing style as much as I had in the past. It felt a bit dated, and I found myself wishing for some stronger female characters.

I've read The Silmarillion and have no intention of reading it again. Once was enough.

Brian wrote: "I thought the CoH was a pretty decent read. The story told in the CoH is an expanded version of a story explained in the Silmarillon, although it is not nearly as dry as The Silmarillon. The CoH is..."

I saw CoH on sale at B&N I think I will pick it up. I thought Silmarillon was dry - but do you think I should re-read it before COH?

There's no need to read or reread the Silmarillon before reading CoH. But I thought it was interesting to go back and reread the Sil afterwards. Then again I'm a Fantasy nut and I really enjoy Tolkeins' style of writing.

I've read The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit Or There and Back Again and The Book of Lost Tales, Part One, The Book of Lost Tales, Part Two. All quite interesting, IMO.
I have The Children of Húrin but haven't gotten to it yet.
I'm not sure if I should re-read The Silmarillon before or after CoH since it was so long ago that I read it, I've forgotten most of it.

Like Brian said, CoH pretty much stands all by itself. From my understanding, takes a section of the Silmarillon and retells it in an expanded form, so there is no need to re-read Silmarillon to understand CoH. In fact, CoH even gives a brief history of the important past events that you DO need right at the beginning, then goes into the story.

Thanks Robert!
Now that I know I can jump right in, maybe it'll be my next book to read.

I loved The Children of Hurin. I keep hoping I'll be able to mooch a hardcover edition. :)

Children of Hurin was a book I read last year to take a break between huge Wheel of Time volumes....it was a good story. Bleak and dark at times, but I like that....

Yeah, it was a real break from the hopeful optimism of LoTR and The Hobbit. It was a little refreshing to see.

I find it cool that in the Middle Earth World, the Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and LotR were all written by different people; Bilbo, Random Historian, and Frodo respectivly. There are large differences in the tones of all three stories, yet all the off shoots (like Children of Hurin) still maintain the tone of their respective story. Brownie points to Tolkien, most authors have the same tone book to book world to world.

Oscar wrote: "Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring? "

The story is about the coming of the Age of Man. There weren't any other race that helped in the war. The Ents were tricked to help. Its not surprising that the Eagles wouldn't help as well. In fact, Gandalf didn't have any control over the Eagles. Radagast the Brown was the wizard that was more friendly towards that race. Gandalf watched over the race of Men and Hobbits (who were also related to Men).

There could have been other problems with using the Eagles to just fly there. The crebain could have easily spotted the Eagle carrying the Ring and it wouldn't have been long until the Nazgûl would intercept them. It was safer to take it to Mount Doom with more secrecy.

We also have to remember that The Lord of the Ring only talked about certain battles during the War of the Ring. It did mention that there was battles occuring all over the lands of Middle-Earth. The Eagles might have been tied up elsewhere fighting the Enemy.

I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings trilogy in one entire weekend when I was 13 and it remains my favorite story to this day. Nothing else comes close - it is a masterpiece!

Peter, excellent! (is your last name Jackson?)

I have read The Hobbit and LOTR 26 times since the unauthorized Ace editions, back in college. I have replaced the deluxe edition once. I also have a 3 volume boxed set and a 6 volume boxed set (hardcovers).

I have also read all the re-constructed works, which seem more like reading primary sources of ancient literature. My favorite non-novel JRR works are The Father Christmas Letters, and Farmer Giles of Ham/The Adventures of Tom Bombadil

Has anyone read The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun? I have yet to receive this.

I live in Middle Earth!

Of Tolkien's work, I think The Hobbit is my favourite, even more now that I read it in English: Tolkien is very good at word cadencing, it's like listening to a bedtime story.

I also enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, but I think this story is better put in perspective when you read The Silmarillion, as it's only the last struggle with the big bad's underling.

The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales read like ancient myths, that's why I liked them, especially The Silmarillion. It's really fascinating to see all the History (not only of Middle Earth) progressing from the creation of the world to the war at the end of the Third Age.

The Children of Húrin should be my next stop in Middle Earth.

The Legend of Sigurd and Gundrun is not set in Middle-earth nor is it stickly speaking a work of fantasy. It is Tolkien's translation of an old Norse text.

I finished The Children of Hurin recently. A beautiful, somber, tragic book. It really should be an opera, in the Wagnerian tradition. And I am not joking about this, because the story is so beautiful, expanded as it is from the Turin Turambar chapter of The Silmarillion, that it deserves to be set to music.

Lochaber wrote: "I finished The Children of Hurin recently. A beautiful, somber, tragic book. It really should be an opera, in the Wagnerian tradition. And I am not joking about this, because the story is so bea..."

Don't know about the opera (how to sing Andróg's part, for example?), but agree with you on the rest, my good axeman. Of all the offerings I've read released by CHRISTOPHER Tolkien, this is the best so far. I dreaded encountering a dry historical review, replete with his musings about his father's notes, and instead found a tale that is true to J.R.R. in every aspect of its crafting and presentation. If anything, the story here surpasses its roots in The Silmarillion. I particularly liked how the peripheral characters in the story (Beleg, Mablung, Finduilas, etc.) take on life of their own in the re-telling.

Peter wrote: "Who does this "J.R.R. Tolkien" (what a fake-sounding name!) think he is, screwing up the novelizations of Peter Jackson's magnificent Lord of the Rings movies? Couldn't they have gotten a decent wr..."

Peter, that is brilliant and hilarious! Thank you for giving me a great start to the day!

Lochaber and Grimward

I so totally agree with you both about Children of Hurin. In this, Christopher has finally stepped boldly into those enormous family shoes. Yes, J.R.R. would, indeed, be proud.

Yes, the characters were all fully rounded and individualized. A fine read.

Oscar wrote: "Also, why cant gandalf just use the eagles to carry the ring?"

Robert wrote: "LOL, someone's been watching too much "How it Should Have Ended"."

Haha! Robert got you, Oscar.. I believe in him that you watched "How it should have ended"

However, Gandalf doesn't have that magic to control over the eagle yet. He was just regular wizard who have lot of experience than being in White Robe himself. After he had fallen with the Shadow monster, he was learning a stronger & better skills to call for eagle in the end of the movie. Or else thing will not be connecting and might loose the interest. It's the masterpiece anyway. I love the movie. All timer favorite. :)

Again, How it should have ended is hairlious.

Sometimes, you just have to keep your mouth closed. And your keyboard, even when you really, really, really want to respond to something.

You really do.

Lochaber wrote: "Sometimes, you just have to keep your mouth closed. And your keyboard, even when you really, really, really want to respond to something.

You really do.

"

who are you talking about?

Cody wrote: "Lochaber wrote: "Sometimes, you just have to keep your mouth closed. And your keyboard, even when you really, really, really want to respond to something.

You really do.

"

who are you talking a..."

Myself.

Cody wrote: "However, Gandalf doesn't have that magic to control over the eagle yet. He was just regular wizard who have lot of experience than being in White Robe himself. After he had fallen with the Shadow monster, he was learning a stronger & better skills to call for eagle in the end of the movie. Or else thing will not be connecting and might loose the interest. It's the masterpiece anyway. I love the movie. All timer favorite. :)
"

Well, I have to respond. THat may be the way it seems in the movie, but it is a totally wrong description of events based on the book. The eagle is not something he calls or controls, but is rather a friend of Gandalf's, a friend I believe he made in the Hobbit (or perhaps before). In neither of the movie does he learn "stronger and better skills" after falling with the monster. He dies in both. When he comes back to life he is given more powers, presumably by the various gods that exist in their world.

In the movie the eagle would have had a hard time simply disposing of the ring by dropping it into the lava, as one had to enter the volcano through a tunnel. And Sauron undoubtable would have been able to see the Eagle coming and had it killed by one of his dragons, anyway.

David wrote: "Cody wrote: "However, Gandalf doesn't have that magic to control over the eagle yet. He was just regular wizard who have lot of experience than being in White Robe himself. After he had fallen with..."

For the record, I loathe the movies. That was the whole point of post #3. It's my hope and belief that the LOTR books will still be read and loved long after those idiotic movies are forgotten. The movies stood many of Tolkien's themes on their heads, and replaced some of his most memorable and beautiful dialog with ersatz idiocy. They represent a profound disrespect of Tolkien, although I believe that Peter Jackson was too self-important (and possibly too stupid) to realize that he was crapping all over a work that he wasn't qualified to read, much less film.

The Eagle was Gwaihir the Windlord. He was sent to Orthanc by Radagast the Brown, one of the Five Wizards and a particular friend of animals, at Gandalf's request - to bring news. Radagast had been misled by Saruman, but was not a traitor. Gandalf had certainly had dealings with the Eagles before, most notably in The Hobbit. Gandalf did not control Gwaihir, ever - the eagle helped him out of friendship. As far as I know, the only living things that Gandalf ever controlled were Grima Wormtongue and Saruman - and in both cases, only for a few moments at most.

Gandalf did die in his battle with the Balrog, and was "sent back" to take Saruman's place. Presumably, it was Illuvatar who sent him back. Or possibly it was Manwë, the Vala. Tolkien never specified.

As for an eagle taking the Ring to Mount Doom, there are several problems. For one, the Ring (or the lust for it) can corrupt even an angel - and the eagles, though exceptional creatures in Middle-Earth, are no angels.

Also, Sauron commands many creatures, including flying ones. I'm not at all sure that he had any dragons left, however. Smaug may have been the last one. But he certainly commanded many other flying creatures, and surely had enough "air power" to destroy any eagle who approached Mordor. The flying mounts of the Nazgûl may not have been "ready" when the Council met at Rivendell and formed the Fellowship, but it seems certain that several (perhaps many) of the aerial mounts were alive and living in Mordor at that time - under Sauron's control.

And in any case, an eagle flying towards Mount Doom would have been terribly obvious. Sauron would have been aware of it quite quickly, and would have taken action. A major point of the Quest was that hobbits were small and unnoticeable; naturally quiet and stealthy, when they wanted to be. They were, in fact, so insignificant that Sauron wasn't aware of them for an Age or more:

'To tell you the truth,' replied Gandalf, 'I believe that hitherto - hitherto, mark you - he has entirely overlooked the existence of hobbits.'

In comparison, the Eagles were actually rather mighty among the mortal races of Middle-Earth - when they chose to be involved, that is. The Eagles were the deciding factor in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, for example.

Wow... You guys are awesome.. I agreed. I need to read The Hobbit, which I still have it and never starting read it yet. What's wrong with me?