Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #72028 in Books
• Published on: 1999-03-01
• 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

Daily Telegraph
`An astonishing imaginative tour de force.'

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

Customer Reviews

A challenge, but well worth the effort.
This book is a challenge. This is what puts many people off it the first time they open it, especially if they have already seen the movie. The point is, this is not just easy entertainment, like the film was. Yes, they tried in places to put a philosophical gloss on, but took great care to explain this to anyone watching, just in case they missed it.

Yes, there are great long descriptive passages, but they are there for a reason. We are so used to having images presented to us that we no longer seem to find description necessary. This is a pity, because if you give him a chance, Tolkien is one of the best descriptive writers I know. We cannot explore all the detail in a single reading, just as we cannot see all the detail in a good painting in a single quick viewing. The only way to sink yourself into this world is to let the author describe it to you, there would be no point in him writing this book if everyone could just think up their own equally valid version.

The greatest thing about the Lord of the Rings is, like all great art, the fact that we cannot understand and see all in a single reading. People reread it many times, because each new reading reveals something that went unnoticed before. The immense complexity of the characters cannot be shown in a quick and easy way, employed by many fantasy writers of cheap Tolkien-spinoffs, simply by stating something like 'Tom was a very sensitive boy. Having been bullied by his schoolmates, he was constantly on the alert.. blablabla'. Tolkien understood, unlike many of these other authors, that only a very complex combination of deeds, words and thoughts can reveal who and what someone truly is.

If you do struggle reading this, and I can imagine that as I didn't manage to finish it the first time I read it, I strongly recommend an audio book. This may look like cheating as you can simply let it run, and then claim to have read it all. I firmly believe (without reading any experts on this, so I may be eating these words at some later date) that Tolkien was thinking of the great epic poems from the past while writing this. Poems from a completely oral culture. When this is read aloud by a good actor, trees and places appear before your eyes. Passages which may seem dull if you try to tackle them on your own suddenly flow past effortlessly, with your imagination free from fetters to picture the scene.

I don't think this review will ever be read by many people, this has been more of a rant for me than anything else. I do hope more people will be able to find their way to Middle Earth, simply by giving it another chance. It really is worth the effort to see your way past slightly older language than you may be accustomed to, and a style so radically different from usual. But that is something all great art has as well: a unique style, and this work should not be disregarded simply because we are not used to it.

One of the most influential books of all time
This is and always will be a great book. It will cease to be of interest when people no longer think that Hamlet says anything meaningful about the human condition or that Romeo and Juliet tells us nothing about love. I could have given this book 5 stars to reflect its key role in twentieth century entertainment, from books to video games to films, to recognise the meticulous detail of the characters and the staggering breadth of Tolkien's imagination. But instead I chose to give it 1 star because although it is great as the best of Shakespeare it is phenomenally dull in many places because of Tolkiens inability to understand the idea of "pace" and "suspense" and because the characters are so shallow and underdeveloped.

But, that is probably not at all a bad thing. It seems to me that this book is Tolkien's labour of love for European mythology. He perhaps wanted to create for European mythology a sprawling, stolid, timeless classic in the vein of the ancient greek classics. The greek classics are quite dull to read, but oh, the stories! What child doesn't know the name of Hercules or the story of the wooden horse?

In the same way, this is a classic of European mythology, with a cracking (though at times blandly told) story and many memorable (though underdeveloped by modern standards) characters. This book therefore deserves to be read for generations to come, but those generations should take it as it is. It is a great book, but not great literature.

Despite vehement critical hostility, Tolkien is among our most important writers because the way he handles Myth
Over the past several decades, THE LORD OF THE RINGS has sold millions of copies and is commonly regarded as one of the most influential fantasy novels ever published. Many first time readers have began their trek into Middle-earth with Frodo and the Company of the Ring in recent years. What they will encounter there has been loved by millions of readers before them, and if they allow themselves to respond to Tolkien and his Myth will doubtless become a loyal and ardent fan of Tolkien and those furry-footed hobbits. What's also notable about THE LORD OF THE RINGS is, for a book as long as it is, many of its readers reread the novel many times over. Yet despite its enduring popularity, Tolkien is often held in complete disregard by the literary establishment.

The real question is why? In the literary climate that is characterized by modernism and post-modernism where the twentieth and twenty first century is a wasteland why does a "series" of fantasy novels become one of the most beloved works in modern times?

It's because the power of myth over the human imagination works wonders, creating a longing and a hunger that, Tolkien argues, is met by the Christian religion. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis are the flip-sides of the same coin, with Lewis giving us accounts of the longing and Tolkien providing the books that would create that longing. And what about the longing? It's that longing for Myth, that love for those beauties which Tolkien shows us in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. It's that longing that sets man apart from all other creatures in the universe: a craving for beauty and for joy. The German word for this longing is "senhsucht". In a time characterized by fast-food, cell-phones, materialism, superficiality, the account of a Hobbit working against all odds in a mythic landscape so captures the human imagination (and this is NOT hype) that an entire genre is created. It is because of how Tolkien so masterfully handles Myth that he has been so highly treasured by such a large fan base.

Still, there are a few things to consider when reading Tolkien nowadays. Looking over the reviews, it proved rather shocking to me that people have been complaining that, although it was original when it was published, much of what Tolkien has done has become cliche and that other writers are much better working with these cliches and making them more exciting than Tolkien. They complain about his "endless descriptions" of the natural world, very detailed accounts of geography and not enough "characterization." The characters are unrealistic: the "human drama" required by the book's very nature is beyond Tolkien's scope as a writer. THE FELLOWSHIP is both uneven and very weak in pacing, with so much invested in the world and its history Tolkien forgets to make us care about the characters themselves. Another fault oft cited against Tolkien is the lack of "female characters," and there have been accusations that Tolkien is racist; one of my favorite misconceptions is that Frodo and Sam are homosexuals.

Academia has no time for Tolkien, and many of our key critics have denounced Tolkien as ill-written or escapist (Harold Bloom said that THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a period piece which will simply not die but just keeps lingering on long after its relevance. This is the stance taken by a lot of professional critics with a grudge against Tolkien, and wonderfully have been proven wrong). To this day, while not nearly as openly hostile as previous decades, academia in general harbors resentment against Tolkien and everything he's done. As far as they're concerned, he's done something that is actually popular and therefore unworthy of study. It's one of those "high-brow vs. low-brow" situations, and instead of producing "worthwhile" academic research, Tolkien instead writes a "series" of novels which become one of the most established authors of this century. In recent years, academic support has grown tremendously for Tolkien, but he is still a very hotly contested modern writer, unlike some other "academically undeniable" classics such as James Joyce. Unlike the academic favorites, Tolkien highly polarizes the professional literary establishment. Fortunately he has gained some ground here though.

Much of the complaints voiced against THE LORD OF THE RINGS are both unimportant and irrelevant. Tolkien is working with literary traditions not in-tune with the modern mind, but is instead handling narrative threads of Myth. Tolkien gives us solid archetypes to work with, bringing out the very qualities of masculinity and the beauties and stark wonders of femininty, but all expressed in mythological terminology. The idea of Sam and Frodo as homosexual is both ridiculous and totally unfounded. In Myth, good is characterized and seen as "White," and the evil is dark and perverted. Those who say Tolkien is racist approach him from the wrong standpoint.

As for the modern fantasy reader, those who complain about Tolkien's originality (while acknowledging it, but that later writers do a much better job with it) is like saying Shakespeare, while a good dramatist, is not that good because other people take his principals and make them more exciting, etc. I heard a story once about a person who went to see a Shakespeare play and went away complaining there were too many quotes in the play to make it any good. Shakespeare is the source of these quotes and he did not even realise it.

Most people know that Tolkien founded modern fantasy. Tolkien laid down the template for the fantasy genre in general, and anyone who reads fantasy has been touched, directly or indirectly, by Tolkien's work. Almost all of the major fantasy authors have acknowledge their debt to Tolkien, and the shadow Tolkien casts over fantasy literature is very long indeed. Because there is fifty years separating us from the original publication, it is much harder to approach THE LORD OF THE RINGS as those first reviewers, for those who have grown up reading fantasy literature are now accustomed to Dwarves and Elves and Dark Lords and Epic Quests, but when it was issued THE LORD OF THE RINGS transformed and invented an entire new genre. It is not Tolkien's fault that his vision of a mythology was so successful that everyone else decided they would try their hand at fantasy and work within Tolkien's templates. The main problem with fantasy authors in general are they are more interested in emulation than they are in true "myth-making." Much like early rock and roll, which, because rock was not an established form of music, the early musicians relied on other forms to create a new genre, Tolkien did not have this tradition to fall back on so instead he used various literatures and epic poems to create his own vision of myth. A lot of fantasy writers do not work in the context of myth any more, but rather rely on genre stereotypes which are generally found in Tolkien. Many readers who are interested in "pulp" fantasy get bogged down in Tolkien because he takes the time to fully explain his world and its cultures, because his goal is different. There is plenty of action in LORD OF THE RINGS, but those raised on the pulp fantasy will not care for it.

Ultimately, THE LORD OF THE RINGS's criticism has shown itself to be of little important on its durability as a major text. Ever since its publication in 1954, 1955, and 1956, LOTR has become one of the most important literary works our era has produced, highly regarded and passionately loved by an enormous amount of people. Despite the very vocal minority who despise Tolkien and his work, THE LORD OF THE RINGS has consistently topped the polls for the best book of the last one hundred years. Whatever the critics say, THE LORD OF THE RINGS is here to stay because popular imagination has grabbed hold of Tolkien's vision and ran with it. Tolkien and Lewis have been wonderfully vindicated in their belief that there is an enormous adult appetite for Myth and fantasy literature.

It is like water in a dry place.