One Series to Rule them All

The Lord of the Rings

Nearly every modern fantasy novel to come out has been compared to LOTR at one point or another. Usually, you’ll find at least one reference to LOTR on the dust jacket or wherever the blurbs are noted for any given book. Quite simply, LOTR is the standard for Fantasy. The standard by which all other fantasy novels will inevitably be judged, and the standard bearer for the genre at large for decades. Maybe, just maybe, you could argue that ASoIaF is gaining ground due to the immense popularity of Game of Thrones, but it will be a long time before LOTR isn’t the first thing to come to mind when Fantasy books are mentioned. For the sake of addressing the elephant on the bookshelf, let’s dive into my critical thoughts on this genre titan.

As I have mentioned in other blogs, my dad first read me The Lord of the Rings when I was in second grade. I then read them myself in 4th. And I have read them a few times again since (the only one I can actually place in time would be right after the Return of the King movie was released in 2003. LOTR is what got me into reading. It was my north star and my guiding light for the foundational years of my literary experience. I can think of no better way to describe LOTR’s importance to my journey than to say that my personal experience with it reflects very accurately its role in the genre at large. Fortunately, while LOTR is certainly given some preferential treatment as first and favorite child, its merit is indisputable. Not perfect by any means, but Tolkien established many of the “tropes” and mastered many of the characteristics by which we judge modern fantasy. If LOTR is the only thing people think of when they talk about the fantasy genre, then the genre is well represented and encapsulated.

Tolkien’s worldbuilding is likely 2nd to none. From the detailed and exquisite maps to the gorgeous descriptions of the shire, Tolkien’s world is so fleshed out as to be as real to many readers as the next country over. I don’t need to wax poetic about all of the detail Tolkien provides, but I think a key to his world-building success lies in the fact that he, like the Dwarves of Moria, delved deep into the land. The history and cultures of the world are not surface paintings to tide us over, they have deep roots that extend far beyond the text. The Silmarillion literally covers the creation story of Middle Earth, we have a pantheon of high angels (Valar) and lesser angels (Maiar), we have the development of the darker forces (Morgoth and later Sauron), we have myriad historic tales from the first and 2nd ages, and we literally have multiple, fully developed languages. Almost none of this is actually relevant to the text of LOTR, but the fact that it exists, and the fact that Tolkien can draw on historical references in the text, lends such strength of character to the novels. It’s like character creation in spy novels or witness protection, it doesn’t do you any good to just have a name and birthday, if you really want to be convincing as someone else, you need to know so much more about your past and personality. You may never need 90% of what you invent, but the fact that it is available makes the character feel so much more real. This is exactly what Tolkien has done with Middle-Earth.

Tolkien’s characters are also emblematic of the fantasy genre and the hero’s tale. Read nearly any fantasy story and you will find the Gandalf stand-in somewhere. The hobbits as heroes despite being small and insignificant at the start makes for such a compelling character arc as to have established the trope of the savior almost always coming from low means. What is different about Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin is that they remain small and insignificant to 99% of Middle-Earth. They never rise to fame and prominence, they return to the Shire, to their quiet lives, because acting the hero was about necessity. The Hobbits have 1 special power… they show a remarkable resilience against the ring’s influence. Not because of some magic skill, but because they are good simple people at heart and thus harder to corrupt. This has become the archetypal story in fantasy; a nobody from nowhere serving as messiah or savior. Typically, however, we find out that the nobody from nowhere is actually high born lord/lady or a pre-destined superman of some sort. The Hobbits are exactly as they seem. Additionally, they don’t rise up and become a power, they remain exactly as they seem throughout the story. And, even in the end, it is their personality characteristics that serve as their strength to accomplish the task at hand. They never develop any special magics or skill in battle, they simple are who they are and need to do what they need to do. Perhaps the best illustration of Tolkien’s values set out is in Samwise. His one quality, aside from gardening and cooking, is loyalty. He sticks by Frodo no matter what. Frodo wouldn’t have gotten very far without Sam. Aragorn is the reluctant King hiding from his past who finally rises up to lead. Boromir the troubled companion who unwittingly plays the Judas character. I could go on and on. Tolkien literally wrote the book on modern fantasy by writing its most fundamental story.

Speaking of the story, I love that while LOTR has plenty of action and massive battles, the true story is about 2 little Hobbits sneaking through the wilderness and surviving on sheer force of will. If you were to chart out the plot, you’d likely find the Mines of Moria, the battle for Helm’s Deep, and the battle of Pelennor Fields prominent in your summary. But the story is not about those major events. The story is about the journey of Frodo and Sam; it’s the concept of journey before destination writ in story form.

But LOTR does have its battles, action, and monsters. 90% of the books focus on the journey from points A>B>C>D…, but the 10% of action and battles are extraordinary. Helm’s Deep is desperate and Pelennor Fields epic. The Nazgul and Balrog are 2 of the coolest and most badass fantasy creatures. Smaug defines the dragon. Tolkien knew how to entertain; he just chose his characters and worldbuilding as his primary focus.

We cannot talk about LOTR without discussing its adaptations and other media. Quickly, I will note that even before the movies, the related artwork was extensive. Tolkien’s descriptions and imagery are so potent as to elicit a cavalcade of artists seeking to illustrate his world. There are numerous art books and fanart to be found if one goes looking. For the movies, I cannot praise them enough. They are not 100% perfect, but they more closely approach perfection than any other movie adaptation I have ever seen or could even conceive of. Purist may hate the changes, but Jackson captured the spirit and story of LOTR exquisitely. There are differences between book and film, but the changes were well thought out and executed. For example, the timeline of the separate groups (particularly Frodo and Sam compared to Aragorn) does not line up nicely in the books. Frodo and Sam’s story is a few months ahead of the others, so Jackson rearranged some events (i.e. Shelob moving to ROTK instead of TTT) to help the timelines more closely match, and to ensure that Frodo and Sam have adequate screen time and plot action in the third movie. Similarly, Jackson streamlined or outright removed certain sequences from the books in order to keep the movies to a manageable length and to avoid introducing too much complication. This is where a show format (i.e. Game of Thrones) has a significant advantage in that they have many times the amount of hours to play with. The other major changes were the consolidation of some characters and the introductions of others (i.e. Arwen takes over Glorfindel’s role, and has much more screen time than she did in books). It is worth noting that in almost every case, the argument for the film changes is robust and logical, not just “because it will look cool!”. The movies are not exact replicas of the books in a different media, but they are a remarkable representation of the books in almost every sense. I will admit to a strong opposition to the decision to have Frodo and Gollum tumble over the edge in Mount Doom together and then Sam having to save Frodo. I think this is the one instance of a “Hollywood moment” that I had an issue with. The added drama was unnecessary and contrived in my opinion. However, I will also say that, in the books, I wish Frodo played a more active role in actually forcing the ring into the fire. Gollum tripping while celebrating and tumbling in seems a bit anticlimactic. I wish they combined the 2 to have Frodo maybe come to his senses (or even just get angry) while Gollum is cavorting and shove Gollum over the edge. I do love how the movies perfectly capture Gollum in his final moments though. His look of absolute contentment at being reunited with the ring, even as he falls to his death is just dead on. Most importantly for me, they simply brought the world to life. Ian McKellen is irrevocably Gandalf for me. The same could be said for a number of actors and characters as well. With the HP movies… I may picture Rupert Grint or Emma Watson when I think of Ron and Hermione, and they did an admirable job acting, but the book characters and the movie characters remain separate entities for me. For LOTR, the movie characters were so spot-on that the book characters and movie characters are now entirely intertwined. Additionally, the locations, sets, and creatures (thanks in large part to Allen Lee and John Howe) are spectacular. It’s like they ripped my imagination out of my head and put it on paper. The LOTR movies feel like extensions of the book. An alternate media to portray the same story and world in a different format. This, more so than anything else, is what fans of the literature want.

The Hobbit movies, on the other hand, fail in the exact same way LOTR movies succeeded. The focus of the Hobbit movies became entertainment and “Hollywood” instead of telling Tolkien’s story. I defended many of the changes in the Hobbit movies for a long time. I still think the White Council and Dol Goldur are worthy additions to the plot, because they are Tolkien driven, not inventions of the movies. Similarly, it makes sense for Legolas to be present in Mirkwood. The only reason he was likely absent from the book is that he hadn’t been fully realized yet as a character until LOTR was being written. Newly named characters were also fine, as the Hobbit book is more like a series of vignettes with short bursts of action. The movie would naturally provide more detail/context/world-building to the content. Then the movies came out, and the additional characters took on wholly invented storylines. Every fight scene or action sequence became a massive production in trying to outdo everything previous with far too many bells and whistles. Some characters (i.e. Legolas) felt like completely different people than they do later on in LOTR. Jackson and team had earned so much credit (and, thus, leeway) with how well they aced LOTR, and then they threw so much of that away with the Hobbit.