Reviews with content warning for War - The Return of the King

I love everything about the fellowship. If you’re not crying buckets of tears at the end of this book, you must be a very different sort of person to me. God… and such a beautiful, hopeful ending it is as well!

Content Warnings

leahgustafson's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous emotional hopeful reflective slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.0

I was SO excited going into this one. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how much I have enjoyed this series so far, and I figured this was going to be the best, most action-packed book of the trilogy.

•

The exploration of love/friendship is the greatest thing about this book—especially the idea of friendships getting us through difficult times. Of course there’s the friendship between Frodo and Sam, but I also love how this one highlights some of the friendships between other characters. I particularly enjoyed the focus on Merry and Pippin, and I thought this added a lot to their development as characters.

•

The destruction of the ring was SO anti-climactic, and I couldn’t believe it happened so early on in the book. I agree that a journey is there AND back again (something we don’t often think about). I also appreciate Tolkien’s commentary on war and the reality of returning to “normal” after such a traumatic event (like a world war). I like how all of the characters coped with and experienced this in different ways. However, so much of Book Six felt unnecessary, and I feel like a large portion of it could easily be cut out because it didn’t add to the overall story. There were points I had to force myself to just power through.

•

Honestly, I was pretty disappointed because I thought this was for sure going to be a 5⭐️ read for me!

•
Check out what I'm reading next on Instagram @LeahsLitReview!

Content Warnings

pokecol's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional hopeful informative inspiring reflective tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.75

Wowee, there is a lot to say. I am not certain where to open my thoughts because it is, expectedly, all over the place.
What I'll begin with is the big problem, as it is where my experience with Return of the King stems. Jumping off of the Fellowship of the Ring, we swing deep into the throttle of the Two Towers with the set-up, everything has to advance off of the last hook - the Fellowship is broken, side A must make their way south, and side B must persevere towards the end with only a party of 2.
At the end of the Two Towers, we are set-up for the climbing climax. Frodo is in dire straits, and Gondor's protagonists assemble in preparation for the last frontier. However, when we begin Return of the King (Book V) it all crawls to a halt. I wasn't even not expecting this, my mindset on the first chapter or two was that "yeah, of course, calm before the storm. Requisite set-up so that the weight and impact may carry." I thoroughly enjoyed Pippin's journey into and exploration of Minas Tirith, however, regardless of my cognitive explicit thought, I was implicitly, undercurrent, bored. After finally swinging into reading big-time and taking on the task before me in the Lord of the Rings which I loved so much, I was thrown against the wall and beaten into a reading slump. Where the first two 'volumes' I undertook a book per month (4 total for I-IV), the Return of the King took me the entire latter half of this year.
Of course, when things took their turn to progress there was a great change, but it would be remiss of me to say that the tranquility overstays its welcome when trying to drive the volatile intensity of narrative home. Leaving off Frodo and Sam, and dropping them until Book VI feels even worse, regardless of the formula established to leave congruence in storytelling.
I thoroughly believe a back and forth, between the Gondor-side and the Mordor-side, would have done a lot to help flow.

Now for a mishmash of thoughts. The first thing I want to speak on is a disappointment. I love Middle-Earth as a world. Part of me is enamored in the majesty of its magic and part of me is taken by the sheer magnitude of its scope, but sometimes the framing of writing and the world Tolkien uses makes it hard to enjoy as a reader.
It wasn't until this point at the end of this narrative, picturing things became a real difficulty. There were struggles before, and there were times when sweeping articulation could swap out to brief snippets, but from Minas Tirith onward this issue felt exacerbated.
I am unable to tell how much of this was a concern thanks to my experiences with ancillary LOTR media, and how much was actually the writing; what I will say is I was left out to dry in really conjuring an image thanks to the text itself. With Minas Tirith I felt like I was really battling against preconceived visuals in my mind - which, I won't lie, frustrated the hell out of me.
The original description somewhat allowed for an interesting image, but with Tolkien's contentment with letting a sleeping description lie, I had to fill in the blanks very often as narrative progressed, and with this story/world specifically it left me disappointed to fall out of an immersion constructed in the story I was reading and lean on interpretations from elsewhere.
It is by this token that some things came to a weird majesty and others didn't. There were severe struggles to picture the actual size Minas Tirith was supposed to embody, severe struggles to picture Pelennor, the river Anduin, to picture the breadth of Anorien. I severely struggled to picture the scope of Mordor and especially the direction of travel and mapping for Chapters 1, 2 & 3 of Book VI.
Though there were as well, very good times to this flipping, the intense switch to linguistic flourish made the contrast between mundanity and intensity so much more apparent. It was in this way moments could conjure into a true fantasy - and I will not lie, I never saw Lord of the Rings as a 'True Fantasy' in the high-magic sense, there are no spells, no weirdness and no strength of light to darkness in the typically fantastic sense; even if the story is the quintessential example of fantasy in modern day. However, the stand-off between the Witch-King of Angmar himself and Mithrandir at the gates of Minas Tirith was one strong moment where it all clicked into place as two historic powers of light and shadow presented to finally clash. It was not an image so magnificent to render long against ideals of fantasy in art, but it was a very powerful moment that I can't help but feel as though the books were more earnestly striving for, and that we have seen less of in recent interpretation for way media is presented in the 21st century.
There were also times when this battled with itself, Mount Doom was tough to image and the trail towards it. Barad-dûr was near impossible to get an idea of location for. The problem as with before in Two Towers reared its head hard in this climax of the Ring itself; where the writing devolved into text, and not storytelling. Specifically when an idea was lingered on and extrapolated in such a way that it stopped moving forward.
For example: "A hand swipes forth", is an action with enough description to tell us what is performing the action. "A lithe, scaly hand swipes, fast and forward", an expansion using description to inform the blanks we'd otherwise fill, interjecting the details that would normally slow down the pace of the sentence between each piece of the action so we continue to progress. What Tolkien does is this: "A lithe, scaly hand, a hand from an age past, once bore the One Ring, the hand now attached to the pathetic creature whose mind was turned to one purpose and one purpose alone, the hand swipes."
The section in bold is the idea that slows down pace as it is not, across the progression, stymied to allow things to flow forward - it literally, stops me, from being capable of picturing anything because nothing is "happening" in this passage. Tolkien does this but for multiple sentences at a time, and it is perhaps the thing I dislike most about his writing - as this, in tandem with sometimes frugal description of the immediate environment, make it so I am sitting there attempting to re-picture and frame the scene over and over again in my mind while nothing occurs. Any second longer than room enough for things of no-consequence to exist between passages, is too long. It is an interjected history lesson at times that pervades physical space - if the history lesson is done in only physical description it can slow down but exemplify specificity, but it will often be details that have no immediate image: for instance, you cannot 'picture' a 'year', it is not a physical thing, you can picture associated imagery but directly by detracting from the present imagery. And when there is no real way to commodify this amorphous idea's lack of entity in space I am just... 'reading words', the same way you can look at the word: "What". The word "What" has application, but alone, it means absolutely nothing, the best you can expand of it is W, H, A & T, all letters, probably with a history to their making, but the word "What" itself, hold no purpose in isolation. When we get these points of description so far removed from what is going on, there is nothing for us to picture, and while it is perhaps necessary information, the timing of its execution makes the literal act of enjoying and immersing oneself in a scene a horrible event. Picturing a moment as if I am pausing, rewinding, playing, pausing, rewinding and playing, over and over while I am still reading - feels awful.

There are lots of moments I like. Aragorn's arrival using the Corsair Ships felt powerful. The whole sequence of Sam coming up into save Frodo from captivity. Pippin and Merry's individual change into squireship for their lords and the crux of their growth as 'Men' they now stand to by at difference to their heritage. Éowyn and her showdown with the Witch-King.
There are many moments that each of their own merit stand as great peaks in the rising of narrative.

The thing that is odd to me, is all is writing back-ended. The book is framed as if to, in many ways, be a story written after events. It is not quite a story written by Frodo about everything that had happened, but it comes very close, and is heavily implied to basically be that by the appendices.
This is both a good and bad thing. The good thing, a device in narrative I've not really seen before but genuinely love, is how each conclusion to a thread of the story is closed proper and long. When someone dies on the battlefield, we step out from the narrative and examine very briefly the impact that holds in the meaning of their actions. Such as how the songs and stories will be said of the event that just occurred, and then we continue what was happening. It is strange to enjoy this with the above point of contention I just went over so heavily, but it presents such a narrative strength that this is a history being told to us as a reader. If this were a history shared around a campfire, deep in the Fourth Age of Middle-Earth, of course a moment of recourse would exist for the death of someone so great, to say not 'They died' and move on but to remind us that their legacy goes beyond this moment because victory does, and will, come.
The part of this I do not like, is when the story retroactively explains details that happened non-chronologically. Regardless of this being the Lord of the Rings, in typical story-telling this is sort of sinful, it acts much as a Deus Ex Machina, and then hands out a retroactive explanation.
For however much I enjoyed Aragorn's arrival to Pelennor, I did not love we had this whole story of the Corsairs and Oath-Breaker's fight at Pelargir post-mortem the conflict. The narrative was given a free 'out' and then the explanation was handed to us later. With being the history lesson way it is told, this can make sense, but presentationally as a story it isn't good. And this is done more than a couple times.

The two big talking points I really want to go over before final thoughts are as follows. The 'New' and the 'Book'.
I don't want to say more than I have, this is a review insofar as needed expanded thoughts and feelings that the narrative of Lord of the Rings provides. I do not wish to examine the philosophical meaning and personal gravitas of story here as those I need not really note to myself.
I can take a brief aside now to say, there is strength to it still. The Lord of the Rings, after reading it fully has a purpose in the way of presenting narrative and meaning in life, and while there are shoddy elements and very strong pillars here and there, fundamental capacity for expanding conflict and resolution on the personal, emotional and philosophical sense, remains strong. The Grey Havens was something I was looking forward to in that respect for a long time as the whole notion of bringing the larger world of Arda into scope, closing out the merit of actions and letting the result of character come beyond Middle-Earth feels important to me.

I'll use this above point as a segue, the book holds a lot of value as a book. I think now, reading it all, it is a "greater than the sum of its parts". I wish now I had read it as a single item and fully understand why it is classified as a single book. The Lord of the Rings fails in being a trilogy where it succeeds in being a novel. The highs, lows, and transitions of narrative tone, with pacing changes and style are all conducive to it being a single item - isolating the flow of Fellowship to volume 1, isolating the pacing and induction to volume 2, and isolating the characterisation and majesty to volume 3, is damaging to each book published in this course. For each lacks the merits of the others as a larger story and makes the all feel to hold more faults than they do - reviewing, if I could, all the Lord of the Rings as just one item, shows room for each of these traits and strengths to breath across the course of one story.
The world is focused on so much early because it helps set the ground work, the stakes and battles are exemplified well in the middle to show what we're up against, and the characterisation happens last to help explore the results of all the world's darkness on the protagonists after a journey so long.
While my review of The Fellowship of the Ring is what it is, Two Towers is what it is, and this book what it is; I would, in collective, give them a much higher rating as 'just 1 book'. The Lord of the Rings, as the story, deserves its higher score and greater memo in fiction than either of the individual volumes do, because they do not act well as self-contained narratives alone.

Lastly, the thing that excited me the most in reading Return of the King at last. I have explored lots of LOTR media in my time and know the ins and outs of almost everything. But I was excited to see where the deviations lie after the Ring has passed from reality.
From Book VI, Chapter 4, onward, it was almost entirely new territory to me.
The only thing I knew to come in the Scouring of the Shire, was that it was where the resolution of Saruman existed oppose to much earlier in the film adaptations.
First a concern, Saruman was handled... bizarre. And I do not mean in characterisation, his bitterness and resolution felt well done, but the fact we see him as... a beggar by the side of the road just randomly out in the middle of Dunland, only to beat the hobbits back to the Shire and re-enact some contingency he must've planned before? This was really weird. And I mean like, bad-storytelling, not good writer, weird.
Having left Orthanc how is Saruman completely diminished to nothing? I get the whole sequence of downfall, but he is still a wizard, a Maia. To have the deposition at charity with the party just... stumbling across him? So strange. And the timeline for him getting to the Shire, having been involved as 'Sharkey', leaving the Shire all the way down to the Gap of Rohan, and then making his way ALL the way back to the Shire to be there before the hobbits return is... not possible? Like, I don't even know what to say about this bit, its as if Tolkien just completely threw away his skills as a writer for this specific portion. Saruman explains that their willingness to take their time allowed him to come back in time, but that explains nothing. Saruman was alone, open road and only with Wormtongue - the Hobbits were all astride horse and Saruman had noway to know they would be taking their time. Did he just - after this brief meeting - decide to completely gamble on making the multiple country trek north to perchance beat the Hobbits back home on the random chance that, even with horses, enough detours would allow him to get there first? Why leave in the first place if he was already establishing the ruffians? HOW did he get to the Gap of Rohan? I truly don't understand this sequence, its literally just plain bad, and leaves me with little way to try and figure it out.
Regardless, the portion after is good, the Scouring of the Shire I had no real knowledge about and watching it play out was like truly new parts of the story never before told to me. The rise of the Hobbits against the Southern Men was great, and the role showing how Merry, Pippin and Sam had changed, had become leaders in their right, that the role of the outside world and the need to be strong comes back to help rise the complacency was really excellent.
I will say that I did not expect that Bag End would be ruined and places like the Party Tree would be torn down and destroyed, and at large I don't know how to feel about it, but as story it helps parallel the 'Never really coming home' especially for Frodo.
The, then, reconstruction of the Shire with the flora of the Elves and such was brilliant.
The bad part here was the weird repeated use of 'Squint-eyed men', felt like the first and only real instance of a potential racist real-world view peak into Middle-Earth, as while the Southrons were outsiders, they needn't have been all lumped under an ethnic background comparison - its a bit garbage.

Then the road to the conclusion, and the send off, the sorrow and grief and meaning of all events in their hereafter. It was great, and the Grey Havens felt like a true back-round having read the Silmarillion.
Knowing also in the appendices the send-off for all characters in their aftermath for Middle-Earth was great and helped exemplify this story as a history lesson of Middle-Earth's larger story as a world. I never knew that Sam eventually went West as well, nor Gimli and Legolas, but it is excellent to know. And that Pippin and Merry went south to rest aside Aragorn at the time of their passing - I also didn't know, though I feel weird about this one, seems a little strange to me that after all the years in returning to the Shire they'd want their final resting places to be in Gondor.

The last thing I want to go over in criticism as I remember it now is the use of chronology and years. The use of time in the Fellowship of the Ring was excellent. I really enjoyed the expansion of time in how Bilbo's birthday and more allowed the shadows to settle deeper and encourage further worry in Gandalf as well as loom things to come.
In Return of the King however, time is used more poorly. We get reflection on the Year(s?) of the War of the Ring and it never really clicks right. I understand that Tolkien has thought it out, the appendices make as much very clear, but in the story it is a mess. The group and whole journey is gone over the year, but then they talk about a year passing in Gondor and its unclear if they stayed a year AFTER the war ended or if it was the end of the single year since the Shire. Were there two years of their absence total?
Then at parts of their time traveling it feels like these aspects are referenced both which ways and I couldn't actually tell how much time had really passed.
This was made specifically a bother when the group came back to Bree. I really like Barliman Butterbur, he makes almost no appearance in other media but him being a 'come back to the tavern keeper that remembers you' trope was really nice. What isn't nice is how in heck this man remembers the group. Remember Gandalf maybe, but Butterbur had maybe one day with Frodo, Pippin, Sam and Merry and upon returning over a year later seems to treat them like old-friends, which makes no real sense. Perhaps remembering their day more vividly due to the Black-riders at the time and Frodo's Ring stunt, sure, but specifically remembering which room they had that night and asking if they'd like the same room is INSANE. I do not understand why Tolkien chose to write this, there is NO possibility he'd remember that and the significance of the room means nothing, asking if they'd like it doesn't add anything at all. It in fact, detracts a lot, this was one moment where the whole world felt tiny to me, which for Lord of the Rings, is unacceptable. Why on earth would such a hard narrative pivot in presentation exist? To exemplify the coziness of home compared to the distant climes of foreign country? Maybe, but this has been given just example by nearly every single other element of the narrative and is better explored in the Shire before and after. This is like going back to a foreign country and have a petrol-station worker recognise and remember your exact order for no reason a full year later - why? It is literally impossible.
I would not make any changes to the Lord of the Rings, even for things I didn't like because I believe they all serve a purpose larger, but Saruman's weird journey off-screen and this comment from Butterbur are both genuinely inadmissible, and stand out problems in a fairly high quality story.

In isolation I enjoyed the Return of the King just as much as the Two Towers. As above I believe in isolation the flaws are stronger than the strengths. As a full single story I rate it much higher, but as just the Return of the King it is about par with its predecessor.
Fellowship of the Ring being weakest of the lot with its forced explanation of the world - good for the story, horrible in an isolated book.

With that, I have read Lord of the Rings at long last. There are parts my mind has changed on, and others that have not. I will say I do not think, strictly as an author, Tolkien is as esteemed as the public consensus would describe but I also believe he is far above some of the unwarranted criticisms his detractors lay against him.
I am pleased to have read this at last, and very ready to permanently move on to new fantasy. Not perhaps baring in mind Lord of the Rings as a point of comparison at all, but to have now finally gotten all from it I needed - much as to Middle-Earth wearing its worth to Frodo, to need a different heal to a different hurt - I now sail to different places too.

Content Warnings

karenschlesser's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

5.0

Content Warnings

More...