The Lord of the Rings (1954)

I'm a big fantasy fan, and you have to give Tolkien props for practically creating the genre.

Nonetheless, and in all honesty, I've always found [b:the Lord of the Rings|34|The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, Part 1)|J.R.R. Tolkien|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1156043001s/34.jpg|3204327] Trilogy to be a bit slow. While I enjoy poetic imagery and can understand the desire to wax lyrical, sometimes I get a little irritated at the sheer wordiness of this series.

Every time I revisit these books, I remember why I prefer authors like Neil Gaiman or R.R. Martin for my fantasy fix. The Fellowship of the Rings is well-written and enjoyable, especially in the last few chapters, when the action really picks up. But be warned -- you have to slog through quite a bit of speech-making and discussion to get to that point.

However, this is a classic of the genre, and should be read and experienced by any [b:fantasy lover|84136|Fantasy Lover (Dark-Hunter, #1)|Sherrilyn Kenyon|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171050604s/84136.jpg|2384] at least once.

** I thought of something while I was talking to a friend who had a similar complaint to mine, about the tendency of this series to go off on tangents and be altogether too verbose.

Lord of the Rings was published at the end of an era, an era when books were the predominant entertainment. Television was not yet common to every home, regardless of income. Films were a nice escape, but not available to watch at home, only in the theaters. In a sense, Tolkien is one of the last authors to write in the same literary style as Dickens, Austen, and the Bronte sisters (obviously in a different genre, however).

Due to a societal conditioning for quick, immediate entertainment that is provided on demand, modern authors have learned that in order to succeed, they must write in a concise, attention-grabbing manner. There is no time for authors who begin their books with long, meandering paragraphs and tend towards tangential writing. In order to be a success, the book must immediately grab and hold the attention, and stay in such a vein throughout. ( )

I don't know whether to mark this "read" or "currently reading" as it's my constant companion on my iPod as well as my desktop computer. Every night I go to sleep to Tolkien's magisterial prose as illuminated by Rob Inglis. Sometimes in the middle of the night I wake to a favorite song. I love this book so much, and only wish that Inglis would narrate my other favorites as well. ( )

Whereas [b:The Hobbit|5907|The Hobbit Or There and Back Again|J.R.R. Tolkien|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1233949700s/5907.jpg|1540236] was a simple adventure fantasy, [b:The Lord of the Rings|34|The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, Part 1)|J.R.R. Tolkien|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1156043001s/34.jpg|3204327] is high fantasy, that is, a tale of the struggle between good and evil with very high stakes should the good side lose. The characters and creatures from [b:The Hobbit|5907|The Hobbit Or There and Back Again|J.R.R. Tolkien|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1233949700s/5907.jpg|1540236] are back, with more added. Again, I'd say it's the sort of thing you'd like if you like that sort of thing (which I do). It's hard to believe anyone over 20 who might like it hasn't read it, but you never know. ( )

My third time through for this classic. I find something new each time I read this epic tale of good and evil. This was a nice change from my usual fast reads. Already familiar with the story I was able to take my time and really appreciate Tolkien's rich story telling. Middle-Earth itself is a character, the land and weather reflect the people who dwell there. Tolkien was "green" before it was trendy to be so. Epic adventure at its best! ( )

This is hard because I don't feel I can give Lord of the Rings less than five stars - I liked it a lot - but I also like The Hobbit a little better. Oh well, whatever. ( )