Slashdot Mirror


The Atlas of Middle Earth

J.R.R.Tolkien succeeded both in creating fabulous new worlds and rendering them utterly believable. Reading his trilogy has become a rite of passage for many in several generations. An updated atlas of Middle -Earth provides a definitive guide through hundreds of maps and drawings. (In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired.)

The Atlas of Middle Earth author Karen Wynn Fonstad pages 210 publisher Houghton Mifflin rating 8 reviewer Jon Katz ISBN 0-618-12699-6 summary The Geography of Middle-Earth

If you really want to know what Middle-earth is based on, it's my wonder and delight in the earth as it is," Tolkien told an interviewer, "particularly the natural earth." He also wanted to provide a new, Brit-centric mythology for the world, so he took the literal earth and changed it just enough to make it "faerie."

With the cinematic trilogy of his books under production -- three separate films are scheduled for release over the next two years -- Middle Earth is going mainstream. These films will probably be nearly as big as Star Wars, if they're half as good, touching mythological and creative nerves that revolve around what we like to call science fiction in its varied forms.

As is often the case with culture The Lord Of the Rings, The Hobbit and The Silmarillion -- provided comfort, stimulation, and escape for a particular sub-set of the human species, especially young, enchanted brainiacs growing up apart from the mainstream and eager -- desperate, maybe -- for other worlds to explore.

If you want to enter Tolkien's world, the best way is to read The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and the The Silmarillion. For hard-core Tolkien lovers who have already done that, I'd highly recommend -- there's plenty of time before the first movie in December -- The Atlas of Middle-Earth (Houghton Mifflin), by Karen Wynn Fonstad, a University of Wisconsin cartographer who has drafted unbelievably detailed maps of Middle Earth from the First Age through the Third, including thematic and other maps, guides, places and events (the mapping of the The Silarillion is astounding).

Tolkien created the details of Middle Earth for himself, for his own creativity and intellectual exercise. He was, Fonstad writes, envisioning his world much as our medieval cartographers viewed our own.

Fonstad's descriptions of the pain-staking process she used to create these hundreds of details maps are almost as interesting as the stories upon which they're based. The atlas is a composite of the physical surface with the imprint of the "Free Peoples." A number of basic map types are included -- the physical, including landforms, minerals, and climate; the political (spheres of influence); battles; migrations (closely tied with linguistics); the traveller's pathways and finally, situation maps -- towns and dwellings, all arranged roughly in sequence. Fonstad even includes detailed pathway tables -- the distance Frodo spent on his pony on dozens of trips, the length of marches, the treks of elves, the flights of refugees.

Fonstad concedes that an almost endless series of questions, assumptions and interpretations were necessary in creating these maps. But each line has been drawn with a reason behind it, she says. And she explains the reasoning.

Middle Earth was the creation of a world, and is deserving of its own geography. Fonstad's atlas is well and clearly written, even for the casual fan of Tolkien. And the hundreds of maps she created offers a new prism through which to look at these works. This is by no means a book for everybody, and even die-hard fans of the trilogy might ask why they need to know so much. The hard-core fanatic will know.

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.

307 comments

  1. The Atlas of Middle Earth by TomorrowNeverDies · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    --
    Maybe we could have a "Lord of the Rings" topic icon? What do you think about it?
    1. Re:The Atlas of Middle Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear StupidityNeverDies,

      You replied to the WRONG ARTICLE.
      Have a nice day.

  2. This book is a must for Tolkein fans by BrentRJones · · Score: 1

    Get all the book and get into the story. You will not be sorry.

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
  3. Atlas by vacamike · · Score: 2, Informative

    I bought the Atlas about three years back and loved it. The Atlas contains amazing detail and history. I especially liked how it contained topography of not only middle earth during the time that the trilogy is set in but also maps from the Silmarillion's time.
    Well worth the money in my opinion.

    1. Re:Atlas by littlecherub · · Score: 1

      I am just reading the trilogy for the first time (I know and I'm sorry) and was given the atlas at the same time. It is excellent and having the maps infront of me has really helped me understand what's going on and what's the big deal. I'd say a must for first timers and die hard fans alike.

    2. Re:Atlas by ideonode · · Score: 1

      Years ago, when I first read LOTR, I found that a most invaluable aid was Barbara Strachey's Journeys of Frodo

      A guide to where the gang were at any given time, beautifully illustrated with cartographic accuracy.

  4. Maybe it's just me ... by Microsift · · Score: 1

    but when you say "middle earth" I think Magma...

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
  5. Re:Da man strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Looks like God's finally fed up with the sinful life on the east coast.

    About time I say.

  6. So we'll have a "Lord of the Rings" topic on /.? by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whaddya say, CmdrTaco?

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
  7. Other works... by rcriii · · Score: 1

    we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired.

    Katz is going to re-interpret Tolkein now? No doubt with particular attention to such groundbreaking authors as Merceded Lackey...

    sigh...

    Robert

    1. Re:Other works... by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >No doubt with particular attention to such
      >groundbreaking authors as Merceded Lackey...

      You give him too much credit.

      I would expect him to focus more on such "authors" as Terry Brooks.

      >heave

      -l

    2. Re:Other works... by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Didn't you know that Sauron personifies rampant corporatism in 1930's England. And, the Nine represent the nine largest "Company Men" of the day.

      I think Jon's starting to get to me.

      --
      "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
    3. Re:Other works... by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 2

      "Informative"?? uh oh, I don't think I'm the only one Jon's getting too.

      That was a joke.

      --
      "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
  8. Ultimate Tolkien Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out 'A Tolkien Bestiary' by David Day. With an A to Z of every creature, person and thing in Middle Earth and the Undying Lands, as well as a complete history of both continents, and illustrtated histories of pre-Silmarillion events, the tale of the Silmarrillion, the Hobbit and LOTR. All beautifully illustrated by some of the best Tolkien inspired artists. Fa-han-tastic.

  9. I have this book! by cavemanf16 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have had this book for at least five years now, and I have to agree with Katz on this one. It is really detailed (far more detailed than I could have imagined just reading Tolkien's books), and offers a lot of help when reading through Tolkien's books, especially the Silmarillion. I'm a die-hard Tolkien fan (just got The Hobbit millenium edition, and the Lord of the Rings is on the way!), so I'm very familiar with the history and imagery of Middle-Earth, but the Atlas reviewed here really does justice to the series. It might be interesting to note that Karen Wynn Fonstad has done lots of other fiction cartography work for other popular book series' out there (I think D&D and other related stuff), so she's pretty good at giving the fantastical flair to her work (at least I think so). Get this book and reread through the Silmarillion. It's a much better read with maps like this in hand (The Silmarillion maps do take up approximately 1/2 of the Atlas of Middle Earth - IIRC).

    1. Re:I have this book! by Psiren · · Score: 2

      I couldn't get on with Tolkien for just this reason. Well, that and the fact that I found the whole thing very boring (I'm more of a sci-fi fan than fantasy). In my opinion if you need additional visual material in order to make sense of the story then it doesn't work as a book. I never have any problem visualizing the worlds that Clarke, Bear et al create though.

    2. Re:I have this book! by elh102 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      (just got The Hobbit millenium edition, and the Lord of the Rings is on the way!)

      Why would you buy The Hobbit Millenium Edition, when The Hobbit XP is going to be released in a matter of weeks?

    3. Re:I have this book! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have my sister's copy of The Hobbit and the Trilogy. The copies that I read in a hammock in the back yard one summer in about 1974.

      I've noticed the huge bloat in the 'Tolkein' section at the local Barnes & Noble and wondered how somebody dead so many years can be coming out with so many books all the time.

      Tolkein wrote great books. But the crushing commercialism of Tolkein, for me anyways, is most distressing.

      I don't need a pictoral guide, maps, etc. to enjoy a work of fiction. Is the world really becoming that illiterate these days?

    4. Re:I have this book! by cube+farmer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I also own a copy of this book; it adds immeasurably to the pleasure of re-reading Tolkien's works. Fonstad has also written The Atlas of the Land , The Atlas of Pern , and atlases for both Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.

      I also have The Atlas of the Land, which details the world described in the Thomas Covenant books by Stephen R. Donaldson. This is an excellent and extremely well done reference.

      --

      MacOS, Windows, BeOS, GNOME, KDE: they're all just Xerox copies

    5. Re:I have this book! by DHartung · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've got one as well -- the first edition, from about 20 years ago.

      At first it just seemed like more supplementary material for the ravenous fan, but I came to appreciate that while Fonstad obviously simply began to merge her own geography skills with her love for Tolkien's world, it went far beyond that. Certainly by the time she began to prepare these maps she had taken a much more analytic and critical approach to the material.

      Katz didn't mention it, but the original maps were done as her master's thesis in cartography! That tells you right off this isn't a casual work.

      Fonstad begins by telling us that Tolkien himself was unhappy with the geography of his world. The original map was done by Christopher Tolkien from his father's notes and sketches around the time of the 2nd printing of the trilogy [sic], as I recall, and the trouble was that the map sketches dated from very early in Tolkien's own conception of the stories. Remember that Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion first, partly while inhabiting a trench in WWI (!), and the Hobbit came much later. He wasn't even sure they were part of the same universe, so to speak (without the experience of modern marketing of sf/fantasy universes, this was not a trivial question). The LoTR maps had to conform to the Hobbit map more than anything, but there was at least one major problem: scale.

      Fonstad's careful textual analysis of the Hobbit and the Rings books showed that, for example, the Fellowship {Rings} made its way to Rivendell on foot at a speed roughly 50-100% faster than the Grey Company {Hobbit} on ponies. Tolkien, of course, hadn't made any such detailed effort to conform these accounts (nor does Fonstad suggest he should have). Instead this is just another example of how the Rings stories evolved organically over the course of Tolkien's lifetime.

      Other important and useful things Fonstad does include developing workable hypotheses for the types of geologic history that could have produced Middle-Earth, and on a more detailed level, geographic descriptions that tell us how the types of areas that the characters traverse came to be. What are the Barrow-Downs, really? Why does the Anduin come to an escarpment and flow down a great falls at Rauros? What could have produced the arid region of Mordor so close to verdant Ithilien?

      The answers to these questions are not always wholly satisfying, but they do help the careful reader get a sense of a more realistic world and underscore just how much information and observation Tolkien gave us. I've always thought that he's a terrifically visual writer (one reason the story should make a great screenplay). This brings out the colors in his story and makes them more vivid.

      --
      lake effect weblog
      {Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
    6. Re:I have this book! by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
      The Atlas of Pern is incredible! Like Tolkien's work, McCaffery's work leans heavily on a detailed geography. I'm re-reading the Dragonriders series right now and using the Atlas alongside of the books adds so much to the experience. I'm not depending on a convolutued description of the geography, I can see it and form a better mental image of the area.

      The only problem with Pern is that McCaffery has added so much to the original story that the maps are incomplete. The Atlas covers only the original Dragonriders trilogy, the Harpers trilogy, and the Moreta book. A revised version would be much appreciated (and three times as thick.) At least with Middle Earth, the canon is closed and the Atlas can be considered complete.

      -sk

    7. Re:I have this book! by bmac526 · · Score: 1

      You DON'T need the 'additional visual material' to make sense of the book. Millions of people read and enjoyed Tolkien long before this atlas was released. The amazing thing is that the world Tolkien created is so real, you feel like there should be an atlas. There's an entire world that exists regardless of the story. With many authors, you don't feel like anything is going on outside the confines of the story.

  10. Price is $16.80 at Amazon by Aapje · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618126996/ 102-7400559-9156934

    --

    The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
  11. How about posting a book review for _adults_? by The+Ultimate+Badass · · Score: 0, Troll

    Don't you think it's time to grow up? I know you people think sci-fi-fantasy is the most engaging form of entertainment available, and real literature is kinda fruity, but I'm sick of being marginalised by your unenlightened attitudes.

    The Lord of the Rings is widely considered to have been the most shallow and unimpressive work of fiction of the previous century. To the literary community, it represents mediocrity. It is a children's story, and I have no respect for any adult who reads it. Eminem has more depth.

    --

    Denial isn't just a river in Italy

    1. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about writing a book review and submitting it?

    2. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by DnA+Works · · Score: 1
      You are obviously a troll but I'll respond anyway. I am unsure as to whom you refer when you write that LoTR is "widely considered to have been the most shallow and unimpressive work of fiction of the previous century". Do you have anything to back that up, other than such *impeccable* sources as The New Yorker or your own rectum?

      As for it being a "children's story" you could be correct, although I doubt it. It does take an extremely limited intellect to disparage a story based solely on its audience - for example, the Taran Wanderer series are designed for young adults but are occasionally used in university courses as examples of modern Morality stories. Refusing to respect someone who enjoys, let alone *reads*, a particular book is puerile and not very intelligent. I guess any Poli Sci student reading Mien Kampf is a Nazi, according to that logic, eh?

    3. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pft...

      Grow up dude... It is up to ME and not morons like YOU and the "literary community" to descide wich books are good and wicha are not...

      One more thing: Learn how to think for your self dude...

    4. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Grahf666 · · Score: 1

      It's been voted the best book of the century by quite an number of people. And plus, the Silmarillion is way above a "childs" head (in writing style alone).

    5. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      most shallow and unimpressive

      It is a children's story

      Such harsh, words from somebody with a nick like "The ultimate badass". How old are you? Have you read the books to form your own opinion? You say it is widely considered... but what do YOU consider it. And one can only gather their opinion after reading the book(s). I could spew on my soap-box for days as to why the books are great, but I dont expect people to take that for granted without reading the books themselves. I suggest you open one up and start reading. Its called imagination.

      _14k4 - poorheart.com

    6. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Konovalev · · Score: 1

      I though, at first, that this was a troll. Then I checked the posting time (11:27 am)and realised that it must be an Olog-hai. No troll would be active in sunlight.

      Yes, dammit, I am a Tolkein nerd!

    7. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by dtr21 · · Score: 1

      As someone who had never read any of Tolkien's works until about 6 weeks ago, and who is an adult (22) I feel qualified to reply to this.

      I took "The Lord of the Rings" on holiday with me. I read it in 7 days. It was *so* gripping that I could not put it down - and I spent until 6am on many of those nights fighting back tiredness to read "just one more chapter"

      I'm not much of a person for fiction - whilst I read avidly, you're more likely to catch me reading books on physics, programming, system administration, and similar. (The year before I took "Programming Perl" on holiday with me :) So this was the first work of fiction I'd read in about 18 months.

      I had almost forgotten how much fun Science Fiction was. And the skill with which he conveyed the sense of Fear when Minas Timor (if I remember the name correctly - apologies if I don't) was being attacked was very effective.

      A few months ago, I might almost have agreed with you - and would have dismissed fiction altogether. I'm very glad I didn't. Re-kindling my imagination, my desire to explore, and my love of an adventure is something I'm very glad I did. I'm now egerly waiting my next break :)

      And I am very loathe to allow "The Lord of the Rings" to be dismissed as "Mediocre". A book that gave me so much pleasure will surely do so to many others - and I heartily recommend it to everyone

    8. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      I wasn't even going to bother, but then I thought there was one part I wished to address -- the "sci-fi-fantasy" bit.

      I don't read science-fiction; it just doesn't really do much for me. No slight intended to those who enjoy it; this is a purely personal and subjective choice of reading matter. The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand -- wow. I don't really consider it sci-fi; perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps not. Who cares what particular label you apply to something? If you enjoy it, then forget the elitist high-minded critics. They're the descendants of those who panned Beethoven and Mozart. What do you consider "real literature"? I love Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Tennyson, so I'm a little taken aback at your sweeping generalization that we consider real literature fruity.

      Tolkien has a wide appeal; I've seen it with friends, and I've seen it with friends' children. If you want a perfect story which fascinates toddlers, check out a little-known work of his called "Mr. Bliss". If your children are slightly older, they'll love The Hobbit. Moving on up, a teenager can find LOTR fascinating and readable, while those of we adults who are secure with our own self-image and don't mind what the critics say can read the whole bunch, plus the Silmarillion, and delve into the nuances and stories-behind-the-stories so richly suggested by the Lord of the Rings.

      In short, sir, stop being a pillock and learn to enjoy art and music and books because they appeal to you or stimulate you in some way, not because some fusty critic says you ought to enjoy such and such a piece of work. If you're going to dismiss a piece of work, be it Tolkien, Dickens, Mozart or Picasso, then by all means do it, but with well-reasoned dissent; not because you wish to pretend a claim to membership in a crowd.

      Oh, and as for your despising those who marginalise you with their unenlightened attitudes...Thank you for your comments, Pot.

      Yours, Kettle.

    9. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by oldwarrior · · Score: 1

      You must be either ignorant or simply looking for a MOD bath. J.R.R Tolkien was professor of English Language and History at Oxford and his language in the books (Hobbit aside - was for kiddies) is masterful. Anyone reading the trilogy at least would come away with a better vocabulary, an artistic vision of beautifully described scenes, and quite an appreciation of historical references if one looked up all of the words used to describe the quasi-medieval era.
      Writers can get inspired just by reading LoTR and following the verbs. (or the adjectives).
      Would have loved to hear his lectures on Anglo Saxon literature! (he also did research on Old Norse lit.)

      --
      If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
    10. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, I know, but ... somehow I doubt you're any kind of badass, "ultimate" or not.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You managed to invoke Hitler in a Tolkein thread.

      Tolkein's works ARE children's stories. That's what he wrote them to be. It's only these days in our world of post-Industrial 'Arrested Adolescence' where people remain children well into middle age (reference: the Comic Bookstore Guy in The Simpsons) that Tolkein's works become 'adult fiction.'

      Frankly it's depressing.

    12. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayn Rand's book have been voted 'the best book of the century' by quite a number of people.

      The Simarillion was never intended to be published. It was Tolkein's guide book for the construction of the fantasy world his children's books are based on. It existed for much the same reason that a farm of SGI boxes exist. The kids don't look at the SGI farm, they look at the cartoons. The kids don't read The Simarillion, they read the books Tolkein actually wrote when he was alive. (The Simarillion was published posthumously by relatives who probably had rent due.)

    13. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read The Hobbit and the trilogy back in the 70's when I was a child.

      I'm glad children still get a lot of enjoyment out of the works. They're excellent Childrens Literature.

      There's no reason to get all defensive about it. Or are you really nervous about the fact that you've read so little adult literature? Get out of the 'genere' section of the bookstore once in awhile. There's a lot of good stuff being published for adults.

    14. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forget the elitist high-minded critics. They're the descendants of those who panned Beethoven and Mozart

      It's really too early to tell. The really good writers in this time might be completely overlooked right now. In fact, the people who ballyhoo Tolkein might be some of the loudest people missing the really great stuff.

    15. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by misseshippysam · · Score: 1
      The day people stop reading this series on their own will be the day that English professors start assigning it.

      Faulkner and Joyce and TS Eliot and many of the 20th century's "greats" will be regarded for what they are - an elitist reaction to the fall of real aristocracy and rigidly skewed class system. As soon as "the common folk" learned to read in public schools, had access to affordable transportation with cheap trains and bicycles and later cars, and found extra money and time for their own amusement - they too began to read the books and see the art and enjoy the things that had before been reserved for the aristocractic (and snobby) upper class.

      While many of the aristocracy (read: grown-ups) embraced the idea that a common sewer worker could too enjoy the paintings of Rembrant and the writings of Dickens, others needed their elitism - they needed to feel special and apart based on their appreciation of art.

      Out of that was born the weird and senseless art forms of Picasso and Faulker, where those who chose to could maintain their form of art-snobbery. Only the truly initiated, after all, could enjoy the random and bizarre stream-of-conciousness works of these new "greats". Mere "commoners" could not possibly appreciate the use of this or that idiotic or ugly new literary or artistic device. And a whole century of art was wasted on a primitive "I'm better than you are because I can appreciate this ugly thing as beautiful" homage to the snooty.

      It is these aristocratic-wannabee people who say that Lord of the Rings is unimpressive. After all, people actually like it and read it (even people -gasp- without college degrees.)

      What nobody ever seems to remember is that people crammed the streets to hear Chaucer recite his tales, Shakespeare packed houses with the flea-bitten and royal alike, Dickens sold-out copies of his Tale of Two Cities serials, and teachers can barely force college kids majoring in English to read many of the "greats" of the twentieth century.

      Lord of the Rings is as much common ground in the literary conciousness of the twentieth century as anything else written. In two hundred years snobby intellectual wish-they-were's (like yourself) will be forcing kids (who think the language is too hard) to read it and will be reflecting on the move of our society to a scientific, post-god, post-royalty, era of comfort and luxury. They will say that some primitive part of our western souls longed for the kings and swords and hard rides to uncertain ends, even as we drove along in air-conditioned, shock-absorbed, side-impact-air-bagged luxury, pondering our 401k's. They will call science fiction a natural reaction to the cultural changes caused by the rapid growth of technology in the twentieth century. And they will say you and your "literary community" were shallow and unenlightened, clinging to your elitism by muttling your way through the mediocrity and marginal works of those who you alone called "great".

    16. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would certainly hope that at least a portion of the Children's Literature in our culture is well written. Tolkein's works certainly are.

      That does not mean they're not written for children, however.

      Are you implying we can just let the hacks and second stringers write the books for kids??

    17. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Monte · · Score: 1

      How about posting a book review for _adults_?

      OK, you first. Here's a few adult titles you can start off with;

      "Dirty Anal Kelly in Rome"

      "Sluts Butts Housewives "

      "Filthy First Timers"

      Looking forward to your reviews!

    18. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Lord of the Rings is widely considered to have been the most shallow and unimpressive work of fiction of the previous century..

      WHAT!!! common this is really rush limbaugh right?

    19. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Sem_D_D · · Score: 1

      book review for adults, like "Kama Sutra" or "Yoga for those in love"
      or even better "How to be a hardworking ant"
      Go fix yourself with a shovel, s*cker!
      Stories are to be told, digested and next-ed. if you don't like it, live in one, e.g. The Cell, another New Line Cinema release, hehe

      the real adults are those in the graves

      --
      Now, Make Your WISE Move...
    20. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by sensate_mass · · Score: 1

      Here, here. Very well argued. To add to your interesting points, LOTR is so good, I've seen people who otherwise aren't much for reading pull themselves through it, consulting a dictionary every third paragraph. There aren't a lot of books that'll do that.

      --
      --- Submission is feudal.
    21. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

      The Hobbit was maybe written as a children's story.

      The LOTR Trilogy wasn't.

      If you think "The Silmarillion" is a children's story, please put down the crack-pip.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    22. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

      A crack pip is of course similar to a crack-pipe.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    23. Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, give it up, your trolling about JRR being for kids is getting pretty old. even the most cursory reading of LoTR would show it's not a "kiddie" book.

  12. And the 3,107,234th tree has 11,295,318 leaves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the atlas is as over-wrought and painfully detailed as the 'The Lord of the Rings' it will have to be a tome the size of an unabridged dictionary and include accurate and detailed accounts of the number of trees per square meter and an inventory of the leaves on each. Perhaps even a soil and ground water analysis.

  13. Re:Da man strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see if GWBs missile defense shield can stop that one...

  14. Cool! by Stormie · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's always great to discover a new author, and now that Katz has told me about this Tolkein chap, I'll be certain to check out some of his books! I'm a little surprised that this "Lord Of The Rings" book is out already, though, normally novelisations aren't released until after the film hits the cinemas..


    1. Re:Cool! by Stormie · · Score: 2

      p.s. I doubt that this "Lord Of The Rings" movie will be half as good as Star Wars, I don't think that anyone can create as detailed and richly rendered a world as the "galaxy far far away". Rumour has it that George Lucas spent years working on star charts, alien races, even alien languages! before ever penning a word of the Star Wars screenplay. I'm sure Middle Earth is quite simplistic compared to such background detail..

    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tolkien sure spent a lot of time on his world, and he did work on languages too. Actually, his elven language have strucutre, words, grammar and all. i've heard of people learning it, and being able to speak it (i don't know how far they went)

    3. Re:Cool! by sphealey · · Score: 2

      I agree with Captain Frisk that this appears to be a bad take-off on a bad parody of a flame-baiting troll, but it is amazing how many readers of fantasy (even high-quality fantasy) don't know (a) how much modern fantasy owes to JRRT and TLOTR (b) how incredibly detailed the world of TLORT is in terms of history, politics, economy, etc.

      After I gave my 10 y.o. LOTR, his first comment was "it's a lot like Redwall". It took me a while to convince him that LOTR came first, and that without it Redwall probably wouldn't exist. (Luckily he saw the light and now counts RotK as one of his favorite books).

      Similarly, while George Lucas acknowledges many sources for SW:ANH, Tolkein is not least among them.

      sPh

    4. Re:Cool! by cnkeller · · Score: 2
      I don't think that anyone can create as detailed and richly rendered a world as the "galaxy far far away".

      You're kidding right? Lucas has nothing on Tolkein. I'm assuming you read LOTR right? And The Hobbit? And the Simarillion? And Lost Tales (Volumes 1- whatever they are up to now? And the Atlas's? You get my point.

      Lucas actually created very little, it's all those other people that are writing books like I, Jedi etc. They are the ones populating the Star Wars universe, not Lucas. It was my understanding that Lucas intentionally left things vague so that he would retain ultimate control over what goes on in the universe. What happens to all these Bantam Publishing boots when the next movie starts contridicting what happened? I always wonder if Lucas signed off on Luke becoming a dark Jedi...

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    5. Re:Cool! by Stormie · · Score: 2

      I agree with Captain Frisk that this appears to be a bad take-off on a bad parody of a flame-baiting troll

      Actually, it was intended as a sarcastic rejoinder to Katz's breathless "I've just discovered this kewl new piece of 'sci-fi' which might, just might, be almost as good as Star Wars!" tone. I wasn't seriously trolling, although it does seem that I got a few bites.

      but it is amazing how many readers of fantasy (even high-quality fantasy) don't know (a) how much modern fantasy owes to JRRT and TLOTR

      Truly. Although I disagree with the common line of reasoning that if [some work of fantasy] would not be around without Tolkien's pioneering, it follows that [some work of fantasy] must necessarily be an inferior work.

      (b) how incredibly detailed the world of TLORT is in terms of history, politics, economy, etc.

      ..sadly combined with incredibly weakly realized characters and horrible dialog..

      It took me a while to convince him that LOTR came first, and that without it Redwall probably wouldn't exist.

      What's a Redwall?

      Similarly, while George Lucas acknowledges many sources for SW:ANH, Tolkein is not least among them.

      Don't tell Katz that! Lucas is influenced by nothing other than his own godlike intellect and creativity! SW is 100% original! Also, don't tell him that the hobbits aren't really a metaphor for the oppressed geeks of the earth, bullied by the orcs (=jocks), Sauron (=Bill Gates) and Saruman (="The Man") !!

    6. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming you read LOTR right? And The Hobbit? And the Simarillion? And Lost Tales (Volumes 1- whatever they are up to now? And the Atlas's?

      Actually, yes. And I can't wait for the Happy Meal toys!

      (note 'derivative crap' buzzer which went off at the point the above text went into bold face).

    7. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars was a really interesting movie. I saw it when it came out, back in 1977, wasn't it??

      The derivative crap that's come out since... well I can't say as none of it has seemed good enough to pay to see.

      I guess that Lucas-whatever guy needed to pay for his expensive girlfriend or something, though, so it's fine that he kept churning out re-hacks.

    8. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, the movies were planned as a series (see the opening credits of the first movie "Episode IV") and were heavy-handed on sequel set-ups making many of us salivate for *years* to see the sequels. That said, I didn't care for Phantom Menace :(

    9. Re:Cool! by gorilla · · Score: 2

      It's happened before. Some of the early Star Wars stuff had Luke & Leia married.

  15. Get it at Amazon by throx · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go to Amazon - it's $16.80 there as opposed to $19.20 at Fatbrain.

    --

    Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    1. Re:Get it at Amazon by sandidge · · Score: 2

      Or use AddAll.com and find a copy for $15.24 (used, including shipping).

    2. Re:Get it at Amazon by kootch · · Score: 1

      or just go to your neighborhood library and pick up the well-worn copy that probably exists there.

  16. Re:What cmdrtaco does in his spare time by manon · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe at ascii art, but it seems that you know what you're drawing about. Maybe you can make some on topic art...

    I for one am going to give the book some of my time.

    --
    42 + 1 = 42
  17. Not seen this one... by spiralx · · Score: 2

    ... but I do have the Forgotten Realms atlas at home by Fonstad, and I have to say it's lovely. The maps contain an incredible amount of detail and are amazingly easy to read considering, and it's a pleasure to have maps that haven't been drawn by the author with little triangles for mountains :)

    Also the maps depicting important scenes from the books really serve to make things clearer, especially during confusing scenes which occur over wide or tangled geographical areas. I can only imagine the effort that went into making these as consistent as possible with the books, especially in this case as the author cannot be contacted...

    I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, but I might get this anyway just to look through. Maps are great, and I wish there were more books like this for all my favourite worlds :)

    1. Re:Not seen this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maps are great. The other day I was looking for something in the file cabinet and I came upon my old Wolfenstein 3D maps in a folder, printed out in the old days on Dot Matrix.

      However, maps of the Real World are cooler. It takes real work to represent reality accurately. Far more than to make maps of the layout of a Children's book series.

      And it's really cool to actually go out in the Real World depicted by the cool maps.

      Try it sometime.

  18. Never read them... should I? by Rackemup · · Score: 2
    I've never read the LOTR books, first time I even heard of them was when everyone started going ape-shit over the movies in development.

    I browsed the summaries on Amazon but i havent really felt the urge to buy the series. I like Sci-Fi (trek, B5, etc) but some fantasy novels just try too hard and end up making me bored. Should I even try to make it through LOTR?

    1. Re:Never read them... should I? by elmegil · · Score: 2

      Since LOTR is the archetype for the majority of today's quest based fantasy (which is not to say ALL of today's fantasy is quest based), it's hard to be sure whether to recommend it to you or not. On one hand, I've seen people who have read and decided they don't like current quest fantasy and had exactly the same reaction to LOTR; on the other hand, Tolkien did go into a LOT more detail and I never got the feeling that he was "trying too hard"--Middle Earth was just real as he described it. Silmarillion reads more like history books, but LOTR still stands above the vast majority of its imitators.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Never read them... should I? by uriyan · · Score: 1

      You definitely should read LoTR, if you're interested in good reading.

      What I personally like in LoTR is the beauty of the author's work, that is the combination of an intricate and deep plot, with masterful writing (Tolkien was a professor and a life-long scholar of the English language).

      LoTR is second to none in aesthetics and style, and it is definitely the best book that I've ever read.

    3. Re:Never read them... should I? by collar · · Score: 1

      In short: no.

      Personally, I love Lord of the Rings, but then again, I'm a big fan of the fantasy genre. LOTR has to be read for what it is, which is a beautifully detailed description of an amazingly well imagined world with an averagely detailed story (though still a very enjoyable one). If you are bored by fantasy, then the slow pace of a lot of sections of LOTR will probably put you off. If you want to try fantasy, head for something a bit more exciting like (personal favourite) Sara Douglass.

      Many people make the mistake of thinking that Tolkien is the be all and end all of fantasy, and are sadly put off the genre because of it.

      Check out a site like www.sffworld.com for book reviews and try to find something that interests you.

    4. Re:Never read them... should I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes yes! Ths series is what started (IMHO) the genre. Easier to read than most, quite a lot of fun. Definitly a must-read.

    5. Re:Never read them... should I? by MegaFur · · Score: 1
      I like Sci-Fi (trek, B5, etc) but some fantasy novels just try too hard and end up making me bored. Should I even try to make it through LOTR?

      For you, probably the answer would be: no. If you're mostly into just sci-fi, then most any fantasy, including Tolkien, will probably fail to excite you.

      I say this on the basis that it used to apply to me. (I know, I know--that's no way to make an argument, but I'm doing it anyway.) I was all sci-fi and no fantasy when I was a kid. In high school, I was forced to read _The Hobbit_ and _The Fellowship of the Ring_ and I hated them. I can't stress that enough. My favorite character, Gandalf (favorite because: he's a wizard = posessor of secret knowlege = closest thing to a techie in a fantasy world) got killed off half-way through _Fellowship_ and the reading got that much worse from then on out.

      Later on--years later--I learned what kind of a role the LOTR trilogy had in the grand scheme of things and I started to gain some respect for it. Then, for a while, my friends and I were into Magic: the Gathering. After we got tired of it, we tried Middle Earth: The Wizards and I got to see decent pictures of all those characters I'd read about a million years ago.

      When they announced the movies, I decided to go back and finally make the effort to read the trilogy (at some point, I had listened to it as a series of abridged audio books). It went surprisingly well. The neat part was that I was already vaguely familiar with lots of general stuff from the card game and from hearing my friends talk about stuff from the books--stuff like Palantiri (sp), Sauron, Orodruin (sp?), Galadrial, hobbits, ringwraiths, Gollum (he's not technically a hobbit exactly), etc. Then, when reading the books, I got to learn how all these general pieces of information fit together to tell the story. I mean I already knew, for example, that the quest was to destroy The One Ring (a.k.a. The Ruling Ring, Isildur's Bane, The Precious, or just The Ring), and I even had a pretty good idea about how the goal was going to be acheived (because of the audio books), but I didn't know about all the adventure's they were going to have on the way (Faramir is cool!).

      But back to the original question: Should you read LOTR? Maybe not, but you may want to make an effort to become familiar with it because it's actually embeded in popular culture. e.g. If you know what to listen for, there are Middle Earth references in a couple of Led Zepplin songs: "In the darkest depths of *Mordor*...but *Gollum* and *The Evil One*...", "...*ringwraiths* are out in black." There's lots more I could say about it, but I'm tired and I have to go to class soon and I think I've "gushed" enough for one message.

      P.S. oh yeah, almost forgot..

      "Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
      The frumious Bandersnatch!"

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
    6. Re:Never read them... should I? by deathscythe257 · · Score: 1

      I would suggest reading the Hobbit first, since it will give you a background into the characters of LOTR, and it fits in with his masterly crafted plot flow... yes the Hobbit is lighter and more childish; however it progresses to become somewhat darker. This is what Tolkien meant to do from the onset. If you read LOTR, you will see that the Fellowship Of The Ring[first book] is quite lofty compared to Return of The King[last book]. Within the story beginning with the Hobbit, the books are progressively darker as the cast delves closer into the depths of Mordor. This is done on purpose, and this (more so than chronological order or for background) is the reason that the books should be read in this order. Also, The Silmarrilion makes a nice book to read after LOTR, even though the events in that book take place thousands of years ahead of the Hobbit.

    7. Re:Never read them... should I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then their are those of us who love Tolkien, but find the rest of the Quest Fantasy genre to be complete garbage.

    8. Re:Never read them... should I? by Mark+Hood · · Score: 1

      Try the BBC Radio production - it's abridged (shock horror) but you'd be amazed how much is still in it. And it's a damn sight easier to get through 13 CDs than 6 books...

      If you've heard it, you've got the framework in your mind and can read it more easily. The BBC Radio Series definately increased my enjoyment of the books.

      --
      Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
    9. Re:Never read them... should I? by Pxtl · · Score: 2

      Try reading real sci-fi. No, back away from the serials, they are the spawn of the devil. Real authors, the ones who started in the 70's or earlier. Star-Trek is not sci-fi, any more then Star Wars is sci-fi. I'm not saying its bad (big fan of TNG and DS9 here) but its just sooo made-up. Star Trek is for kids and the undereducated, who don't realize they're making things up as they go along. Read some Niven, Brin (Uplift, not Postman), Bova, or maybe Gibson if that's more up your alley.

      Real science fiction doesn't get movies and TV shows made about them, because the populace wouldn't understand the stories. Sci-fi is supposed to make you think. B5 is much closer to real science fiction, although the problem is that it has a tendency to be very hammy and crappy - plus the tendency to go totally paranormal (day of the dead) keeps it slightly in the realm of fantasy. I believe B5 is a very well laid-out series and JMS is a genious, but whatever writers he's got working for him are boobs. Still, its damn good sht.

      Ah well, I'm just talking out of my ass. Anybody who believes me already reads the good stuff.

      Whatever, read Tolkien. B5 already feels like it as is in a lot of ways (Tolkien quote in B5: "do not trifle wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" or something like that)

    10. Re:Never read them... should I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really a shame. I don't think Tolkein would want to be blamed for all of the 'fantasy-quest' crap that's out there on the stands today.

      He'd probably feel guilty for inspiring much of it. Think of all the wasted trees!

    11. Re:Never read them... should I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes!

      Read more books, man.

      You're missing out on a lot of good stuff.

    12. Re:Never read them... should I? by foistboinder · · Score: 1

      I like Sci-Fi (trek, B5, etc) but some fantasy novels just try too hard and end up making me bored.


      Am I the only one that thinks that a lot of B5 is derivative (in a good way) of LOTR?

    13. Re:Never read them... should I? by Grab · · Score: 2

      What else do you read? If you only read Star Wars and Star Trek novels, or Pratchett, you're likely just looking for some light entertainment. LotR is emphatically not that. Not that there's anything wrong with reading SW/ST/Pratchett (I love Pterry's work), just that comparing them is like comparing Shakespeare and a Hollywood action film - both may be fun/interesting, but they've got very different styles!

      Try your hand at "Cryptonomicon" or "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (or "Interface" by the same author, writing as Stephen Bury). If you hate the detail in them, the way that the story branches fractally to cover odd corners of each character's experience, culture or technology and then resumes the main story a page or two later, then you'll not manage LotR. If OTOH you can deal with the complexity of Cryptonomicon, then LotR is definitely for you.

      One warning - the language in LotR is intentionally "old-fashioned", since it was modelled on old Saxon/Norse fantasies. This may make some of the conversations sound stilted - it requires a little suspension of disbelief to imagine that ppl would actually talk that way, the same as reading/watching Shakespeare.

      Grab.

    14. Re:Never read them... should I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe B5 is a very well laid-out series and JMS is a genious, but whatever writers he's got working for him are boobs. Still, its damn good sht.

      Um, you do realize that JMS wrote something like 92 out of the original 110 episodes, don't you?

    15. Re:Never read them... should I? by uriyan · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't say I'm deeply literate, but I've read much, both in English and in other languages, particularly my native Russian. I've read LoTR in English.

      There are books that one cannot compare. For example, "The Art of Indirect Action" by B. Liddel Hart is a masterpiece on military analisys and global strategy, but it is not in the same category as JRRT.

      Speaking of the SF/Fantasy area, Both Zelazny's Amber Chronicles, and Asimov's Foundation series are excellent works, but none can compare to LoTR.

    16. Re:Never read them... should I? by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Funny thing is, Foundation won a Hugo for "Best Trilogy" in 1966, and Lord of the Rings was its only contender in that category. :)

      I dearly love both, and personally can't imagine putting one above the other, so don't think I'm flaming. :)

    17. Re:Never read them... should I? by Glytch · · Score: 2

      For you, probably the answer would be: no. If you're mostly into just sci-fi, then most any fantasy, including Tolkien, will probably fail to excite you.

      I can only speak for myself as a sci-fi fan, but I what I always disliked about fantasy was how unoriginal most of it was. I've tried reading lots of fantasy books from the local library, but almost all of them read like D&D campaigns gone horribly wrong. I love LOTR, but not much else in fantasy. Is there any newer fantasy that's really original? Something besides the "group of overpowered heroes slaughter orcs and save the world" kind of stuff? I'd really like to read something better.

    18. Re:Never read them... should I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thanks for the lack of a spoiler warning, you thoughtless jerk.

      Why not tell us all what "Rosebud" means, while you are at it!?

      Somebody please mod the parent post down to -1, so those who may be reading the books for the first time to not accidentally become told of Gandalf's fate.

      Then mod this post down, so they won't even see me mentioning his post.

    19. Re:Never read them... should I? by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      A Song of Fire and Ice, by George R. R. Martin, is the most different from "group of overpowered heroes slaughter orcs and save the world" that I've read. I'm also a fan of the Thomas Covenant series'. They are closer to that formula than Martin's work, but I found it sufficiently imaginative.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    20. Re:Never read them... should I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I first read the LOTR trilogy (first because like many others here I also reread it) while on an 8,000 drive around most of the United States with my parents. I was about 12 years old and my parents were absolutely thrilled that I didn't complain once about the trip - it took a whole month. In fact, they still reminisce about how when we were crossing the Mississippi River I stuck my head up and looked out the window for just a glance, mumbling "mmm hmm" and went back to reading. It is that good, and not just to children. BTW - the downplayed reaction to the Mississippi was done for effect :)

    21. Re:Never read them... should I? by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Cool, I'll give them a try. Thanks.

    22. Re:Never read them... should I? by dgrb · · Score: 1

      YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Until the paperback publication of Lord of the Rings in the 1960s there was essentially no market for fantasy.

      All of the books you claim bore you also bore me - because they are nothing more than poor imitation of the real thing.

      Tolkien wrote one of history's most remarkable works of imagination; he was a great scholar and a great writer. It is not reasonable to expect that there would be 2 of him.

      I reread the Hobbit and LOR every few years (finished a couple of months ago). I *never* read any other fantasy.

    23. Re:Never read them... should I? by rho · · Score: 2

      I read the Hobbit because I had gone through everything else that looked interesting on my sister's bookshelf. I loved it, simply loved it. Later I discovered the other Tolkein books, and read them (I was 10 or so at the time). I didn't like them as well -- my 10 year old imagination wanted faster action.

      Coming back to the books when I was in my late teens, however, the texture was completely different. I loved the complexity, the background, the depth the books had.

      If you've read a bunch of people who say "Tolkein changed my life, he's my God", I'm afraid the books may not live up to your expectations... very little can with a build-up like that.

      If you intend to watch the movies, I recommend reading the books first, so you won't be colored by the movies' take on Tolkein's vision.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    24. Re:Never read them... should I? by Nept · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean...I started reading Jordan's Wheel of Time trilogy, and although the first one was decent (I never made it past the third one) the series quickly degenerated into a blatant, 2nd rate ripoff of the Lord of the Rings meets Dune with some clearly fsked up m/f relationships.

      Speaking of which ... have you read the Dune series at all? I'm just not sure if they truly constitute fantasy or whether they're sci-fi.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    25. Re:Never read them... should I? by Nept · · Score: 1

      Yes - I highly recommend them. The Mind's Eye (American) version was also worth listening to, though not quite so good.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    26. Re:Never read them... should I? by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which ... have you read the Dune series at all? I'm just not sure if they truly constitute fantasy or whether they're sci-fi.

      Although they're badged as science fiction, a pretty good case could be made to have them be considered 'political fantasies'. Most (all?) of Herbert's books concentrate on the politics of the situations he describes, and the 'science' is merely an enabling factor in describing (and changing) the politics, history, etc. of those settings.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    27. Re:Never read them... should I? by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Well in that case he's a very creative and intelligent man who should leave writing the actual dialogue and specifics to the experts, since if he talks at all like his characters then he's the corniest man on earth.

    28. Re:Never read them... should I? by Joe+Mucchiello · · Score: 1

      Something besides the "group of overpowered heroes slaughter orcs and save the world" kind of stuff?

      But DND is structured like that because of LOTR. Without LOTR, there would not be Fantasy Role-Playing. And without DND, there might not be any RPGs.

      Not that I've enjoyed LOTR myself. I'm going to try again before the movie comes out, but 18 years ago when I tried I just stopped reading it around chapter 10 of Two Towers. I could not go on.

      Good fantasy: Try L.E.Modesitt Jr's Recluse saga. It has somewhat of a sci-fi feel, but involves fantasy. Starts in The Magic of Recluse.

      Also, J.V.Jones "Book of Words" trilogy.

      Janny Wurtz Light and Shadow epic, not yet finished. Starts in Curse of the Mistwraith.

      None of those feature elves or dwarves (Wurtz almost does but doesn't). All of the participants are human in vaguely mideval worlds.

  19. A related literary review book by rjh3 · · Score: 2
    The book J.R.R. Tolkien by Tom Shippey is another interesting read for Tolkien fans. He reviews Tolkien from several literary perspectives: as myth, as related to Tolkien's life, as related to lingustics, and as story. Tolkien reviewers usually fall into either love or hate category with little middle ground. Shippey is in the love category.

    Here will you find the mythic story relationships and linguistic relationships between Beowolf (the OE epic) and the Hobbit. There are also philological relationships between story, placenames, and character in the real british isles and their use in LOTR. This adds another dimension to the re-reading of LOTR.

  20. This book is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, people are just now discovering the Atlas of Middle-earth? Guess it was out of print for awhile, but jeeze...get with it...this is not new.

    1. Re:This book is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's new cuz /. sez it's new :P

  21. Not just the maps... by Gregoyle · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have been in love with Tolkien's work since I was 11 or 12 years old, and the love hasn't ceased growing yet. Some comments:

    Although the great maps Tolkien obviously created to detail the civilizations, migrations, and geography/geology of his world(s) have a huge impact on their shocking reality, I think there are many other factors that contribute as much or more. First of all is the languages. Look at the appendices of Return of the King if you want to know what I mean. These languages are in depth, realistic, and utterly amazing. Many of them closely parallel structure and syntax of North-Germanic languages (e.g. Norwegian, Danish, Old English). They parallel them enough that it isn't entirely inconceivable that the Common which is spoken in Middle Earth is in fact written as it sounds. It sounds just like English. Notice how Tolkien doesn't use very many words of Latin origin (which can often give a clinical feel to speech). This gives the books a hominess (sic?) and a feeling of old beauty.

    Also, the mythology. My favorite Tolkien book of all is the Silmarillion because of the great mythology it presents for Middle Earth. Also look how closely it mirrors our own mythologies, particularly Norse, Greek, and Christian. The stories are so rich and so human (even though many of them take place before humans are invented :-)), we could almost accept them as our own natural mythos rather than one invented by a telented writer. Harry Harrison's "Warriors of the Way" trilogy has opened up some new intellectual doors for me regarding Asgardian myth (particularly the role of Loki), and I plan to re-read as much of Tolkien's work as I can to look into the topic further. This stuff never ceases to amaze me.

    --

    "He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."

    1. Re:Not just the maps... by albanac · · Score: 2, Informative
      First of all is the languages. Look at the appendices of Return of the King if you want to know what I mean. These languages are in depth, realistic, and utterly amazing. Many of them closely parallel structure and syntax of North-Germanic languages (e.g. Norwegian, Danish, Old English).

      There's a perfectly good reason for this. JRRT was by profession a philologist and lecturer at Oxford University. His academic specialities were Norse, Old English and Saxon saga-form stories. [1] The development which became the Lord of the Rings began with a dream he began having prior to WWI of a great tidal wave engulfing an island, with a norse-style long-ship sailing out of the destruction. This dream later saw the light as the original stories which became, during the 20's, the tale of the Fall of Numenor.

      He began evolving a mythology and language for the elves of a semi-Norse alternate past during the twenties, and his aim was to make his experiment in language theory (the intentional creation of working, practical language) as full as possible, by creating the things which influence language: myth, stories and 'history'.

      He then wrote a story, which grew out of his enduring love for the Warwickshire and Oxfordshire countryside and the people therof, called The Hobbit. To his eternal surprise, it was a huge success, and he began to be plagued with requests for further stories about Hobbits. While discussing this with Stanley Unwin, he came up with a way he could bring his Hobbits into the world he had begun to create as a setting for his philological experiments, and this he proceeded to do on and off for the next 35 years.

      If you're interested in where I got all of that from, the places to start are 'The Book of Lost Tales' (parts one and two, ed. Christopher Tolkein) and 'Tolkein's Letters' (which is an absolute must-read if you're interested in Tolkein himself as well as his middle-earth fiction).

      ~cHris

      [1] His translation of Beowulf was a set text when my sister was studying at degree level in 1994. It's a very good translation.

    2. Re:Not just the maps... by Fortmain · · Score: 1

      Many of them closely parallel structure and syntax of North-Germanic languages (e.g. Norwegian, Danish, Old English). They parallel them enough that it isn't entirely inconceivable that the Common which is spoken in Middle Earth is in fact written as it sounds. It sounds just like English.

      Actually, if you re-check the appendices, you will find that Tolkien 'translated' the Westron, or Common, speech into English, so he felt it was only appropriate to 'translate' other related languages. For example, the speech of the Rohirrim was similar to, but more archaic than, Westron. Therefor he rendered it as Old English.

      (Yes, I am a big Tolkien fan. LOTR even induced me to take a post-grad linguistics course while I was in college.)

      --

      We gotta make democracy safe for the world! -- Pogo
    3. Re:Not just the maps... by Gregoyle · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the info!!

      Is Tolkien's Letters published under Christopher Tolkien as well? That's one of the few I don't have. The Book(s) of Lost Tales are great though, I haven't read them in a few years, but those are some of the ones I'm planning on rereading.

      If you like Book of Lost Tales, you'll probably also like Unfinished Tales, I forget if it's published under John or Christopher. But then you seem pretty in to this, so you probably have that one, too :-).

      --

      "He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."

    4. Re:Not just the maps... by Gregoyle · · Score: 2

      *Is* Westron translated? I had thought not, but I might be forgetting. If you translate/decode the Elvish script on the title pages of the books, you find that it's actually in English (although spelled phonetically). Also, the language of the Rohirrim is similar to OE, but differs in a few respects.

      Thanks for the info, just the same.

      BTW, Tolkien inspired me to *major* in Linguistics :-).

      --

      "He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."

    5. Re:Not just the maps... by rho · · Score: 2

      One tidbit I read somewhere was that Tolkein's reading of Beowulf in it's original dialect was always a well-attended event, too, even though he was not known as a good speaker (seems he usually kept his pipe in his mouth while talking or lecturing)

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    6. Re:Not just the maps... by Nept · · Score: 1

      I believe he wrote a lot of his original text in Quenya (one of his own languages). Rather amazing...
      I believe I read that he invented 14 all told.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    7. Re:Not just the maps... by albanac · · Score: 1
      Is Tolkien's Letters published under Christopher Tolkien as well?

      It's listed as 'JRRT with Christopher Tolkein'. It is (very marginally) edited. [barnesandnoble.com] sell the book, and display quotes from several of the letters.

      If you like Book of Lost Tales, you'll probably also like Unfinished Tales

      I read Unfinished Tales before I had the chance to read Lost Tales ;) It's published as 'edited by Christopher Tolkien'.

      ~cHris
    8. Re:Not just the maps... by albanac · · Score: 1

      Thogh he did write quite alot of early material in Quenya and also Sindarin, most of the tales he wrote which Christopher has collected were written in English. A very large amount of 'fragement' material, as well as the academic philological material necessary to 'create' a language, exists but has never been published.

      ~cHris
    9. Re:Not just the maps... by Glothar · · Score: 1

      I was pretty sure, but I believe that Christopher Tolkien actually said that the language of the Rohirrim is actually untranslated Anglo-Saxon (or OE? dunno the difference) in the same or similar style as Beowulf.

      But, in reality, you are the Linguistics expert, I'm just the novice.

  22. MOD PARENT UP by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 2

    This is actually a good idea. LOTR is much more deserving of a topic icon than, say, Star Wars.

    --
    dinner: it's what's for beer
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Gatton · · Score: 1

      If for no other reason that there will be so much LOTR news over the next two years. It would make it easier for people who aren't interested in LOTR to exclude this topic in their preferences.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Unknown+Bovine+Group · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea! I have a good design concept for the icon:

      The word DATE with a large red "NO" symbol stamped over it.

      --
      m00.
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But are Tolkien fans as obnoxious as Star Wars fans (or Star Trek or Babylon 5, for that matter)?

    4. Re:MOD PARENT UP by kubrick · · Score: 1

      The One Ring in this case would represent 'marriage', a concept no LOTR fan is ever going to understand or experience?

      OK, OK, -1 Troll. Just getting into the spirit... :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  23. Yikes by Captain_Frisk · · Score: 1

    I seriously hope that this was a parody of a flamebait post. Just in case, The Lord of the Rings is an old work. It is most certainly not a novelisation.

    1. Re:Yikes by elmegil · · Score: 1

      "Duh"

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  24. Once again, a perfect eight. by lightspawn · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or do all ./ book reviews get a rating of 8? Good enough to care about covering, not as good as we would have done it ourselves.

  25. A short review.. by pmc · · Score: 2
    ...but a little strange.


    "If you want to enter Tolkien's world, the best way is to tLotR, the Hobbit, and The Silmarillion." People do not read the Silmarillion - they struggle through it. Recommending it as an entry level book for Middle Earth is madness.


    "For hard-core Tolkien lovers who have [already read the books]..": how can you be a hard-core fan without having read the books.


    "[it's] well and clearly written, even for the casual fan". I can't figure out what this means - I think he is looking for understandable, but I could be wrong.


    "Offers a new prism through which to look at these works". Erm - trying to read though a prism will not be very productive.


    And, finally, the subtle nuance which separates the die-hard fan from the hard core fanatic is lost on me. Are these more or less fanatical than the hard-core Tolkien lovers?


    Is anybody who read this any the wiser as to whether the book is worth buying?

    1. Re:A short review.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can you be a hard-core fan without having read the books.


      Now you're asking a depressing question.

    2. Re:A short review.. by tubs · · Score: 1
      People do not read the Silmarillion - they struggle through it

      The Silmarillion certainly is hard to read, I think because it is unfinished, but also the scope that it covers. I think there must be at least 40 different stories - From the making of the jewels, the meeting of men, Fingolfin the high king, Tuor, Melian and the grey elves, the fall of Gondolin.

      And nearly everyone dies - Galadrial being the only major exception.

      But then to cap it all off the whole land of where the silmarillion is based sinks.

      I think its is one of the most tragic tales ever written.

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

  26. Middle Earth Atlas by Goody · · Score: 1

    Delorme will also be offering Middle Earth Atlas 1.0 for Windows which will enable you to navigate through middle earth easily and accurately. It has a GPS option for realtime tracking, but they haven't quite figured out how to make it work underground yet. I've been using the beta and have avoided a lot of mine shafts and molten rock pockets. No word on a Linux port.

    --
    Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    1. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

      Delorme will also be offering Middle Earth Atlas 1.0 for Windows which will enable you to navigate through middle earth easily and accurately. It has a GPS option for realtime tracking, but they haven't quite figured out how to make it work underground yet. I've been using the beta and have avoided a lot of mine shafts and molten rock pockets. No word on a Linux port.

      You're probably confusing it by playing Angband on the machine at the same time.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    2. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by sphealey · · Score: 2

      "Delorme will also be offering Middle Earth Atlas 1.0 for Windows which will enable you to navigate through middle earth easily and accurately. It has a GPS option for realtime tracking, but they haven't quite figured out how to make it work underground yet."

      Technically not impossible, since JRR said that the Shire is located in north-central England. However, that would put Isengard about at the endpoint of the boot of Italy, meaning most of the interesting parts are underwater today. Perhaps this occured at the time Atlantis sank? Hard to say.

      sPh

    3. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by Dh2000 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but Atlantis is supposed to be Númenor, so
      Isengard is != Atlantis.

    4. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by sphealey · · Score: 2

      "Ahh, but Atlantis is supposed to be Númenor, so
      Isengard is != Atlantis."

      Not disagreeing, but are can you cite a reference for that?

      Anyway, what I ment but didn't express well is that if, per the Appendices, the Shire is in England, and neither the moon nor the constellations are much different from our time, then tLOtR can't have happened more than about 10,000 years ago. That implies that the mountain chain running down the spine of Italy must be a remnent of the Misty Mountains. Isengard would be about at the southern tip of Itay (which checks with the amount of time it took to walk there from Rivendell).

      BUT, if this totally bogus speculation on my part is correct, there is a whole lot of land missing south and southast of Italy, including most of Gondor. That would have had to have sunk at some point in the not-too-distant past. The sinking of Atlantis seems a logical event to cause this.

      sPh

    5. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by Dh2000 · · Score: 1

      Sure,
      In Letter 131 J. Tolkien mentions:
      "The Men of the Three Houses were rewarded for their valour and faithful alliance, by being allowed to dwell 'westernmost of all mortals' in the great 'Atlantis' isle of Númenor."
      Atlantis is also mentioned in letters 144, 186, 154, 156, 163 and others. In fact Tolkien refers to Númenor as Númenor-Atlantis quite frequently. You are right in respect to the fact that Gondor and Arnor are the Outposts on Middle Earth of Númenor-Atlantis. Isengard is also between the two lands and was made by the the Númenoreans.
      So you are not completely wrong. :)

    6. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The sinking of Atlantis seems a logical event
      >to cause this.

      You *must* be kidding.

    7. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by Earlybird · · Score: 2
      Described in The Silmarillion, as part of the Akallabeth, the story of the fall of Numénor, the name of which in Quenya becomes "Atalantie", a linguistic similarity which Tolkien himself described as a "curious chance".

      The Lost Road was Tolkien's attempt at writing a time-travel story (while C. S. Lewis was writing his space-travel story, Out of the Silent Planet), which he later abandoned, but incorporated into his mythology; see The Lost Road and Other Writings (The History of Middle-earth, volume 5).

    8. Re:Middle Earth Atlas by Nept · · Score: 1

      You must, must, must read "The Lost Road" in Sauron Defeated. It also deals with atlantis==numenor, and it was an awesome short story. It's about 'Atlantis-haunting', and I couldn't say more to do it justice.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  27. Something I've been wondering... by Schnapple · · Score: 1
    I of course am one of those who will be reading at least the first book of the trilogy prior to the movie this fall, but while I know that the series goes in the order of The Hobbit, LOTR Trilogy, Silmarillion chronologically, what order should i read them in? I'm on the impression that The Hobbit is something of a children's book and if it's nicer as a "prequel after the fact" then I'd rather get into a meatier book, rather than waste my time and perhaps get discouraged by the childishness of The Hobbit. Any tips?

    Schnapple

    1. Re:Something I've been wondering... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      The Silmarillion is definitely *not* chronologically after the trilogy. It was *written and published* after the trilogy, but the events it describes are mythological foundations for the world of the Rings.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Something I've been wondering... by MikeM · · Score: 1

      I suggest reading them in the order they came out:
      Hobbit, LOTR and then the Silmarillion. The reason is that its an onion skin. The Hobbit is a quick read and it sets some of the character development done in the latter books. The events aren't chronological but the character development is. The Hobbit introduces you to Frodo. The LOTR introduces you to his time and the time after. The Silmarillion introduces you to his worlds history and mythology.

      --
      (Yes I work for NSI. No I don't pretend to speak for them since they don't pretend to speak for me.)
    3. Re:Something I've been wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hobbit isn't a "children's book" and explains quite a lot of 'background' info that makes the other books more understandable. There are also references from the LOTR trilogy back to The Hobbit. Main chararcters from The Hobbit do appear in LOTR trilogy, so I'd suggest reading it first.

    4. Re:Something I've been wondering... by Jay+Bratcher · · Score: 1

      The Hobbit is somewhat of a children's book, but don't dismiss it. It's fairly short, so it doesn't take long to read, and the background it provides really adds to The Lord of The Rings. As for The Silmarillion, it is a separate story from the first two books. The Silmarillion can also be rather dry compared to LOTR, so I would recommend reading it last...

    5. Re:Something I've been wondering... by welkin · · Score: 1

      Over the past few months, on buses to & from work & on weekends, I have been read _The Silmarillion_, then _The Hobbit, or There And Back Again_ (an old hardback edition with Michael Hague illustrations), and a single-volume paperback edition of _The Lord Of The Rings_. I thought it would be novel to do a "chronological" read of the three books. However, the foreword of every edition I've seen of the single-volume LOTR & editions of _The Fellowship Of The Ring_ does a fairly good job of catching the reader up on details missed in _The Hobbit_, and the end of _The Silmarillion_ has a whole chapter called "Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age" that provides a transition into LOTR so that you could skip _The Hobbit_ without much fuss.

      If you skip _The Hobbit_ you will, imho, miss out on a lot of great & subtle details that spice up LOTR. I think _The Hobbit_ will be a much richer read (and might seem less "childish" to you) if you've read _The Silmarillion_ before it.

      With _The Hobbit_ I think you get a better introduction to the Smeagol chracter, you get to know Dwarves in general more (so you might give more of a damn about their plight in Khazad-dum later in LOTR), you get Elrond & Imaldris. . .if you're going to take the time to read _The Silmarillion_ & LOTR you might as well read the kids' book, it won't take too much time.

    6. Re:Something I've been wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Silmarillion is definitely *not* chronologically after the trilogy. It was *written and published* after the trilogy"

      This statement is only half right- The Silmarillion was indeed published after the LOTR but it was *written*-for the most part- prior to even the Hobbit- with the earliest sketches of tales begining in 1918 as he recovered from WWI-
      Tolkien's son Christopher edited it for publication in 1973.

    7. Re:Something I've been wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      It's a children's book.

      The fact that so many people are caught in permanent adolescence would probably dismay Tolkein if he were alive today. I doubt if he'd appreciate the adult following, the ranting cult following, etc. that has ensued.

      I'm sure he'd rather people read his books as children and moved on to more important stuff as adults.

    8. Re:Something I've been wondering... by Grab · · Score: 2

      Don't dismiss "The Hobbit" offhand as a children's book, any more than you'd do the same for "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe" (CS Lewis was a close friend of Tolkien, BTW), "Wind in the Willows" (and the sequels by William Horwood), the Harry Potter series or Pratchett. All of these are children's books, or at least were originally written as children's books.

      "The Hobbit" has quite a lot of light entertainment in it which makes it less heavy going than some of the children's books above (TL,TW&TW is definitely older children only!) but there's still some bits which are darker than usual, which gives it the depth many children's books (and adults' books, for that matter) are sadly lacking.

      Grab.

      PS. I know I'll get flamed for mentioning Harry Potter. :-) And I forgot to mention Alan Garner's Wierdstone books as well.

    9. Re:Something I've been wondering... by Schnapple · · Score: 1
      Cool. Yeah, I don't have a problem with "Children's Books", but I'm not interested in "Books for children".


      Schnapple

    10. Re:Something I've been wondering... by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
      I'd give The Hobbit a miss for now unless you enjoy children's writing. The style is much more "cute" than you'll find in Harry Potter, for instance. It wasn't even originally intended to occupy the same universe as The Silmarillion does and Lord of the Rings wound up in, and had to be re-edited to fit properly. So contrary to what some folks in this thread are saying, there's really nothing in it that casts much light on LoTR. You can get everything you need as far as the background it provides from LoTR's prologue.

      After you're through with LoTR, you might want to try The Hobbit, but if you start with it there's a good chance it will put you off entirely. Then go for The Silmarillion -- but that's a different animal entirely. It has no coherent plot, being presented instead as an episodic series of loosely connected legends, and is written in a highly formal style. Although it's indispensible for people who really get into Tolkien's Middle-Earth, it's clearly not for everybody. You can follow up The Silmarillion with Unfinished Tales, which fills in some of the remaining gaps in the histories based on some of Tolkien's more complete fragments. Then, if you decide you're really a Tolkien wonk, go for the History of Middle Earth series, a scholarly assemblage of Tolkien's rough drafts and fragments edited by his son Christopher that traces the development of the entire legendarium from the earliest beginnings in 1914 or thereabouts to his death.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    11. Re:Something I've been wondering... by Foosinho · · Score: 1
      I've heard that the first movie will continue on until roughly half-way thru The Two Towers, so you might want to read a bit further than you originally planned.

      As for The Hobbit, I really enjoy it, even still. I first read it as a young boy. I think it really introduces Gollum/Smeagol well, but it's not essential to LotR.

      But, definitely read the books prior to seeing the movie(s). My little brother just finished reading them for the first time, and I'm working on getting the gf to read them (tho, she probably won't - she likes fiction).

      Cheers,
      Brian

  28. Amazing book by jkindoll · · Score: 1

    Like most fans of his work, I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings at a fairly young age and it changed my world. I tried the Silmarillion, but at 12, I was a bit unprepared for it. I picked up the Silmarillion again a couple of times, but anever got through it...until I got my hands on the Atlas. Using it to help guide me through the Silmarillion worked wonderfully. It's a must for any fan who wants a bit more, or who hasn't enjoyed what I've come to believe is Tolkien's finest work.

  29. Details? by JoshuaDFranklin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Does anyone else wish there were some details about this? Number of maps? A ToC?


    This is the kind of info that should be IN THE REVIEW.
  30. You lucky person, you... by meckardt · · Score: 2

    You are in the wonderful position of still being able to read TLOR for the first time. Yes, some fantasy novels do try to hard... but not these. Tolkien produced the original. All the others are just trying to recreate his masterpiece.

  31. I'll have a copy, thank you by voudras · · Score: 1

    I Love Maps - I always have, they dont have to be
    maps necessarily, I enjoy blueprints too.

    Tolkiens story hit a chord with me. I have a decent collection of his work, including special
    editions of LOTR, his biography, etc. This book
    will, no doubt, be added to the collection as well.

    My love of maps extended nicely into RPG's, I've been gaming for (at least) 15+ years now, and if I am the running a campaign - the players know that there are detailed maps behind most everything, even if they are never privy to any originals (unless of course they have intimate knowledge
    of a locale or region) until after they information can be useful (ie, end of the campaign).

    I tend to take all sorts of variables into account
    in creating maps too - especially natural. For instance, when creating a World map (or known world, as the case usually is in FRPG's), plate techtonics (sp?) is always my first step.

    There is one difference between Europe and America that comes to mind regarding maps, the speed in which roads and towns were formed. Because of this I think, although a very _general_ statement, Americans have a less accurate mental picture of their surrounding countryside, much less the terrain they will encounter on foot from thier hometown to the next.

    Geez, I got so excited about the topic i just started rambling.

  32. Absolutely...and here's why: by tarsi210 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tolkien is to fantasy what Plato was to philosophy: a pioneer, a definer, a methodologist. Although parts of LOTR are, frankly, boring (although they are few and nicely bounded by excitement), Tolkien has done an amazing job at making a fantasy world.

    The word "world" here not only encompasses the environment in which the characters live and interact, but the entirety of the existence of all characters. If any one character may know about a certain place, event, or person, that object is not only mentioned but defined, elaborated, and links seamlessly into the other aspects of the world.

    Good fantasy has very few inconsistencies in the history and events of the worlds, as well as personal interactions, race definitions, language definitions and modes, and cultural aspects. Tolkien, being a linguist, was primarily interested in the language aspect of his worlds and so you can find extensive studies and documents of the Elven languages, as well as Dwarven and such. There are quite a few people in the world who speak one of the Elven languages Tolkien created, just because they were done so well!

    LOTR is a must-read for any sci-fi/fantasy lover, if nothing else for the simple fact that it is a definitive book in the genre. And if you're fortunate, like myself, it will become one of your favorite novels of all time. I distinctly remember crying at the end of the first read of LOTR, not so much because I was empathizing with the characters, but because I didn't want the story to ever end.

    1. Re:Absolutely...and here's why: by theDunedan · · Score: 1

      > I distinctly remember crying at the end of the first read of LOTR,
      > not so much because I was empathizing with the characters, but
      > because I didn't want the story to ever end.

      I had a similar major let-down at the end, but I did not come to tears. I considered that ending a bit, and finally concluded that that was Tolkien's point with the ending: Most of life is monotonous, it is rare that we get to live through epic events, and we must come to grips with this.

    2. Re:Absolutely...and here's why: by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      At first I found some parts of the story boring, but on future readings, it got more and more interesting. It turned out that the boring parts were the ones I did not understand at first. Now, the only boring part (for me) is Tom Bombadil, I never liked the guy anyway. I'm happy he hasn't made it to the movie..:)

    3. Re:Absolutely...and here's why: by Ansonmont · · Score: 1

      So true, I got stuck at that point for about 10 years before moving onwards and finding the rest of the series wonderful.
      -A

      OT Also, I never was able to read those Thomas Covenant books that people kept giving me

    4. Re:Absolutely...and here's why: by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Heh, the T.C. series are some of my favourite books. All of that author's books plumb depths of the characters' personal anguish to gain victory, so if that isn't your sort of thing then don't go for it. I also recommend his "Gap" series.

    5. Re:Absolutely...and here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Tolkien Sarcasm Page has a detailed explaination of the theory that Tom B/Sauron are the same person (in the same vein as Smeagol/Gollum).

      It's fairly entertaining. I don't have the link handy, but you can find it on Google.


      Anonymous Kev

      proudly posting as AC since 1997

  33. Oh my god yes by Gregoyle · · Score: 2

    There is so much in the speculative fiction world that borrows from Tolkien. These books are great. At least read Lord of the Rings, maybe The Hobbit (if you do, you should read it first). Read my other post to find out part of why I love these books so much (too lazy to find post url (-:).

    Read them. they will change your view of the world.

    --

    "He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."

  34. Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --
    | |
    --
    Earth

  35. Re:Never read them... should I? No. by banuaba · · Score: 2

    As I kiss some karma goodbye...

    I started reading the LOTR series when I was 8. Couldn't get through more than a couple of chapters. I tried again when I was 12, 16 and 20, and then tried for the last time this year, at 22. I finally made it through the books, and, sadly enough, I consider it poorly spent time.

    As you pointed out in your post 'some fantasy novels just try too hard... mak[e] me bored.' LOTR is one of these books. Tolkien is longwinded, almost to the point of incomprehensibility; his sentance structure is overly complex for what I consider to be recreational reading and the story, IMHO, just isn't that good.

    I am a scifi man, as well, and you pointed out my biggest beef with the fantasy genre: a lot of the novels don't recognize thier place. But I digress. I found LOTR to be boring, overly complicated (both structurally and storyline-wise) and althogether a less-than-enjoyable read. If you want something fun to read, go pick up a copy of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's _Love_in_the_Time_of_Cholera_ (/randombookreccomendation)

    --


    Brant

    Argle. Bargle.
  36. Start with The Hobbit by Teancum · · Score: 2

    Keep in mind that The Hobbit was written more as a children's novel. It also provides a really good introduction to Middle Earth and its inhabitants. Not only that, but there are references in LOTR to The Hobbit that are important, and Tolkien wrote LOTR with the idea that the reader would already be familiar with The Hobbit.

    Also, after reading about Bilbo Baggins, you will want to know what happens to him and the ring... you will get hooked into reading LOTR.

    1. Re:Start with The Hobbit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      He didn't make that assumption. LOTR is a standalone work and reading 'The Hobbit' first is totally unnecessary. An analogy might be to say that Unix knowledge is necessary if one is to learn Linux.

    2. Re:Start with The Hobbit by Teancum · · Score: 2

      OK, I'll admit that you don't NEED to read The Hobbit in order to understand LOTR, but it does provide background material regarding Dwarves, Hobbits, the men of Laketown, and how Hobbits ended up with the one ring of power. Frodo also comes across the petrified Trolls, and there are some other references to events and places from The Hobbit.

      I also think that if you aren't ready for some "meaty" reading material that The Hobbit is also a good starting point. I would recommend The Hobbit for an introduction to Middle Earth for children who are still beginning readers that may get lost with LOTR. I also know friends who turned in a book report for LOTR in elemtary school, getting it rejected because the teacher thought that the student couldn't have possibly read the book because it was too difficult for her to read it.

      BTW, knowing how to operate Unix OS shells is certainly useful to running Linux, and it also helps to know the history of Unix if you are going to try and make some changes to the Linux kernel. I would like to see somebody make a substantial kernel changes without knowing at least in thumbnail another Unix system. If you are refering to a "novice" computer user... you may be more correct, but it would still help to know general Unix commands (which are quite a bit different from non-Unix based OS's like VMS, CP/M & dirivatives (including MS-DOS), Amiga OS, etc.)

  37. Careful by First+Person · · Score: 1

    Sarcasm is rarely recognized without the tag.

    --
    Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
    1. Re:Careful by First+Person · · Score: 2

      [Oops... the markup got stripped!]

      Sarcasm is rarely recognized without the <sarcasm> tag.

      --
      Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
  38. Tolkien Books by Detritus · · Score: 1

    Several local book stores have had huge piles of Tolkien books for months, crowding out other books in the SF/Fantasy section. I assume this is because of the upcoming movies. I'm not sure if anyone is actually buying the books. Maybe the book stores think that all of the people that see the movie are going to buy three different editions of LotR.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Tolkien Books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the trade paperback editions from the 70's.

      You know, the ones with the picture of Tolkein on the back cover and the notice about 'those who respect living authors will only buy this edition.'

      Kind of ironic that that's probably a 'rare collectors edition' at this point in time.

  39. oh no! by emok · · Score: 1

    "In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired."

    The God of this World is not merciful!!! Please don't clutter the front page with this stuff!!

  40. Re:So we'll have a "Lord of the Rings" topic on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PLease, for the love of christ, make this a topic so I can set it to not display.. I need something to help me ignore all of these fanboys.

  41. oh no! by emok · · Score: 1

    "In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired."

    The God of this World is not merciful!!! Please don't clutter the front page with this stuff!!

  42. hobbit first by arbours · · Score: 1

    Read the hobbit first, to get the feel for what tolkien is doing - it's aimed more for kids, but is still fun to read for us. it will only take you a week, if that.

    the hobbit gives an easy intro to the whole mythology, laying all the groundwork for the trilogies.

    then you can move to the LOTR, where everything gets more "mature", darker, and eviler - though the spiders and dragons in the hobbit are pretty bad too!

    then, the silmarillion and unfinished tales are excellent - i really enjoyed reading the (very far back) history of elves, men, sauron, and the Valar - very cool.

    alex

  43. Hear! Hear! by egg+troll · · Score: 0

    Of course its for children. How do you expect Jon Katz to be able to meet underage boys?!

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
  44. Mod Parent "Funny" by _Neurotic · · Score: 1

    hehe

  45. LOTR Webpage by dedair · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is by far the best webpage relating to the books. It was taken down for a few months due to some issues with the movie's page(more than likely because it blew it out of the water), but is back up now. It uses much of the information from the atlas, and is one of the best uses of flash I have seen to date. Everything is cross referenced, and interrelates well. This is a must see for any fan.

    --
    ---> suck it
  46. Other LotR books and calendars... by Milalwi · · Score: 1
    It has been a long time since I read LotR and the Hobbit, but I remember the Brothers Hildebrandt calendars as being quite strikingly beautiful.


    There also seems to be a book out about their time doing those calendars. Has anyone seen Greg and Tim Hildebrandt: The Tolkien Years? Is it any good? Does it have most of the images from the '70s calendars? It would be nice to have a coffee table book of Tolkien artwork.


    Milalwi

  47. Why LOTR is bad? by oosajack · · Score: 1

    Everybody here seems to sing praises for this work. All the messages seem to be love letters. But seriously..

    I have read the trilogy, sil & hobbit and I have some serious reservations about the work and what it means. All the characters in this novel are either good or bad. This is quite a bad draw back as it reinforces the kids belief that everything in this world is black or white. Also that a bad person is bad person till the end. Though the books offer very good fantasies, they reinforce the sterotypes.

    1. Re:Why LOTR is bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All the characters in this novel are either good or bad"

      This statement is incorrect. Take Boromir for example- He is a "good" guy- fighting for the survival of land (Gondor)a member of the "Fellowship" - He struggles with his desire to use the Ring to save his realm and eventually falls victim to this desire. His character is an example of Evil Ring corrupting good people...but certainly not black and white!!

    2. Re:Why LOTR is bad? by RDW · · Score: 1

      So how would you classify (for example):

      Feanor (& sons),
      Turin,
      the later kings of Numenor,
      Boromir,
      Denethor,
      the Haradrim,
      'The Dead',

      or even Smeagol..?

    3. Re:Why LOTR is bad? by fish8719 · · Score: 1

      All the characters in this novel are either good or bad. This is quite a bad draw back as it reinforces the kids belief that everything in this world is black or white. Also that a bad person is bad person till the end.

      Not so. There are a LOT of "mixed" characters. Boromir. Denethor. Saruman. The guy who Sam sees get shot in TTT. Etc.

      However, the character development in LOTR isn't as exhaustive as it could be...more "show" than "tell." For me, that's good; I'd rather form my own conclusions than have Terry Brooks drag me through the guy's head for 300 pages. :-)

    4. Re:Why LOTR is bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would say that most characters in the books are not intrinsically good or evil - they go through life and must make decisions that affect their allignment, just like the rest of us. There are many characters that ride the fence, and make good or evil choices as they go along.
      In fact, each individual's struggle between good and evil is the central theme in the LOTR.
      After re-reading your post, I honestly think that you have not read any of Tolkein's works, and are making up an opinion based on false assumptions.

    5. Re:Why LOTR is bad? by Nept · · Score: 1

      or even Saruman. Or Grima. Or possibly even Frodo? The only difference between him and Smeagol, was that Frodo was saved in the nick of time. Given the same situation as Smeagol, Frodo would have developed into a similar personality.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  48. Now if we could only get... by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

    The Music of Middle Earth on CD. I've been anxiously awaiting the Songs of Tom Bombadil for years but have sadly had to settle for Zamfir.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
    1. Re:Now if we could only get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a nifty little instrumental called "In the House of Tom Bombadil" on the new CD by Nickel Creek. Nice . . . .

    2. Re:Now if we could only get... by compuserf · · Score: 1

      Bo Hansson did that in the '70's, and very nice it was too. May be out on CD somewhere, otherwise I'll have to post it on audiogalaxy.

    3. Re:Now if we could only get... by senderista · · Score: 1

      You might want to check out Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle-Earth" (based on the Silmarillion). The metal take on Tolkien might put some people off, but it's become one of my favorite albums.

      --
      "It amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone or is a leader of nations." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
  49. LOTR Webpage by dedair · · Score: 1

    This is by far the best webpage relating to the books. It was taken down for a few months due to some issues with the movie's page(more than likely because it blew it out of the water), but is back up now. It uses much of the information from the atlas, and is one of the best uses of flash I have seen to date. Everything is cross referenced, and interrelates well. This is a must see for any fan.

    no goat sex, I promise

    --
    ---> suck it
  50. Lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing i barely noticed until recently is that the Tolkien world is utterly male, esp the Simarillon which is steeped in paternal christianity, it sure does alienate a geeky little girl, but so does slashdot...

    1. Re:Lord by unitron · · Score: 2

      It's an all-male cast, but there are no sexual overtones, no hint that such a thing exists. At least not in The Hobbit or the trilogy, which I read and enjoyed way back when the raging hormones were at their peak, so I'd have noticed the slightest suggestion. This may not have been true for The Silmarillion, but trying to read that was like trying to paddle a canoe on a lake of molasses.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  51. Fantasy, LOTR, and movies by boy_racer2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm a pretty big fantasy fiction fan myself. Goodkind, Jordan, Tad Williams and RR Martin being my current favorites. About a year ago I gave a shot at reading LOTR since it was hailed as the epitome of Fantasy fiction. I stalled around the Council of Elrond for about 8 months and read something else. Frankly I found it boring.



    I went on to read some reviews of the trilogy and found one reviewer to say the first 'book' can be pretty hard to get through but after the Council it really picked up. And it did. I found the Two Towers volume to be quite good. 'Book Five' in Return of the King was also really good but again, in 'Book Six', I find myself struggling to finish. While I recognize the brillance of the story and it's ground breaking imagery I have a hard time getting through some of tedious dialog and story. I find myself eying the second book of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn on my desk. This won't be popular with most LOTR fans, but frankly I like some modern fantasy better. To this day nothing has gripped me like RR Martin's Song of Fire and Ice.


    As to the LOTR movie it will be a huge success if the creators stick to the original image of the movie. If the water it down for children, which I'm afraid they will, I will be very disappointed. I want to see heads fly over Minas Tirith! :)

    1. Re:Fantasy, LOTR, and movies by foistboinder · · Score: 1

      As to the LOTR movie it will be a huge success if the creators stick to the original image of the movie. If the water it down for children, which I'm afraid they will, I will be very disappointed. I want to see heads fly over Minas Tirith! :)


      Peter Jackson has said that the battle scenes, as filmed, depict a level of violence similar to
      Braveheart
      . He is, however, contractually obligated to deliver a film with a PG (or is
      it PG-13?) rating (looks like there may be director's cut DVD in the future).

  52. Nice Childrens Books, Katz!! by egg+troll · · Score: 0

    Up next, Jon Katz reviews the Dr Seuss classic Fox in Socks while Taco and Hemos tackle the Encyclopedia Brown series. I understand Rob Limo has the inside scoop on the latest in the Curious George books and everyone's favorite censor Michael reports on an Archie Double Digest he got in the checkout line of a Safeway.

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
  53. Re:Da man strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how long until some "unstable" country flies some suicide types out to one of these islands with a few thousand pounds of their favorite explosive?

    Do we go after the BBC for giving them the idea?

  54. unenlightened? by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

    unenlightened. You are in no position to tell people who are most likely smarter than you that they are "unenlightened"
    (Inigo Montoya voice) I do not think you are using that word correctly. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    How does one become enlightened? And yes, the Hobbit is a childrens story, but wouldn't that make it all the more appropriate for you?

    1. Re:unenlightened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are formal defintions for what 'The Enlightenment' encompassed. There are ideologies that championed The Enlightenment and others which opposed it.

      Read some of E. Michael Jone's works if you want to see a strong, solid philosophical arguement against The Enlightnement (which was composed in part out of the writings of DeSade, the French Revolution, etc.)

  55. props by deathscythe257 · · Score: 1

    to katz for not writing a bullshit review this time.

  56. Re:Troll turf war claims three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesn't mention the Alyson Hannigan troll.. that one is still going strong.

    Alyson Hannigan is HOT!!

  57. shameless plug by samwise97 · · Score: 1

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/lotrmap/

    1. Re:shameless plug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any chance you could remove the silly QT dependency on this program?

  58. pain-staking? by Kartoffel · · Score: 1
    Fonstad's descriptions of the pain-staking process she used to create these hundreds of details maps...

    Ouch! That sounds like some kind of medieval torture method. ;-) I can just imagine a bunch of Hobbit-cartographers running about Middle Earth with their GPS receivers and surveying equipment, for all intensive purposes, reeking havoc upon the land.

    1. Re:pain-staking? by unitron · · Score: 2

      I was so pleased at your catch of the mistaking of "pain-staking" for "pains-taking" (which I don't think requires hyphenation anyway, but maybe it should in order to preseve the proper meaning) that it pains me to point out that you then said "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  59. fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go away you katz, you big lamer.

  60. New Line Cinimas "Official Site" by devonuseless · · Score: 1

    The Atlas is indeed a work of dedication and creativity. New Line Cinimas "Offical Site" offers their own way to view the details of Middle Earth in their "explore the epic" section. I cannot recommend this , however, because since they re-posted the site back in March, that particular section remains inactive. Bad, bad New line.

  61. Oh Hell Yes by matthias · · Score: 1

    Absolutely, get this book. I just managed to pick it up for $10 at a local Borders, and I've loved this book since I found it in my high school's library.

    The illustrations of the balrog and the dragons are just purely amazing. Never knew that pen-and-ink could get that good.

    Great stuff. Pick it up if you can.

  62. Re:So we'll have a "Lord of the Rings" topic on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you're an AC, how do you use the topic filter in the first place?

  63. Re:So we'll have a "Lord of the Rings" topic on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True True.

    Star Wars was the future version of ANY faerie tale. Good vs. Evil et al. For some reason, I just never enjoyed SW as much as other SciFi. Even StarTrek seemed more Sci-Fi than the kids schlep that was SW.

    PLEASE, give Frodo the credit he deserves. I am reading LOTR for the 3rd time, and its still terrifying me. I don't believe that Frodo will make it.

    C'mon Slashdot. Don't be ignant!

  64. jon katz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jon katz is a shriveled old fart.

  65. I love this book. by broody · · Score: 1

    It is an excellent book and one that I am glad that I added to my library.

    I am a sucker for a lot of J.R.R. Tolkien stuff largely because I play about a Tolkien based LARP called Dagorhir Battlegames which has elements of middle earth, the dark ages, and fantasy rolled into a full contact combat sport. There are some pictures of it here. During our big regional war, called Ragnarok, they shot footage for a documentary called "Searching for the Hobbit". Gods that was a fun, crazy week.

    I guess I got way off topic there but the book is an essiential resource and even makes a nice coffee table book. There is so much cool stuff coming now that they are making movies. I cannot wait!

    --
    ~~ What's stopping you?
  66. Your criticism of his writing disgusts me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "If you want to enter Tolkien's world, the best way is to tLotR, the Hobbit, and The
    Silmarillion." People do not read the
    Silmarillion - they struggle through it.
    Recommending it as an entry level book for
    Middle Earth is madness.

    Did you fail to notice how it was last on the list? I also find your comment about "struggling" through it disheartening. Perhaps you're not really a literary genius worthy of making these comments.

    > "For hard-core Tolkien lovers who have [already read the books]..": how can you be a hard-core fan without having read the books.

    This criticism I agree with.

    > "Offers a new prism through which to look at these works". Erm - trying to read though a prism will not be very productive

    Excuse me, Mr. Jackass - but it's called a metaphor. Try adding them to your writing sometime and see if it sounds better.

    - malander

    1. Re:Your criticism of his writing disgusts me by pmc · · Score: 2
      Did you fail to notice how it was last on the list?

      No - that's why it's at the end.

      I also find your comment about "struggling" through it disheartening.

      Life must just be full of disappointments for you.

      Perhaps you're not really a literary genius worthy of making these comments.

      Never claimed to be a "literary genius". I maintain my right to critique books. For starters Tolkein did not consider the book completed, and anybody who has read it will agree that it isn't. The background is complete, but there is almost only background, which to me is very unsatisfying. Characterisation is negligible - never a Tolkien strong point - and I never emphathised with any of the characters. To give a scope of what is missing read the summary of the third age at the end of the book (which is LotR in about two pages). Comparing this summary to LotR is, I think, comparing what should have been written with the Silmarillion we actually got.

      You must agree - you said yourself that it was last in the list, and by implication a lesser work.

      " Offers a new prism through which to look at these works". Erm - trying to read though a prism will not be very productive.

      Excuse me, Mr. Jackass - but it's called a metaphor. Try adding them to your writing sometime and see if it sounds better

      No it isn't - metaphor is a comparison between unlike objects. When you read you look at a work so looking at a work through a prism isn't metaphorical, merely confused. A metaphor would have been something like "Offers a worthy new dish at the feast." assuming that it is a good book, of course.

      Not that it particularly matters, but the standard of JKs writing is poor for a professional, particularly considering the weighty topics he chooses, and this broken metaphor was one of the better bad examples he has produced; a 50cc engine in a 10 tonne truck indeed.

  67. Here's the correct fatbrain link... by jerrytcow · · Score: 1

    http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp ?theisbn=0618126996
    It would be nice when you include links with affiliate codes (like the &from=MJF138 at the end of the URL) if you mention "oh by the way, I'm getting 20% (or whatever) when you buy this book through using this link"

  68. Know when LOTR came out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While some may not agree, my personal point of view on this whole "black or white" subject is that LOTR, I believe, came out in the 50's, or whenever the Nazis were posing a threat to the world.

    What I am saying is, have you ever noticed the symbolism in the book? The Black Power, etc.? Mordor? IMHO it all refers to good vs. evil, rest of the world vs. nazis.

    While it may not necessarily directly connect with it, it could've certainly acted as inspiration.

    -malander

    1. Re:Know when LOTR came out? by Glothar · · Score: 1

      Read the notes Tolkien wrote about the book.

      He basically states that you are completely mistaken. Just because you see similarities doesn't mean that he intended them. As is said many places:

      Tolkien hated allegory.

  69. Nitpicking but I had to do it... (mostly) by Cedric+C.+Girouard · · Score: 1

    Katz: It's NOT a trilogy. It's SIX books. You could have AT LEAST read through the introduction of the first book that stated this in the first page.

    Now, as far as the SW reference goes, well, I've seen the following pattern quite often in my short lifespan. You have the good guys, the bad guys, something worth fighting for and a princess somewhere (and yes there is a princess in LOTR.)

    Should the guy that wrote the first knight & dragon story sue Lucas for plagiarism ?

    --

    Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...

    1. Re:Nitpicking but I had to do it... (mostly) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, didn't Tolkien want the whole thing eventually
      compressed into just one volume?

  70. Re:This book is for dorks, geeks, losers by robvasquez · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Only the wierd smelly guys at the bookstore read this shit.

  71. Some Characters of Ambiguous Morality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LotR:
    Boromir, Suruman, Gollum, Frodo, Galadriel, in fact most of the elves: IANATS (I am not a Tolkien Scholar), but why didn't the elves ride to the rescue of Gondor?

    Hobbit:
    Bilbo, the three kings - Elf King, Thorin, and Bard.

    1. Re:Some Characters of Ambiguous Morality by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

      The Elves were busy fighting in their own lands... It is mentioned rather briefly...

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    2. Re:Some Characters of Ambiguous Morality by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
      The elves didn't ride to the rescue of Gondor because they didn't have the power. There just weren't very many of them left in Middle-Earth at the time, and they had plenty of trouble in their own lands.

      The Eldar were indeed morally ambiguous, but for another reason. They wanted to turn Middle-Earth into a museum of their own glory days, and actually succeeded in those places where one of the Three resided (Rivendell, Lorien.) It is in resisting the flow of time resulting in a kind of stasis, or stagnation, that made them less wholly good than they might have been.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  72. Re:Troll turf war claims three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for the update, Annonymous Coward.

    I would just like to state that reports in the media that my brother, "I WILL KICK YOUR ASS", are FALSE . This kind of capitalist running-dog yellow journalism must stop! We cannot condone the dragging the names of these fine patriotic trolls through the mud!

    IF I EVER MEET YOU, I WILL KICK YOUR GOAT!

  73. One problem... by Rolozo · · Score: 1

    is that it uses only three colors: black, white, and brown. Many of the maps could have been more clear if army movements, geography, roads, etc. were represented in other colors. Fonstad's book *is* the best available though.

    More maps of Middle-earth can be found at
    http://fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images.php?collec tion=maps

    Ryan

    --
    Ryan
  74. LOTR: Boring? by tommut · · Score: 1

    I'm interested in which parts of the LOTR you find to be somewhat boring? I just re-read the trilogy, and can't think of any sections that bore me. It's not constant excitment, but it is always interesting. The Hobbit is a little slow starting out, but I always thought the LOTR to be anything but boring. (I realize you're not calling the LOTR boring, but merely noting that certain points of the story were less-than-enthralling. I'm just curious, I guess.)

    1. Re:LOTR: Boring? by tarsi210 · · Score: 2

      Ok, perhaps "boring" was the wrong word...how about...um....unexciting? There are places where Tolkien goes into vast descriptions or histories or such that just aren't "action-packed" excitement. Oh, I enjoy those sections as well, it paints the world better. I guess "boring" was a poor word, but it might be perceived by others as being "boring" if they don't like that kind of detail. That's all! :)

    2. Re:LOTR: Boring? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1
      There are parts of The Two Towers that I skim past. It's not that they are boring but are somewhat distasteful. I really don't care for Fordo and Sam's trip through the marshes when they leave the great river. Reminds me too much of Muncie Indiana; grey, damp, and smelly.

      I much prefer The Return of the King and it's battles. The battles really seem to harken back to the first age. The Silmarillion is where it's at for me, now days. By the end of the Lord of the Rings, you can see the path to our world just a little too clearly.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:LOTR: Boring? by Commander+Spork · · Score: 1

      You're telling me you read every single one of the 597 songs? No skimming?

    4. Re:LOTR: Boring? by Nept · · Score: 1

      memorized most of them too...

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  75. wrote more books dead :-) by peter303 · · Score: 2

    J.R.'s son Christopher published at least 16
    Tolkien books from his father's papers after
    his death. These include the Silmarillion,
    Numenor, Tales, Lost Tales, and the tweleve volume
    "History of Middle Earth".
    The latter contains rough drafts of the material
    in LOTR.

    The Silmarillion and the first couple history
    books were interesting. However the later stuff
    is more sketchy and bird cage lining.

  76. A bit of advice by InfoVore · · Score: 2, Informative
    1st What order should you read the books?

    Most people recommend that you start with The Hobbit and then continue on with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers, Return of the King). They are separate stories, though they are closely coupled. If you don't normally like fantasy, then I suggest you defer reading The Hobbit until after reading the trilogy (if you finish it at all). Why? Two reasons: a) The Hobbit is mostly backstory to the larger and more epic story in the trilogy. While helpful, it is not really necessary for reading the Lord of the Rings. b) The Hobbit was originally written by Tolkein for his children. The storytelling style is very much in the mode of a children's fairy tale. It is a ripping good yarn and well worth the time for adults, but its distinctly juvenile style can seem a little "cute" at times. Please note that a little of this style rubs off on the first few chapters of Fellowship. The style seems to "mature" rapidly as the principles get farther from home, so it may be seen more as a literary device than anything.

    2nd Do read the books before Fellowship is released in the theaters.

    From all that I have read Peter Jackson and his team are doing superb job of adapting the story to the screen, but it is STILL an adaptation. There is a depth and breadth to Tolkien's prose that cannot be captured on film no matter how good the director or the production. This richness comes from Tolkien himself. He was one of the premier philologists (historian of languages) of his time. He had a decades long fascination with creating languages and mythologies/histories to describe them. From these deep roots grew Lord of the Rings. No author before or since has been able to match the scope and depth of this story. To do so would take the two things Tolkien had: genius and a long lifetime of hard study.

    3rd Remember, Lord of the Rings was not written yesterday.

    Why is this important? Sometimes readers dismiss perfectly good books because they consider the style or the story archaic. If you do really enjoy SF, like Babylon 5, then you should give Tolkien a chance. You will recognize some very familiar themes and stories and characters. No author writes in a vacuum. Epic fiction, whether it is Beowulf or LOTR or Babylon 5, has similar themes. Later authors will often borrow and reshape much older stories, if only subconciously. Tolkien drew on the mythologies of Beowulf and the Der Ring des Nibelungen, and created a world. Strazynski drew on Tolkien and Doc Smith and a dozen other sources to expressed his own ideas about the future. All I am trying to say is that you will see familiar faces, if in a different form, if you choose to make the journey. It is worth it.

    Now go grab a copy and READ!!!

    IV

    --
    "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    1. Re:A bit of advice by sphealey · · Score: 2

      "b) The Hobbit was originally written by Tolkein for his children. The storytelling style is very much in the mode of a children's fairy tale. It is a ripping good yarn and well worth the time for adults, but its distinctly juvenile style can seem a little "cute" at times. "

      Actually, it was written when his children were quite young. He said later in life that if he knew at that time what he learned later about children, he wouldn't have "dumbed down" The Hobbit.

      sPh

  77. Who owns the Middle Earth copyright? by rommi · · Score: 1

    As I understand J.R.R. Tolkien is dead (as I remember). Who has the right to say who can get some and who don't?

    1. Re:Who owns the Middle Earth copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who has the right to say who can get some and who don't?

      Congress, through the work of the late Rep. Sonny Bono.

    2. Re:Who owns the Middle Earth copyright? by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
      As I understand J.R.R. Tolkien is dead (as I remember).

      Yes, he's been dead for almost 30 years now. Mind like a steel trap, you've got...

      Who has the right to say who can get some and who don't?

      International copyright law. Copyright on Tolkien's works is held by his estate on behalf of his literary heirs. Tolkien's children and grandchildren are benefitting from their forebear's creation, and who's to say they shouldn't?

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  78. pagan, not christian by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Christianity (and its affiliate communism)
    holds out for last minute redemption-
    that as long as you are alive you can repent
    and turn good.
    IN the pagan myths the gods and humans have
    intrinsic good or bad natures.

    Ironic because J.R.s close colleague wrote
    Christian mythology fantasy series.

    1. Re:pagan, not christian by makohund · · Score: 2, Informative

      (Major spoiler warning, for those who don't want to know some details!!!)

      Have you read the Silmarillion? (Well, you must have... considering you don't even get to see that stuff in the other works.)

      I actually find it to be a fascinating mixture of both pagan and Christian ideas.

      There is a pantheon of gods (primarily the Valar, and to an extent the lesser Maiar), having individual traits and attributes... and mythological stories to go with them. Very pagan type of structure, similar to the classic Greek/Roman/Norse/Celic pagan mythologies.

      But at the same time even they are subject to a Great Creator (Iluvatar). Whom is as much God in relation to them as they are to anyone else. The Valar run things day to day and have their exploits... but the overall picture is run by Iluvatar (God) and even they don't ever fully grasp it, or see the direction.

      Kind of a weird combination of both mono and polytheism. There are a few aspects that approach actual Christian ideas, too...

      Elves and Men - Actually children of Iluvatar, albeit with different destinies.

      The chaining of Melkor (Satan) - Achieved by the Valar, but ultimately due to intervention by Iluvatar. He is the great evil, but after the close of the 1st age he needs an agent to act in his stead. (Sauron, his former leiutenant.)

      The sending of the Istari (wizards, in particular Gandalf) - Actually Maiar... to help "save" middle earth from Sauron (probably a Maiar himself). The actual mission being to organize and inspire... not actually do the job. (Gandalf accomplished much himself, but primarily followed this ideal... Saruman did not, resulting in his fall.) Not exactly synonomous with a Christ figure, but with enough similarites to have been noticed by many. Probably as somewhat of a "savior" element, which is present in many mythologies, not just Christianity.

      Anyway, Tolkien was not fond of allegory, and not intending any by his writing. But he drew on many ideas for his works, and tended to lean towards concepts (and the emotions created by them) found in mythology, including all those named above. I think he did a pretty good job of that, with the result being unique in its own right.

      A bit of trivia... Tolkien was a devout Catholic. And his Christian-mythology-writing buddy that you mentioned... C.S. Lewis. Most people know that. But did you know that "Jack" Lewis had at one time been essentialy atheist, and had come around to being essentially agnostic right about the time he met Tolkien? And that he became an actual Christian as the end result of many arguments/discussions with Tolkien? (And another friend that used to walk with them... don't recall the name right now.) I didn't know that until recently, and it suprised me quite a bit. But very interesting, considering the reputation Lewis made for himself afterwards.

      (No, I'm not a raving looney... I hope! My sources are both his and his son's published works, and a biography I read recently. Would give the author, but I don't remember and it's at home. :)

    2. Re:pagan, not christian by festers · · Score: 1

      You are very much correct in the things you say. It's good to see some people on /. still have clue and use sources instead of talking out of their asses.

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    3. Re:pagan, not christian by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
      Ironic? Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and although there was nothing particularly Christian about his mythology, the morality espoused by the characters on the side of good was drawn explicitly from Christian teachings.

      Besides, the premise is wrong. There are very very few morally unambiguous characters in LoTR, and even the strongest "good guys" were subject to temptation to evil. Not a few of them succumbed to it. And not all the "bad guys" are irredemably evil, or even evil by nature. You really need to pay better attention to what Tolkien actually write.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    4. Re:pagan, not christian by Nept · · Score: 1

      Didn't Tolkien actually consider Christianity a myth, albeit a true myth?

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    5. Re:pagan, not christian by makohund · · Score: 1

      Exactly... and that was in fact a big part of the final discussion that turned Lewis.

      I'd try to explain, but that is sort of pointless considering I'm home now, and can actually quote the source. :)

      Here was his argument...

      "We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a `sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic `progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil."

      Lewis replied "You mean that the story of Christ is simply a true myth, a myth that works on us in the same way as the others, but a myth that REALLY HAPPENED? In that case, I begin to understand."

      The biographer goes on to say that here Tolkien stated the center of his entire philosophy as a writer... the element of truth inherent in all mythology. Of which he considered the myth of Christ to be no less a myth, but at the same time it was also the actual truth of what happened.

      (I got this from "Tolkien", an authorized biography by Humphrey Carpenter. A footnote on the page states that the account of the conversation is based on Tolkien's poem `Mythopoeia', of which one of the manuscripts is marked `For C.S.L.'. It is a very good book, if you have any interest in Tolkien. I found it nearly as interesting as some of his actual works.)

    6. Re:pagan, not christian by Nept · · Score: 1

      hey thanks for pulling out the quote :) and I have to admit that's actually a very interesting way of looking at Christianity ...

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  79. Reading order by isomeme · · Score: 2

    If you want to enter Tolkien's world, the best way is to read The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and the The Silmarillion

    Just on the off-chance someone is actually using this to plan out their reading list, it should be noted that The Hobbit precedes The Lord of the Rings trilogy in the story arc, and should probably therefore be read first. Note that it was written as a children's book (unlike the others), and thus has a slightly twee style that some may find a bit off-putting.


    The Silmarillion is a compendium of material concerning events far earlier in Middle Earth's history, but should be read after LotR simply because it's denser, less accessible, and relies heavily on a good understanding of Middle Earth as a prerequisite.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    1. Re:Reading order by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2
      Note that [The Hobbit] was written as a children's book (unlike the others), and thus has a slightly twee style that some may find a bit off-putting.

      Actually, it has a very twee style until the climactic battle scene, and I think most adults would find it off-putting. I certainly did. I've re-read LoTR many, many times over the years. I just don't have the stomach for The Hobbit.

      There's nothing in The Hobbit you need to know about for Lord of the Rings that isn't in the prologue for the latter. The Hobbit can be skipped entirely unless LoTR piques your interest in it.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  80. And When Yer Done with Those... by tb3 · · Score: 1

    Bored of the Rings is back in print.

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    1. Re:And When Yer Done with Those... by Monte · · Score: 1

      I'll second that recomendation. A truly hilarious parody, if a bit dated.

    2. Re:And When Yer Done with Those... by unitron · · Score: 2
      Back about 1972 a friend of mine at UNC-CH was taking some course that included Lord of the Rings, a work not really his cup of tea, so he just read Bored of the Rings instead and sucessfully faked it.

      I'd read The Hobbit and LOTR 3 or 4 years earlier and was able to enjoy BOTR even more than he did.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:And When Yer Done with Those... by tb3 · · Score: 1

      That's great! Parodies as a replacement for Cliffs' Notes. I guess Doon would work for an SF class, if you didn't want to slogg through the 400+ pages of Dune.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  81. Re:This book is for dorks, geeks, losers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only the wierd smelly guys at the bookstore read this shit. -by robvasquez

    First off... I'm not weird and I'm definitely NOT smelly! Nor are any of my friends that have read Tolkein's works of art.

    Now... Are you some kinda tool? Have you not read Tolkein's books? I think you should before you make any general comments on "who" reads it. His works have been the building block for almost all types of RPGs. I'm not saying that most books/games/etc try to mimic/copy him but in one aspect or another there is a bit of Tolkein in all.

    Try read some of his works... or is your IQ not high enough to enjoy some thing that is this classic!!

  82. A Trilogy? by ferd_farkle · · Score: 1

    I was hoping someone else would have pointed this out, it sounds such a nit-pick. LOTR is _not_ a trilogy, it is a series of six books. They just happened to be published by (IIRC) Penguin in the US in a three volumn set.

    1. Re:A Trilogy? by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Actually, it was one book, split into three by the original publishers.

  83. Has it changed since the hardback 1st edition? by Xenious · · Score: 1

    I've got the original atlas and it is a wonderful treasure of information on Tolkien's world. Has anything changed in this latest printing?
    -jim

    --
    -Xen
    1. Re:Has it changed since the hardback 1st edition? by unitron · · Score: 2
      "Has anything changed in this latest printing?"

      Yes, it includes all the changes that have occurred in Tolkien's imaginary world in the past few years. :-)

      Seriously, I have no idea what changes, if any, have been made in the content, but I expect the price will have been increased by the "movie tie-in bandwagon jumping" factor as well as regular old inflation.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    2. Re:Has it changed since the hardback 1st edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, much. Fonstadt got access to many of JRRT's scribblings and added many details about the far West, Numinor, and the south and east of Middle Earth.

  84. Please be more specific. by Monte · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only the wierd smelly guys at the bookstore read this shit.

    Were you talking about Tolkien or Slashdot?

  85. Boycott those one click bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BUy it at fatbrain or somewhere else.

  86. Re:This book is for dorks, geeks, losers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I can understand your anger. The story does portray trolls in an unfavoralbe light.

  87. Tolkien and Columbine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posted by JonKatz on Thursday August 30, @12:30PM

    First in Series of Twelve

    1t is widely known that J.R.R. Tolkien is very popular among the young boys at the clinics, but what is less widely recognized, is the role he plays in the RIAA's plans to counter peer-to-peer school shootings. This is the first in a series of thirteen, in this instillment, we will be looking at how the author of Tolkiens trilogy, Karen Wynn Fonstead, has empowered 15 year olds to peer-to-peerly implement open source buzzwords. She has repeatedly said that she feels no responsibility for the Columbine shootings, even going so far as to sue the MPAA for contributing to the "viral" copyright infringement. Ben Franklin, the first president of the United States, is said to be the basis for Frodo Bagins, the main character in Fonstead's The Hobbit, and he invented the library. Surely, he wouldn't approve of his works being the inspiration for a group of outcast, delicious young boys taking over the world through peer-to-peer RIAA school shooting geek culture.... But I guess that's democracy for you.

  88. Modern Fantasy, George RR Martin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got to agree with you there!

    I read LOTR a while ago, and certainly appreciate Tolkien's IMMENSE intellect and pioneering of QUALITY fantasy fiction, but I to have been more enthralled by modern fiction. I have read Jordan, loved him, and now more or less given up - he can't keep the pace, and adds and adds complexity without much resolution, and the series seems to be going on idle (the last one I read was either A Crown of Swords, or A Path of Daggers - the Seventh book :) ). I have yet to read Mr. Williams, but got the first two books of MS&T used from my cousin - and they sit on my desk here at grad school awaiting their turn in my reading queue :)

    I must 100%, ABSOLUTELY, EMPHATICALLY agree that NO OTHER fantasy book has gotten my undivided attention like George R.R.Martin's books. I've positivity ripped through the first two, and am just waiting for the third to come out on paperback. I got two friends of my ADDICTED to him as well. I've tried thinking WHY his work is so entertaing. It's not really his world - Tolkein and Jordan have far better thought-out and interesting worlds - but it's three items that stand out - PLOT PACING, DARK TONE, and CHARACTERS.

    Martin never really lets his plots drag - the pacing and action is always happening, and there are not too many lulls. In addition, I really enjoy his non-euphemistic, gritty, tell-it-like-it-is style. Perhaps this comes from originially being an SF writer. People die, and die bloody. There's child-murder, assassination, incest, and really DARK magical stuff (The Red Woman - ICK!!). I especially appreciate his mature treatment of sexual themes and desires - so many other fantasy works are almost too "pure" and sterile in this regard. Most importantly, he REALLY shines with his characters - they are, for the most part, the most dark, complex, and GREY characters - all the "good" characters have very dark aspects - King Robert participated in a bloody coup that was responsible for the death of innocent children, Catelyn cares for her own children fiercely, but horribly treats her huband's bastard son Rob, etc. And the "bad" characters often have admirable aspects - Cersei still cares for her children, and acts as a feminist, Tyrion is almost more "good" than "evil" and tries to right the wrongs of his family's reign while still upholding it's honor and prestige.

    It's books like THESE that I love to recommend to people who have (often for good and valid reasons) "given up" on reading fantasy because of all the drek that's out there.

    Sincerely,
    Kevin Christie
    crispiewm@hotmail.com

  89. An amazing atlas by Ted+V · · Score: 2

    I must concur that this is an excellent book. I had read Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion before, but a lot of stuff never really "clicked" until I saw the atlas. The atlas stresses stuff that you can easily miss when reading the books. You can actually see how far Aragon, Gimli, and Legolas ran when following orcs in what, 3 days? I think it's almost far as France is wide! The architecture maps give you a much strong feel for what it must really have been like to be in Cirith Ungol, or standing in front of the Black Gate. There are just so many tiny things this atlas illuminates. It was recently out of print I think, but I'm glad they brought it back. It's definitly one of my favorite non-fiction books.

    By the way, if you're looking for more information on the upcoming Lord of the Rings movies, the best site is The One Ring dot Net (TORn).

    -Ted

  90. IT IS NOT A TRILOGY!!! by Spifmeister · · Score: 1

    why do i care, i don't know. I am just picky

    Don't believe me, well take it from Harper Colins version. Which they say in Note on the Text, right at the begin.

    The Lord of the Rings is often erroneously called a trilogy when in fact a single novel, consisting of six books plus a appendices, sometimes published in three volumes.
    Sorry just had to get that off my chest

  91. Gimme that old-time mythology by graybeard · · Score: 1

    LOTR has been felled by the "Curse of Star Trek": if you try to mess with it, people howl. Nobody wants their favorite fantasy to grow, they want to skin it, hang it on the wall to dry, then start to embroider on it. "O Brother, Where Art Thou" shows how mythology (Homer's Odyssey) can inspire something new while retaining its core message.

    I suppose the fact that Tolkien is dead has something to do with the slowdown in new installments, but you get my drift.

  92. Katz - Have You No Sense of Decency? by akondo · · Score: 1

    sure some lickspittle will mod this down as a troll, offtopic etc.. like every other time

    but isn't about time JKatz picked up his game or picked up his bags? I'm used to his self-indulgent reviews of books and movies that are months out of date - but now he reviews a book that's been available for at least a decade, and it's -- a book of MAPS for chrissake. talk about setting new (low) standards for literary content.

  93. The Layman's Silmarillion by jgaynor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This book seems like an easier to read version of the silmarillion



    Any Tolkien fan will tell you that the of the five books mentioned above, the Silmarillion reads like a cross between the Bible and 1980's VCR instructions. It is heavy with volumes of mythology, unpronouncable names and maps thet Bryce couldn't render. This book seems like an easier to read version of that most enigmatic of JRR's books.



    Think Ill go get it and use it as a companion so I can finally finish teh Silmarillion.

  94. Trolls, naked and petrified? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I though, at first, that this was a troll. Then I checked the posting time (11:27 am)and realised that it must be an Olog-hai. No troll would be active in sunlight.

    Could have still been a troll:
    • The planet is round. The troll may have been in another timezone.

    What exactly is it about sunlight that petrifies a troll? If it's UV, they have sunscreens for that.

    And above all, unless we're dealing with 802.11, this post was probably made from indoors, where window blinds stop sunlight. Most geeks hardly ever get out in sunlight anyway.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  95. Re:natalie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    natalie is not a troll. However, she might be stoned and petrified.

  96. Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's by Genus+Marmota · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I love the trilogy dearly & first read it when I was 12 years old. Sadly, as an adult I've come to understand that, if only unconciously, Tolkien has mapped the geography of Middle Earth onto that of Europe, and in the process perpetuates some very vicious racist stereotypes.

    It's obvious from the text that Hobbits live in the British Isles, but look at the map again. It doesn't stop there. The war against Mordor is a transparent retelling of the centuries of conflict between Europe and the Huns (initially), later the Ottoman Empire. It's the same "West (good) vs. East (bad)" myth that fueled the Crusades.

    Mordor == Turkey
    Orcs == Turks
    Rohan = Hungary
    Gondor = Austria
    Minas Tirith == Vienna

    Check out the language (character set) of the orcs & Mordor, and the everpresent stereotypes (filth, cruelty, even curved blades!). Notice how ME is bordered on the West by the sea (divine, the final retreat of the heroes i.e. Avalon) but on the East it's a complete blank. Even the shape of Mordor resembles Turkey (Anatolia, actually).

    There are so many details to support this it would make a decent PhD dissertation. But I don't mean to judge Tolkien or invalidate his work, it's just that as an adult I can't help but place it in the larger historcial and social context. The British Empire had finally triumphed (at hideous cost, e.g. Gallipoli) over the Ottoman at the time of The Hobbit's publication ('37?) but was itself mortally wounded. Rising Arab and Indian nationalism were busily undermining colonial rule, and Sauron was indeed growing in power in Europe's midst. The apocalypse finally arrived in Europe with the same inescapable and terrible violence it did in Middle Earth.

    I look at that map and I see Europe before WWII. It makes me sad, because contained withing one of my most beloved childhood stories is a racist view of the world that persists (in some ways) to this day.

    1. Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      What a load of fucking bullshit.

      Few things pissed Tolkien off more than people inventing allegory and claiming his work fits it.

    2. Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, in the foreword to LotR, he professes that that was not his intention. Inevitably, the story was forged by his own personal circumstances (much of the Return of the King was written as his son was serving in the RAF) but I don't accept that he made that connection; his readers did.

      Here's the full quote: "The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would have not been destroyed but occupied... Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes of views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers."

    3. Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's by Nept · · Score: 1

      exactly

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    4. Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not Tolkien was intentionally using allegory in LotR, his cultural biases obviously had an impact on the work.

      I don't think Tolkien was a racist, certainly not overtly or intentionally so. However, he was pretty clearly writing from a British 'white-man's-burden' perspective, and his work falls into the Romantic, anti-modernist aesthetic of Early 20th century European nationalism.

      It's hard to ignore the fascism inherent in epic fantasy. Mysticism, jingoism, militarism, nationalism, racism (even if its couched as humans vs orcs), the idea of a hero destined to bring a fallen nation back to its golden age, its all there.

    5. Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, Turks ride horses, orcs eat them.

    6. Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's by snake_dad · · Score: 2
      owwww.... where are my moderator points when I need them?

      You are absolutely right. People, just read the damned books, enjoy them, immerse yourselves in the great fantasy world it offers, and study its roots by reading the Sylmarillion, but don't ever try to fit it onto todays world.

      TLOTR is simply the most believable fantasy book I have ever read.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  97. Re:Troll turf war claims three by I+WILL+KICK+YOUR+ASS · · Score: 0

    The rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

    Also, if I ever meet you, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS!!

  98. The Atlas of Pern by Buran · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    ... is another fine work by the same author. It's not quite as detailed and extensive, but this is caused in part by the "quality" of the source material. I enclose this word in quotes because I'm not saying that Anne McCaffrey doesn't write well; in fact, she's one of my favorite authors. But she was not an academic by training -- in fact, she dabbled in the performing arts before becoming a writer -- so the extensive notes that Tolkien created while working on his series don't exist for the Pern universe. (Tolkien was a linguist, which is part of why there's such polish in that part of the Rings series.)

    Fonstad did a good job anyway, using as much source material as she could find and most likely author interviews as well. The resulting maps are well detailed and wouldn't look out of place in a cartography book.

    Of particular interest to me (a die-hard space buff) was the section that showed Pern from space rather than the Mercator projection maps (which are notorious for distorting polar regions) and the section which depicted the landing craft that the settlers when they arrived from their colony vessels. Interestingly, the design looks like a lengthened Space Shuttle orbiter, which makes sense to a point (why reinvent the wheel?) but isn't what I'd choose for such a job; the Shuttle's not designed to make repeated trips in just a few short days. I would have instead adapted some of the designs I've seen for manned Mars flights. (Hmm, such a thing might prove of interest to Ms. McCaffrey or some of the Pern fan web sites out there. Note to self: Design landing craft.) Oddly, the image in the book is missing any kind of propulsion system... strange for a skilled cartographer to miss that detail, but then again, engineering drawings and maps aren't the same thing.

    (The descriptions of the Shuttle in The White Dragon are well done -- for 1978, three years before Columbia ever flew.)

    I have a copy of this book, acquired from the Sci-Fi Book Club some years ago, but it seems to now be out of print. Expect to pay at least $50 for one; I saw one on Amazon.com (used) going for $100!

    Anyone else read this wonderful series and taken a look at the atlas? If so, what did you think?

  99. All... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your precious are belong to us!

  100. Re:This book is for dorks, geeks, losers by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 2

    Guilty, your Honor. Then again, maybe the "normal" smell-free guys like you should try reading a dictionary. It is spelled W-E-I-R-D.

    --
    "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
  101. Tolkien on Beowulf & Fr. Christmas by T1girl · · Score: 1

    In addition to his wonderful fiction, Tolkien was a linguist and an expert on Anglo-Saxon languages. A collection of his lectures, aptly entitled The Monsters and the Critics, reviewed here includes one "On Translating Beowulf."
    And no collection of Tolkiena would be complete without Letters from Father Christmas, a collection of letters Tolkien wrote to his kids over the years beginning in the 1930s. They were painstakingly illustrated, down to the North Pole postage stamps. You can see his style develop over the years, from straightforward tales of mishaps at the North Pole, often including a clumsy polar bear, to escalating wars between armies of trolls and dwarves.

  102. Re:Never read them... should I? Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start with the Hobbit; it's definitely the most
    accessible - more of a children's book, although IIRC that wasn't Tolkien's main intended audience.
    The LOTR is loftier - more heroic/romantic - in style. I find it more exciting, but bits of it
    are definitely overwrought - I found it harder to read as an adult than as an uncritical child.

  103. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    damn, you're cool! got a lot of bites, too.

  104. Encyclopedia of Arda by Col.+Panic · · Score: 2

    Since I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, if you are a LOTR fan, you absolutely must check out this website. Enjoy!

    1. Re:Encyclopedia of Arda by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      slashdotted... Mirror?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  105. I'm listening to the radio drama right now!! by turbotux · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just got the BBC drama (13 episodes) of LotR and the Hobbit.I haven't heard such a great Sci-fi story in a long time. This really brought me back to the days when i "discovered" Star Wars. I definately recommend getting the CDs to this or at least download them from your favorite file-sharing program.

  106. Re:LOTR: Unimpressed. by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 2

    I found LOTR difficult to read and unenjoyable. It's characters were flat. While they are original because they were the first in the genre, they didn't feel "real" to me. The complete lack of strong female characters - Eowyn appeared strong, but was unimportant, Arwen was irrelevent and Galadriel was fluff. You can say that they were important in the Simarillion, but I saw no reason to read that because I didn't enjoy LOTR enough to continue.

    Also, the writing was done by someone who was obviously a linguist. In other words, he used fancy language because they knew how, not because it made sense that the characters spoke that way.

    I much prefer Guy Gavriel Kay. "The Fionavar Tapestry" is some of the best fantasy I've ever read. Although it too has some issues; I didn't think the whole King Arthur piece to the story flowed from the rest.

    Jason Pollock

  107. Great Books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Tolkien World is just amazing. After reading the trilogy, The Hobbit and the Silmarillion, I was trully amazed, and disappointed that it was all I could read. A reader posted that he cried after the he had red the Trilogy. I cried at the end of the Trilogy, when Frodo gave his little speech and left Sam. I might also have cried at one other point, but I don't remember.

    "someone has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them" Frodo, to Sam (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King)

    - James Noble

  108. what kind of a pretentious neurotic twit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..'accidentally' includes that absurd Note to self: Design landing craft in a publicly posted message? Do you honestly use your own slashdot posts as an ego-stroking reminder service? Are you familiar with woody allen? Are you woody allen?

  109. Re:Katz - Have You No Sense of Decency? by c4thy · · Score: 1

    dewd cut katz some slack, its not his fault, i mean its freaking genetics that make him retarded. also, have you thought that the reason hes reviewing a book that has been out for 10 years is because its taken him that long to read, cmon man, dont be soo harsh.

    --

    i am convinced that "/.ers" are homosexuals and imma make that my "sig"
  110. Challenges by __aaedhn419 · · Score: 1

    If you read a book that does not challenge you, that you do not have trouble with, then it is doubtful you gained anything from it. Your knowledge and learning will only improve if you read hard books. I'm sorry if this seems too much like work, but life is work.

    Now, I generally dislike people who generate allegorical comments out of thin air, but at least they are trying to understand the book they're reading. On the flip side, if you do not understand a book, you are not qualified to criticize it, because you didn't read the same book the rest of us did.

    Anyway. Here's my on-topic point. Half of the compliments, insults, and analysis of the Lord of the Rings are misinformed. Let me remind you that if your understanding of LotR is flawed, so will be your comments.

    As for my view? Hmm. Tolkien himself said that to make myths was to approach perfection. I believe, if you'll forgive my uneducated opinion, that he succeeded, and LotR is worthy of standing next to the books of the ancients.

  111. Simplistic? by concept14 · · Score: 1
    I doubt that this "Lord Of The Rings" movie will be half as good as Star Wars, I don't think that anyone can create as detailed and richly rendered a world as the "galaxy far far away". Rumour has it that George Lucas spent years working on star charts, alien races, even alien languages! before ever penning a word of the Star Wars screenplay. I'm sure Middle Earth is quite simplistic compared to such background detail..

    If I had moderator points, I'd be torn between marking this as flamebait or as funny.

    --
    Quis metamoderunt ipses metamoderatores?
  112. Lord of the Rings is POORLY WRITTEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buddy of mine recently told me to reread the series. Just so I could see how badly written the books are.

    Granted, the story is a lot of fun. Usually.

    But the characters are exceptionally bland. Legolas's is boring beyond belief (occassionally he says something or twangs his bow, but that's about it). Gandolf, er Mithrandir, is the ultimate cocksure goody-goody, so much so it hurts (could he be more predictable?). Hell, even Frodo is bland. What's up with that.

    I've heard people say the books are supposed to be written like history. These people haven't read any history.

    The Hobbit was better. Don't know why Tolkien changed his style.

  113. Sequel to the Lord of the Rings by Nept · · Score: 1

    How many (casual) tolkien fans are aware that there was sequel planned in the works for The Lord of the Rings?. Tolkien never got to far on it - he said it was developing into too much of a thriller - but the first few pages are in The Peoples of Middle Earth v12 of the History of Middle Earth. IMHO, there is nothing more exciting than those first few pages, and I dearly wish tolkien had continued to write them - the plot took place about 100 years into the reign of Aragorn's son. The story was entitled "The New Shadow" and I believe that it would have dealt a lot with the black arts of the Númenórean.

    At any rate, pick up a copy of that book and also - if you're not familiar with the History of Middle Earth - the middle 4 volumes

    The Return of the Shadow

    The Treason of Isengard

    The War of the Ring

    Sauron Defeated

    have a lot of the original portions of the Lord of the Rings before Tolkien revised them in very readable form. eg. Aragorn started off as a hobbit named Trotter, but Tolkien felt there was already too many hobbits in the story ... etc.

    a smashing good read all of it.

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  114. PhD? by Joutsa · · Score: 1

    I don't know how much your university demands from PhD dissertations, but the even the girl who thought Darth Vader and Xena are the same person came up with more convincing arguments.

    Starting from the geography, Shire might be middle England, but only if you cut it off the map and pasted it to north Germany. Maybe Bree is London in disguise. Interpreting Gondor and Rohan as Austria and Hungary is a good one, it fits both geography (though east and west flipped) and society. But then there's Moria, those mountains and Isengard, that are quite random and the rest of Europe including powers such as France and Russia is simply gone without a trace. And although Mordor is in the right corner of the map and the shape is almost there (although if you want to, you can see a similar half-circle of mountains at Rumania and Bulgaria), but the capital is certainly in the wrong place.

    And Orcish language and character set don't resemble Turkish that much, as I recall the orcs too dumb to learn Black Language and speaking bad Westron instead. The picture of Orcs as filthy and cruel people fits easily just any foreign nation a given nation has fought. Just replace curved blades with Kalashnikovs, Molotov Cocktails or just anything foreign.

    I don't deny that there is racism present, but, hey, this is fantasy. If you don't have absolutely bad people, you can't have heroes. And this isn't reality, this is escape from reality.

  115. There is... kinda by SeppMosh · · Score: 1

    German epic metal band Blind Guardian (http://www.blind-guardian.com) did a concept album, called "Nightfall in Middle-Earth" about LOTR and has a song called "The Bard's Song" on their album "Somewhere far beyond" which catches middle-earth's spirit very well, especially in a live recording (on "The forgotten Tales").

    Go out and get it from amazon.. or audiogalaxy ;)

    1. Re:There is... kinda by dopemonkey · · Score: 1

      "Nightfall in Middle-Earth" is based on "The Silmarillion", not LOTR.

      Of course it's still fscking great.

  116. Re:So we'll have a "Lord of the Rings" topic on /. by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

    ...or at least a "Fantasy & Science Fiction" topic? (plus mandatory 600-message flamefest on the actual name of the topic... Which goes first and whether it's "science fiction" or "SF"... and of course, survivors will be shot.)

  117. Slashdot Tie-ins ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be [...]

    Errm, WHY ?


    If LOTR is good, it was good a year ago and it will be good in a year's time - why does the (US) release date of (just) a film have any influence on what is interesting to read here ?


    Slashdot should be above the hype-based media circus.

  118. Well, that's because Tolkien didn't write it. by devphil · · Score: 2


    The Silmarillion was collected together by one of his sons, based on notes and unpublished stories, and then published posthumously. A large part of the actual prose -- the part that reads like the 1980's VCR instructions -- was actually written by Christopher as glue text. Think of the contents of the Sil. as simply one snapshot from a massive CVS repository. :-) Even Christopher said later that parts of it aren't "true".

    Tolkien's notes were extremely confused and contradictory at the time of his death. I am amazed (and thankful) that Christopher was able to make any sense out of them at all. Tolkien had actually started to make heavy rewrites (again!) in sections of the Middle-Earth mythology that we like to think of as set in stone; Christopher had to deliberately ignore the inconsistencies, and publish the intended changes in a later series of books.

    Keep in mind also that the events of the Quenta Silmarillion and Akallabeth (probably misspelled that second one, it's the atlantis reference with one of the biggest "pun" setups in English literature) were Tolkien's real story; the one he spent his lifetime dreaming about. The Lord of the Rings was intended to just be a Hobbit sequel, but the Sil. was where his soul lived. It was bound to change a lot.

    (One of my favorite aspects of the First and Second Ages is that nearly all the action took place west of the Blue Mountains. If you look at the maps in LOTR, you'll say, "Huh? The Blue Mountains stand on the west coastline! There's no land there!" To which the answer is, "There's no land there anymore...")

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  119. Re:LOTR: Unimpressed. by Glothar · · Score: 1

    Also, the writing was done by someone who was obviously a linguist. In other words, he used fancy language because they knew how, not because it made sense that the characters spoke that way.

    Then you didn't understand what was going on. Tolkien used language to help convey information about relationships between characters. If you didn't catch the differences in speech between the elves and Aragorn, then I think you wanted the characters to be flat. I caught that when I was in 6th grad.

    He could have been blunt and used dialogue to do this same thing, and then everyone who never wanted to actually think would have no problem seeing what everyone else does

    Aragorn: I am called Aragorn.
    Frodo: Should I trust you? I'm normally very trusting and friendly, as a rule. But I'm mostly scared now. I feel that I should act conservatively until I know who you are.
    Aragorn: If you will notice, I do look and act rather like someone you should not trust. However, I am not like most people you have met. I have a secret, but I dont wish to tell you yet.
    Frodo: I feel cautious. But I'll trust you because I am normally very trusting and friendly.
    Aragorn: Very good. I'm actually all noble and stuff. A right honorable chap.

    Now, some people want shallow dialogue like that. Personally, I prefer the more subtle approach. I caught the difference in Aragorn's speech and everyone elses. I knew he was important.

    Language was one of the main tools that Tolkien used to provide information about characters, and you completely missed it. Read it again, pay attention to the language, and your "flat" characters will turn out to be a bit more interesting.

  120. Translations by Glothar · · Score: 1

    No - that's why it's at the end.

    Means: I am ignoring your point. To me, only my view is valid.

    Life must just be full of disappointments for you.

    Means: Since the only way I could acknowledge your comment would involve me admitting that it was me that had trouble reading it, I have instead chosen to insult you in the hopes that you will feel bad. The thought that I have hurt you helps to cover the inadequacies I feel as a reader.

    No it isn't - metaphor is a comparison between unlike objects. When you read you look at a work so looking at a work through a prism isn't metaphorical, merely confused. A metaphor would have been something like "Offers a worthy new dish at the feast." assuming that it is a good book, of course.

    Means: I have been caught in a gray area of the english language. Since it is apparent to me that my original comment was stupid, I have instead switched my argument to something that makes it sound like I know what I am talking about.

    Not that it particularly matters, but the standard of JKs writing is poor for a professional, particularly considering the weighty topics he chooses, and this broken metaphor was one of the better bad examples he has produced; a 50cc engine in a 10 tonne truck indeed.

    Means: I attempted to make myself popular by bashing Jon Katz and it has seemed to backfire. I shall attack him personally now, hoping to reclaim some of my self respect.

  121. Amazon is boycotted for one-click patent by Squiggle · · Score: 1

    It is inappropriate to purchase anything from Amazon if you disagree with their one-click patent. It is our job as consumers to make informed and pro-active purchases.

    I'd supply some links to slashdot articles, but the search doesn't seem to be working right now :(

    --
    Complexity Happens
  122. Re:LOTR: Unimpressed. by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 1

    Sure, he used language to convey all sorts of information. That's what linguistic specialists do when they write. It's sort of a programmer writing a programming language. You can't resist it.

    But, I have yet to see anyone hide subtexts like that in normal speech. Maybe I haven't met enough of the right class of people.

    Basically, it sounds to me like we disagree on the benefit of the use of language. I treat it as a barrier between me and the characters, you see it as a benefit, and a demonstration of the genius of Tolkien. It is, I'm not disputing that he was a man of great linguistic skill, or large vision in terms of the history of Middle Earth. Just that he didn't come up with characters that I enjoyed reading about.

    Jason Pollock

  123. Lord of the Rings Games/Maps by greyfeld · · Score: 1

    I would recommend also the new Lord of the Rings board game from Hasbro/Wizards of the coast. It is a very challenging and entertaining adaption of the books that has very high replay value. My friends in their 30's have loved it as well as my eight year old daughter and family. The game is playable by 2-5 players (although it wouldn't be to hard to play solo also). The main difference that this game brings to the board game genre is that it is totally dependent on cooperation, sacrifice and communication between the players. If there is a player that is not willing to sacrifice himself or his cards/life tokens in order to destroy the ring, you will lose the game. It is VERY difficult to win the game and out of probably 15 times playing, we have only managed to destroy the ring twice for a total victory. Yet even in losing, it was still a fun game that involves all the players and encourages team play which is so different than almost all other games out there. As far as maps go, the single definitive large, poster size map of Middle Earth has to be Jo Hartwig's map done for I.C.E (Iron Crown Enterprises) back in 1996. It was made to go along with their wonderful, but now out of print, collectible card game Middle Earth: The Wizards. The map is beautifully detailed and although very difficult to find now would be well worth the effor to locate and have framed. If anyone has a copy for sale, please contact me at kloster@sunflower.com as I would like to purchase one. The one that I previously owned was destroyed in a flood of my basement. In addition to Middle Earth: The Wizards, ICE also produced a number of expansions for the card game. The game itself, while having some of the mechanics of Magic the Gathering, is really a completely different animal. You use the cards in your deck to travel to various locations and gain allies or important items from the Lord of the Rings books. Of course, destroying the ring is a possible strategy, but one of only many possibilities. If you like games like Magic the Gathering, it would be well worth your time to search this game out on Ebay as boxes of boosters and starters can be had for very reasonable prices. I'm looking forward to seeing the maps of middle earth book as I'm currently reading the Lord of the Rings to my daughter and it would really help to have some good maps to show to her while we read. Enjoy! Greyfeld the Happy Gamer