Second, I wish that the trilogy concluded with the destruction of Mount Doom and evil in general. That was a big climax right there, and it would have been a better ending after all the events that were portrayed in the three books. I wished that the ring was destroyed, and the king was installed, and people return to their respective neighborhoods, and the book concludes. No, instead, the Hobbits return to the Shire and evil is still there. It’s as if there is a big conclusion in the form of the destruction of the ring, and there is a smaller conclusion in the form of the defeat of Saruman after he invaded the Shire. One would hope that the story is already concluded when the ring is thrown into the fire, but no, there’s still a storyline that continues. Plot-wise, I didn’t like that aspect, as it was quite anti-climactic.
So, one year and three books later, now I can say that I have read a fantasy book. I still am not a big fan of it, although I do appreciate the fact that this is considered classical fantasy literature. But aside from that, I felt that it didn’t shine enough for me to be enthusiastic about it. Good triumphs over evil, yeah, I already knew that. I don’t see why one needs three books and a whole alternate universe to narrate that punch line. It was taxing on my imagination, and it never offered something different and new from the other stories that say the same conclusion.
So, as I think it was just an average book, I am not giving it a high score. Granted, I know that my opinion is of the minority here, and most people consider this to be a spectacular piece of literature. 3 out of 5 stars.
Article comments
1 - Jeremiah Burns
I don't fault you for not liking a piece of work for whatever reason. People like what they like, and that's that.
But I'm surprised that as a "PhD candidate in the field of linguistics"[sic], you didn't seem to have any sort of appreciation for the loving lengths Prof. Tolkien went to in order to create his world around a set of invented languages.
I recommend you read "On Fairy Stories", a short essay by Tolkien which goes some way to explain his motivation for writing anything at all...and then see if you still feel the same way.
2 - Jeruen Dery
I have to tell you that linguistics is a broad field: I have friends who definitely appreciate the intricate linguistic systems that Tolkien created just to tell his story. However, I am a psycholinguist: I deal with how language is processed in the brain. I couldn't care less about how systematically intricate Tolkien's constructed languages are. That being said, I do agree that he is a method writer who took great efforts in constructing the world he had in his imagination.
By the way, thanks for the recommendation, I'll try and get my hands on it sometime.
3 - Jeruen Dery
I do agree that Tolkien is commendable for going to great lengths in creating constructed languages just to tell his story. I wouldn't be surprised if there are linguists who would surely appreciate that.
However, constructed languages isn't my cup of tea. My specialization is psycholinguistics: how language is processed in the brain. As such, I am more interested in how and why your brain lights up, not in whether such-and-such a constructed language is awesome or not.
By the way, thanks for the recommendation. I'd try and see whether I can get my hands on it sometime.
4 - Kate Rider
Many Sci-Fi and Fantasy stories involve travel BECAUSE of the Lord of the Rings. Inspiration begets inspiration. It also allows the protaganist to be amazed enough about fantastical things that they are described and expounded upon. If you grew up with flying pigs, it isn't a big deal. If the foreign land you are visiting has them, and home doesn't; then you have a story!
If you want a psyco thriller I recommend Asimov's Foundation series and McCaffrey's Arcona series.
Herbert's Dune has extensive travel, but it is an amazing psyco thriller. Fear is the Mind Killer!