Slashdot Mirror
The Atlas 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.
Get all the book and get into the story. You will not be sorry.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
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.
but when you say "middle earth" I think Magma...
My other sig is extremely clever...
Whaddya say, CmdrTaco?
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
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
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).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618126996/ 102-7400559-9156934
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
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..
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
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
... 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 :)
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?
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.
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?
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:
:-)), 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.
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
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
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
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.
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).
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.
"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?
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/ .
Schnapple
Schnapple
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.
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
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!
This is the kind of info that should be IN THE REVIEW.
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.
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
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.
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.
Blog,Twitter
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."
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.
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.
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."
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
"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!!
"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!!
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
hehe
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
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.
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'
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
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!
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?
to katz for not writing a bullshit review this time.
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.
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
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lotrmap/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"
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...
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.
c tion=maps
More maps of Middle-earth can be found at
http://fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images.php?colle
Ryan
Ryan
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.)
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.
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
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?
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".
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.
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.
Bored of the Rings is back in print.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
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.
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.
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
Only the wierd smelly guys at the bookstore read this shit.
Were you talking about Tolkien or Slashdot?
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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: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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
A crack pip is of course similar to a crack-pipe.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
The Elves were busy fighting in their own lands... It is mentioned rather briefly...
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
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."
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.
Since I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, if you are a LOTR fan, you absolutely must check out this website. Enjoy!
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.
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
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"
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.
If I had moderator points, I'd be torn between marking this as flamebait or as funny.
Quis metamoderunt ipses metamoderatores?
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.
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.
... etc.
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
a smashing good read all of it.
"Teachers leave us kids alone
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.
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.
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
...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.)
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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