Product Description

Three-volume paperback boxed set of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic masterpiece, packaged in the classic black covers designed by Tolkien himself. Sauron, the Dark Lord, has gathered to him all the Rings of Power -- the means by which he intends to rule Middle-earth. All he lacks in his plans for dominion is the One Ring -- the ring that rules them all -- which has fallen into the hands of the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. In a sleepy village in the Shire, young Frodo Baggins finds himself faced with an immense task, as his elderly cousin Bilbo entrusts the Ring to his care. Frodo must leave his home and make a perilous journey across Middle-earth to the Cracks of Doom, there to destroy the Ring and foil the Dark Lord in his evil purpose. Since it was first published in 1954, 'The Lord of the Rings' has been a book people have treasured. Steeped in unrivalled magic and otherworldliness, its sweeping fantasy has touched the hearts of young and old alike.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1335 in Books
• Published on: 1999-03-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 3
• Binding: Paperback
• 1500 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
For those who have not read Tolkien's epic fantasy, or for those looking to replace a worn and battered copy, this three-volume The Lord of the Rings box set is a great place to start. Comprising the three novels that make up the Lord of the Rings sequence--The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King--the whole set is presented in matching matt black packaging with embossed runes and coloured rings. Of course, beneath the fancy covers lies a great epic story of good versus evil, perhaps one of the greatest stories ever told. Attractively presented--and at a great price--there really is no excuse not to have this in your collection. So go on, give it a try; once you've entered Tolkien's fantastic imagination, you'll find it hard to leave. --Jonathan Weir

Review
'Extraordinarily imaginative, and wholly exciting.' The Times 'The story itself is superb.' Observer 'A most remarkable feat.' Guardian 'An astonishing imaginative tour de force.' Daily Telegraph 'Tolkien was a storyteller of genius.' Literary Review 'Amongst the greatest works of imaginative fiction of the twentieth century.' Sunday Telegraph

’ Sunday Telegraph
‘Amongst the greatest works of imaginative fiction of the twentieth century.

Customer Reviews

So over-rated it hurts
I think my problem with this book(/s) is that I didn't read it when I was a child. If I had done, I may have loved it like I did Star Wars or appreciated the world it creates like I now accept that the World of Warcraft universe is impressive in its size and scope.
As it is, I can't get over how thoroughly mediocre the whole thing is. People talk about it as an epic but what is epic about it other than its incredible length? People talk about the life lessons you can learn from it or its universal themes of good and bad. Really? Are we ever given even the tiniest shred of motivation for any of the characters? Is it ever explained to us why the 'good' characters are good or why the 'evil' ones are evil?
I challenge any one of this books millions of fans to find a single person who read this after the age of 25 and liked it. Or to re-read it themselves without the rose-tinted spectacles of their childhood and explain to me why it is in any way more impressive, inventive or rewarding than most of todays fantasy computer games. These too create whole worlds with plenty of maps and creatures and races and fights and quests and so on, usually with more to their story than: "Walk for 1400 pages then throw a ring into some lava" but none of these are every held up as the ultimate examples of literature.
Like "The DaVinci Code", this book is cited as a masterpiece only by people who simply haven't read enough other books to know better.

shockingly bad
This is the single most apallingly overrated nonsense I have ever had my displeasure to read. It starts badly (there never is a plausible reason given why the hobbits set off on this ridiculously dangerous adventure) and just gets worse. The descriptions are turgid, the characterisation unbelievable and the use of language frighteningly dull.

Truth is I have never managed to get past the first of the three books that make up this shockfest. I have always got to the point where the hobbits enter the elvish forest and thrown (yes physically thrown) the book across the room. When I say always I must confess that I have attempted to read this thing three times and always come to the same conclusion - it is too bad to be worthy of my time.

Four points: first I am not afraid to read lengthy novels as I completed Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers" and Proust's "In Search of Lost Time" this year and found both amazing. Also I am not some bigot opposed to children's literature, "Pinnochio" and "The Little Prince" are delightful and speak more to the human condition than Tolkein ever could. I also found "The Hobbit" to be a near perfect fantasy novel whose characters I could easily empathise with. Finally I delight in fairy tales and recognise the importance of the Elvish folk in some cultures. The truth is this is just badly written nonsense best ignored while you realise there is more magic in "Moby Dick" than in some tale about a magic ring.

Lord of the Swedes
This is a review of the novel, not this particular edition. Before the LOTR fans eat me alive, Orc style, let me say that I'm not an expert on Tolkien or LOTR, and only read the epic once, in a non-approved Swedish translation. Still, I offer my comments, for all they may be worth.

Here in Sweden, almost everyone reads LOTR. And I really mean, everyone! I met assembly-line workers and dispatch riders who read LOTR. Already in elementary school, all kids read LOTR, and one of our teachers read it aloud during class. It took at least two semesters. Every year in February, Swedish bookstores have a traditional clearence sale. LOTR always sold out the very first day. Imagine growing up in a nation where reading "Lord of the Rings" is considered conventional, almost common knowledge!

As a kind of protest against all this, I decided already as a kid *not* to read LOTR, and I never did, until after I saw Peter Jackson's first movie, and by then I was obviously an adult. I can't say the novel thrilled me. The first part, "The Fellowship of the Ring" smacks of being written for children, and I found it quite silly. By contrast, "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" are more for adults. Here, Tolkien presumably wanted to write a quasi-historical epic, and inadvertently founded an entirely new literary genre, fantasy. I didn't really like the two concluding books either, however. To me, "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" are essentially the same story, repeated twice. First, the dark lord Sauron attacks Rohan, and somewhat later he attacks Gondor. The Ents were just plain silly, a kind of throwback to the childishness of "The Fellowship of the Ring".

I readily admit that these impressions of mine are purely subjective. Perhaps I'm just not a fantasy guy. Incidentally, I think Peter Jackson experienced the same problems as I did with the contradiction between children's story and adult epic. He seems to have solved it by turning his movie version of the "Fellowship" into a dark monster movie (adieu, Tom Bombadil).

Why is LOTR so popular, then? Perhaps one of the reasons is that the story can be read on many different levels. The similarities with Norse and Anglo-Saxon mythology (Beowulf) are obvious. Indeed, Tolkien apparently wanted to create a new mythology for our age, and what better place to start than simply re-write the old one? The popularity of LOTR here in Sweden can at least in part be explained by this Norse angle of the work, which the un-authorized Swedish translation apparently strengthened even further.

On another level, LOTR is a political allegory of World War Two and the Cold War, although Tolkien himself denied this. Still, the similarities are pretty obvious: Saruman is Hitler, Sauron is Stalin, the Shire is England. The main part of the story could be read as a Third World War allegory, with the Soviet Union (Mordor) in alliance with the Third World (the pirates from the south) attacking the free nations of the West. While this may appeal to people with bad experiences of Communism, it unfortunately leads to racism at times. The crooks are often black-skinned, have almond eyes and wield scimitars, while many of the heroes are white and fair. Still, it seems few people interpret the story as racist, thank Iluvatar, and many actually see it as anti-racist, since the Fellowship of the Ring consists of both humans, elves, dwarfs and hobbits.

Yet another reason for LOTR's popularity is that the work can be read as environmentalist. A romantic love of nature and hatred for modern industrialized society is a recurring theme in the novel. For some reason, Saruman seems to be the chief culprit in this regard, both in Isengard and later in the Shire. Indeed, it was a great pity that Peter Jackson left out the scourging of the Shire from his movie version of "The Return of the King", since this is obviously an important part of the story.

Here in Sweden, most people have only read LOTR in Åke Ohlmark's translation from 1959-61. Tolkien himself hated this translation, and never authorized it. This lead to a later fall-out between Ohlmarks and Tolkien's son Christopher, who prohibited Ohlmarks from translating "The Silmarillion". Ohlmarks denounced Christopher as a "sociopath" and the Silmarillion as "crap" at a fantasy convention, which didn't exactly endear him to the Tolkien fans. Later, Ohlmarks claimed to have been attacked by a dark-side faction of the Tolkien Society, and wrote a scurrilous book accusing fantasy fans of being Satanists, going so far as to state that he regretted ever having translated LOTR. He even claimed that the real author of LOTR wasn't Tolkien, but C.S. Lewis (!). This entire episode was something of a tragedy, since Ohlmarks, despite being a very well-educated man, was a fantasy freak himself and regulary participated in fantasy re-enacments. At the advanced age of 70, he agreed to play "Bombur the Fat Dwarf" at a party organized by the Swedish Tolkien Society!

It's ironic that generations of Swedes have grown up reading a version of LOTR Tolkien himself discarded. Indeed, the only Swedes who don't read Ohlmark's translation are presumably the members of the Swedish Tolkien Society, who prefer the English original. Yet, it might have been Ohlmark's idiosyncratic translation that made LOTR so popular in Sweden, since he consciously attempted to make the names of places and persons in the epic as "Swedish" as possible.

I have no idea how to rate this work, so I give it three stars out of five. One thing is certain: badly translated or not, LOTR will sure find new readers and new converts in many generations still to come.