[tumhalad2]

Here is a scathing review I found upon amazon:

Decades after its initial publishing, The Lord of the Rings still enjoys a devoted fandom as strong as it was during the trilogy's conception. The amount of glitz associated with the books has grown too, with editions consisting of shiny paper, tons of maps, and all kinds of memorabilia. It's appropriate really considering these books are all style but no substance.

The Hobbit Frodo discovers from his friend the wizard Gandalf, that the magic ring that his adopted uncle Bilbo used to have is actually the key to unlocking the power of the Dark Lord Sauron, who seeks it once more. He flees his homeland the Shire with his friends, Merry, Pippin, and Sam, who discover they were right to flee since Sauron's most trusted lieutenants have already gone into the Shire to retrieve the ring. His goal is the elves' city of Rivendell to entrust the ring and Middle-Earth's safety under the jurisdiction of wiser powers but as events play out, Frodo's journey does not end there.

Pondering how these books succeeded is an ambivalent affair. On the one hand, Tolkien took elaborate measures in describing the medieval landscapes of Middle-Earth and designing all sorts of legends in its history so you'll feel like you're really in another world full of beauty and wonder. I was often left awash in awe after reading, delighted in my dreams of visited by visions of traveling through expanses of land on my own journey of danger and purpose alike the leagues traveled in these books. On the other hand, the characters are wretchedly mapped out and are extraordinarily dull save for brief moments of emotion and wit. The joy initially experienced in reading about the beautiful landscapes and intricately described locations proves that there can be too much of a good thing as it goes on for pages on end to the point of boredom. In the beginning of the book depicting the Hobbits' flight from the Shire, whole pages are devoted to describing the scenery of the weeks they spent in escaping the Shire. This is more than just a chance phenomena however as it goes on and on, even in the final book when bloody war is just a day away. Voltaire's Candide traveled across the entire world with not much of a fuss made over the scenery and the story was better for it, not even taking into account that Candide was a satire.

Even then for all the text, Tolkien's prose is rudimentary at best. The usage of clichés like, "Suddenly he jumped back like a frightened woodland animal," is painfully elementary. It's not surprising given that Tolkien was an academic first and a writer second but all the same considering that this is the Bible of fantasy we're discussing here, it falls painfully short.

The characters are all boring black and white stereotypes. All of the bad guys are ugly, stupid, and weak while the good guys are beautiful, smart, and undefeatable. These criticisms go beyond the normal route of complaining against all good versus all evil however, and venture into the realms of just plain dull characters. Apologists will respond that's how it was in myth but I can only say their experience is limited to Beowulf (a large influence on Tolkien appropriately enough) and like stories or that they have a very shallow understanding of myth. For example, the Odysseus of The Odyssey was typified as someone smart and cruel when he wanted to be. His brains alongside brawn made him an interesting character, much as the quirks of other mythical characters made them interesting, such as the angsty Achilles and the noble Hector of The Iliad, just to name a few. But even though mythical characters were typically classified as larger than life and not conflicted, they were still interesting, still perhaps even depicted with questionable moralities. Again consider Odysseus. Clearly he was the protagonist but though the subject of his morality was left relatively untouched within the telling of The Odyssey, it is not hard to imagine how one can see his virtues in a distorted light. His hubris was his downfall and he had real consequences to suffer for it.

Contrast this to the protagonists of The Lord of the Rings, who are incorrigible. Oh sure, Frodo does have issues with the Ring's darkness but that's the problem. The Ring is a naturally corrupting artifact on its own so we expect Frodo to fall. Expecting otherwise is like not expecting the laws of gravity to work. On the other hand if Frodo never got hold of the Ring, he would be perfectly unblemished, both in appearance and in spirit. Even then, even the Hobbits all become extraordinarily powerful too since they all acquire magic swords early on, not exactly ranking with actual angelic figures like Gandalf, but hardly weaklings anyway. Likewise the antagonists are all completely corrupted and filthy. Ironically enough, the Ring and other cursed magical artifacts are all responsible save the plights of Denethor, Theoden, and the wild folk. Even the grotesque Gollum is only perverted through enchantment.

Beyond issues of character complexity, pertaining to interest, you will not find a single character like Odysseus in these books or anything resembling some of the crazier mythical stories out there, paradoxically enough. Sure there are hints of actual emotion like the conflicts between Denethor and Faramir alongside Theoden's struggles with his family against the slimy advice of Wormtongue. In the final encounter between the Hobbits and Saruman, the wizard comments on how Frodo has changed into something vile over the course of his journey and we believe him. But these stories are given far too little respect for the drama they convey and they are introduced in the second and third books. Diamonds in the rough really, and that is totally unacceptable.

The issues of racism and sexism within the story are not unfounded either. The Easterlings serving underneath Sauron are the equivalent of Asian stereotypes not peoples, littered with a troubled history of consistently siding with evil, with one of the ghoulish Ringwraiths counted both among their number and leader. The Middle-Earth equivalent of African and Arabic peoples, the Haradrim, faithfully serve Sauron without question. On the other hand, all the good guys are unquestionably white. The female characters are all given little mention save Eowyn and even then her success is only one compared to the myriad victories of her male counterparts. Tolkien denied racism when white supremacists utilized his stories to reinforce their doctrine but when the Narnia stories of his colleague C.S. Lewis are observed, with their villainous depiction of Arabs and women who were tomboyish, to say the least, were denied salvation, it's not that hard a vision to entertain.

When Saruman's fall is revealed by Gandalf, Saruman says he has turned from Saruman the White to Saruman of Many Colors. His robe now constantly shifts with all colors. I understand Tolkien was making a point, that Saruman became a parody of himself with such an ugly robe alongside his alliance to the darkness, but with how charismatic and old Saruman was, I could only imagine him as a sugar daddy wearing the Technicolor dream coat with hot Elf chicks hanging on his shoulders, ready to toss out bling and have his hoes perform tricks for everyone. It's sort of like these books, not only in how each new edition becomes spiffier but also how Tolkien makes a lot of pretty pictures and background history that is just a distraction from how ugly the reality is.