Scan barcode
queerofthedagger's review against another edition
4.0
admiralteaa's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
captlychee's review against another edition
4.0
On to the next one.
neilrcoulter's review against another edition
5.0
“Make return of ring a motive." (41)
[b:The Return of the Shadow|15351|The Return of the Shadow The History of The Lord of the Rings, Part One (The History of Middle-Earth, #6)|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1348021528s/15351.jpg|2963703], the first volume of [a:Christopher Tolkien|9533|Christopher Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1235772383p2/9533.jpg]'s [b:History of the Lord of the Rings|2329|The History of the Lord of the Rings (The History of Middle-earth #6-9)|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1322037593s/2329.jpg|6340] series, tells the story of the early development of [b:The Lord of the Rings|33|The Lord of the Rings (The Lord of the Rings, #1-3)|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1388181159s/33.jpg|3462456], taking the narrative from the beginning up to the Mines of Moria. I love how the little penciled note above shows just how uncertain the beginning of The Lord of the Rings was. The story might have gone anywhere, no matter how inevitable it now seems. This is what makes [b:The Fellowship of the Ring|34|The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, #1)|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1298411339s/34.jpg|3204327] my favorite of the three books: the time available for whimsical wanderings, little adventures and events and details that don't really seem connected directly to the big story that emerges. Now I see that this meandering opening is partly a reflection of [a:J.R.R. Tolkien|656983|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1383526938p2/656983.jpg]'s own gradual realization of where the story was going. It's wonderful.
In hindsight it's also fascinating to see Tolkien struggling with The Lord of the Rings as a sequel to [b:The Hobbit|5907|The Hobbit (Middle-Earth Universe)|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1372847500s/5907.jpg|1540236]. We're now used to thinking of The Lord of the Rings as the main story, for which The Hobbit is a pleasant introduction but a much different kind of story. Tolkien wrote:
For one thing, [The Hobbit] was never intended to have a sequel – 'Bilbo remained very happy to the end of his days and those were extraordinarily long': a sentence I find an almost insuperable obstacle to a satisfactory link. For another nearly all the 'motives' that I can use were packed into the original book, so that a sequel will appear either 'thinner' or merely repetitional.” (108)
After all that Tolkien had imagined in his mythology, it's hilarious to see him claiming to have used up all his good ideas in The Hobbit.
I'm glad that the main character of The Lord of the Rings did not end up being called Bingo Bolger-Baggins, and the the character who became Strider did not remain as in the original drafts: a Ranger Hobbit called Trotter (because of his wooden shoes—or perhaps even wooden feet!). There are many such little differences between the first drafts and the final publication. (I do wish, however, that Tolkien had used the title The Return of the Shadow rather than The Fellowship of the Ring; in fact, I prefer all of the alternate titles used in the History series.) But as Christopher points out, what's amazing is how much of the narrative reached almost final form after only one or two drafts—and even before major plot elements were imagined. The journey of the Fellowship from Rivendell is remarkably similar to the final book, even though it included five hobbits (not yet quite the four Fellowship hobbits as they would become), Gandalf, and Boromir (who does not have the full depth of characterization he would later achieve). I really like this glimpse into Tolkien's creative process; I'm grateful he rarely threw anything he wrote into the rubbish bin.
This is Volume VI in the [b:History Of Middle-Earth|214175|The Complete History Of Middle-Earth (Middle-Earth Universe)|Christopher Tolkien|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1334597698s/214175.jpg|18608966] series, and it surprised me in a number of ways. I've found the first five volumes extremely fascinating (I've read a few of them more than once), but they can also be rather tortuous and slow reads. Reading these books involves a lot of flipping back and forth between text and endnote, which can be cumbersome; it's not a linear reading experience. Also, the fine points that interest Christopher are not always what I'm most interested in. For example, Christopher can write pages and pages about the development of Middle-Earth's geography: little place-name changes, minor adjustments of where rivers flowed, and so forth. I'm interested up to a point, but Christopher often goes well beyond that point. In The Return of the Shadow, however, there seemed to be fewer endnotes, and longer sections of uninterrupted original text (and maybe I'm just so used to Christopher's style by now that I don't even notice if it is sometimes unwieldy). I also found that Christopher's annotations focused much more on the major points of the developing narrative. His commentary is helpful and very interesting.
The other surprise was that I'd expected that some knowledge of the first five volumes of the History would be a prerequisite for understanding what is going on in this book. I don't believe that's the case, though. Someone who wanted to learn about only The Lord of the Rings would be fine to start in with this book.
My reviews of the other volumes in The History of the Lord of the Rings series:
dorynickel's review against another edition
4.0
cody_reads_books's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
roseh's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.25