The Atlas of Middle Earth 307
| The Atlas of Middle Earth | |
| author | Karen Wynn Fonstad |
| pages | 210 |
| publisher | Houghton Mifflin |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | Jon Katz |
| ISBN | 0-618-12699-6 |
| summary | The Geography of Middle-Earth |
If you really want to know what Middle-earth is based on, it's my wonder and delight in the earth as it is," Tolkien told an interviewer, "particularly the natural earth." He also wanted to provide a new, Brit-centric mythology for the world, so he took the literal earth and changed it just enough to make it "faerie."
With the cinematic trilogy of his books under production -- three separate films are scheduled for release over the next two years -- Middle Earth is going mainstream. These films will probably be nearly as big as Star Wars, if they're half as good, touching mythological and creative nerves that revolve around what we like to call science fiction in its varied forms.
As is often the case with culture The Lord Of the Rings, The Hobbit and The Silmarillion -- provided comfort, stimulation, and escape for a particular sub-set of the human species, especially young, enchanted brainiacs growing up apart from the mainstream and eager -- desperate, maybe -- for other worlds to explore.
If you want to enter Tolkien's world, the best way is to read The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and the The Silmarillion. For hard-core Tolkien lovers who have already done that, I'd highly recommend -- there's plenty of time before the first movie in December -- The Atlas of Middle-Earth (Houghton Mifflin), by Karen Wynn Fonstad, a University of Wisconsin cartographer who has drafted unbelievably detailed maps of Middle Earth from the First Age through the Third, including thematic and other maps, guides, places and events (the mapping of the The Silarillion is astounding).
Tolkien created the details of Middle Earth for himself, for his own creativity and intellectual exercise. He was, Fonstad writes, envisioning his world much as our medieval cartographers viewed our own.
Fonstad's descriptions of the pain-staking process she used to create these hundreds of details maps are almost as interesting as the stories upon which they're based. The atlas is a composite of the physical surface with the imprint of the "Free Peoples." A number of basic map types are included -- the physical, including landforms, minerals, and climate; the political (spheres of influence); battles; migrations (closely tied with linguistics); the traveller's pathways and finally, situation maps -- towns and dwellings, all arranged roughly in sequence. Fonstad even includes detailed pathway tables -- the distance Frodo spent on his pony on dozens of trips, the length of marches, the treks of elves, the flights of refugees.
Fonstad concedes that an almost endless series of questions, assumptions and interpretations were necessary in creating these maps. But each line has been drawn with a reason behind it, she says. And she explains the reasoning.
Middle Earth was the creation of a world, and is deserving of its own geography. Fonstad's atlas is well and clearly written, even for the casual fan of Tolkien. And the hundreds of maps she created offers a new prism through which to look at these works. This is by no means a book for everybody, and even die-hard fans of the trilogy might ask why they need to know so much. The hard-core fanatic will know.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
This book is a must for Tolkein fans (Score:1)
Please be more specific. (Score:3, Funny)
Were you talking about Tolkien or Slashdot?
Re:This book is for dorks, geeks, losers (Score:2)
Atlas (Score:2, Informative)
Well worth the money in my opinion.
Re:Atlas (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me ... (Score:1)
So we'll have a "Lord of the Rings" topic on /.? (Score:4, Interesting)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Other works... (Score:1)
Katz is going to re-interpret Tolkein now? No doubt with particular attention to such groundbreaking authors as Merceded Lackey...
sigh...
Robert
Re:Other works... (Score:1)
>groundbreaking authors as Merceded Lackey...
You give him too much credit.
I would expect him to focus more on such "authors" as Terry Brooks.
>heave
-l
Re:Other works... (Score:3, Informative)
I think Jon's starting to get to me.
Re:Other works... (Score:2)
That was a joke.
I have this book! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I have this book! (Score:2)
Re:I have this book! (Score:3, Informative)
I also own a copy of this book; it adds immeasurably to the pleasure of re-reading Tolkien's works. Fonstad has also written The Atlas of the Land [amazon.com], The Atlas of Pern [amazon.com], and atlases for both Forgotten Realms [amazon.com] and Dragonlance [amazon.com].
I also have The Atlas of the Land, which details the world described in the Thomas Covenant books by Stephen R. Donaldson. This is an excellent and extremely well done reference.
Re:I have this book! (Score:2)
The only problem with Pern is that McCaffery has added so much to the original story that the maps are incomplete. The Atlas covers only the original Dragonriders trilogy, the Harpers trilogy, and the Moreta book. A revised version would be much appreciated (and three times as thick.) At least with Middle Earth, the canon is closed and the Atlas can be considered complete.
-sk
Re:I have this book! (Score:3, Informative)
At first it just seemed like more supplementary material for the ravenous fan, but I came to appreciate that while Fonstad obviously simply began to merge her own geography skills with her love for Tolkien's world, it went far beyond that. Certainly by the time she began to prepare these maps she had taken a much more analytic and critical approach to the material.
Katz didn't mention it, but the original maps were done as her master's thesis in cartography! That tells you right off this isn't a casual work.
Fonstad begins by telling us that Tolkien himself was unhappy with the geography of his world. The original map was done by Christopher Tolkien from his father's notes and sketches around the time of the 2nd printing of the trilogy [sic], as I recall, and the trouble was that the map sketches dated from very early in Tolkien's own conception of the stories. Remember that Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion first, partly while inhabiting a trench in WWI (!), and the Hobbit came much later. He wasn't even sure they were part of the same universe, so to speak (without the experience of modern marketing of sf/fantasy universes, this was not a trivial question). The LoTR maps had to conform to the Hobbit map more than anything, but there was at least one major problem: scale.
Fonstad's careful textual analysis of the Hobbit and the Rings books showed that, for example, the Fellowship {Rings} made its way to Rivendell on foot at a speed roughly 50-100% faster than the Grey Company {Hobbit} on ponies. Tolkien, of course, hadn't made any such detailed effort to conform these accounts (nor does Fonstad suggest he should have). Instead this is just another example of how the Rings stories evolved organically over the course of Tolkien's lifetime.
Other important and useful things Fonstad does include developing workable hypotheses for the types of geologic history that could have produced Middle-Earth, and on a more detailed level, geographic descriptions that tell us how the types of areas that the characters traverse came to be. What are the Barrow-Downs, really? Why does the Anduin come to an escarpment and flow down a great falls at Rauros? What could have produced the arid region of Mordor so close to verdant Ithilien?
The answers to these questions are not always wholly satisfying, but they do help the careful reader get a sense of a more realistic world and underscore just how much information and observation Tolkien gave us. I've always thought that he's a terrifically visual writer (one reason the story should make a great screenplay). This brings out the colors in his story and makes them more vivid.
Price is $16.80 at Amazon (Score:1)
Cool! (Score:4, Funny)
It's always great to discover a new author, and now that Katz has told me about this Tolkein chap, I'll be certain to check out some of his books! I'm a little surprised that this "Lord Of The Rings" book is out already, though, normally novelisations aren't released until after the film hits the cinemas..
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
p.s. I doubt that this "Lord Of The Rings" movie will be half as good as Star Wars, I don't think that anyone can create as detailed and richly rendered a world as the "galaxy far far away". Rumour has it that George Lucas spent years working on star charts, alien races, even alien languages! before ever penning a word of the Star Wars screenplay. I'm sure Middle Earth is quite simplistic compared to such background detail..
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
After I gave my 10 y.o. LOTR, his first comment was "it's a lot like Redwall". It took me a while to convince him that LOTR came first, and that without it Redwall probably wouldn't exist. (Luckily he saw the light and now counts RotK as one of his favorite books).
Similarly, while George Lucas acknowledges many sources for SW:ANH, Tolkein is not least among them.
sPh
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
I agree with Captain Frisk that this appears to be a bad take-off on a bad parody of a flame-baiting troll
Actually, it was intended as a sarcastic rejoinder to Katz's breathless "I've just discovered this kewl new piece of 'sci-fi' which might, just might, be almost as good as Star Wars!" tone. I wasn't seriously trolling, although it does seem that I got a few bites.
but it is amazing how many readers of fantasy (even high-quality fantasy) don't know (a) how much modern fantasy owes to JRRT and TLOTR
Truly. Although I disagree with the common line of reasoning that if [some work of fantasy] would not be around without Tolkien's pioneering, it follows that [some work of fantasy] must necessarily be an inferior work.
(b) how incredibly detailed the world of TLORT is in terms of history, politics, economy, etc.
..sadly combined with incredibly weakly realized characters and horrible dialog..
It took me a while to convince him that LOTR came first, and that without it Redwall probably wouldn't exist.
What's a Redwall?
Similarly, while George Lucas acknowledges many sources for SW:ANH, Tolkein is not least among them.
Don't tell Katz that! Lucas is influenced by nothing other than his own godlike intellect and creativity! SW is 100% original! Also, don't tell him that the hobbits aren't really a metaphor for the oppressed geeks of the earth, bullied by the orcs (=jocks), Sauron (=Bill Gates) and Saruman (="The Man") !!
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
You're kidding right? Lucas has nothing on Tolkein. I'm assuming you read LOTR right? And The Hobbit? And the Simarillion? And Lost Tales (Volumes 1- whatever they are up to now? And the Atlas's? You get my point.
Lucas actually created very little, it's all those other people that are writing books like I, Jedi etc. They are the ones populating the Star Wars universe, not Lucas. It was my understanding that Lucas intentionally left things vague so that he would retain ultimate control over what goes on in the universe. What happens to all these Bantam Publishing boots when the next movie starts contridicting what happened? I always wonder if Lucas signed off on Luke becoming a dark Jedi...
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Yikes (Score:1)
Re:Yikes (Score:1)
Re:Careful (Score:2)
Sarcasm is rarely recognized without the <sarcasm> tag.
Get it at Amazon (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get it at Amazon (Score:2)
Re:Get it at Amazon (Score:1)
Not seen this one... (Score:2)
... but I do have the Forgotten Realms atlas at home by Fonstad, and I have to say it's lovely. The maps contain an incredible amount of detail and are amazingly easy to read considering, and it's a pleasure to have maps that haven't been drawn by the author with little triangles for mountains :)
Also the maps depicting important scenes from the books really serve to make things clearer, especially during confusing scenes which occur over wide or tangled geographical areas. I can only imagine the effort that went into making these as consistent as possible with the books, especially in this case as the author cannot be contacted...
I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, but I might get this anyway just to look through. Maps are great, and I wish there were more books like this for all my favourite worlds :)
Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
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?
You lucky person, you... (Score:2)
You are in the wonderful position of still being able to read TLOR for the first time. Yes, some fantasy novels do try to hard... but not these. Tolkien produced the original. All the others are just trying to recreate his masterpiece.
Absolutely...and here's why: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Absolutely...and here's why: (Score:2)
Re:LOTR: Boring? (Score:2)
Re:LOTR: Unimpressed. (Score:2)
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
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
Oh my god yes (Score:2)
Read them. they will change your view of the world.
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:1)
You definitely should read LoTR, if you're interested in good reading.
What I personally like in LoTR is the beauty of the author's work, that is the combination of an intricate and deep plot, with masterful writing (Tolkien was a professor and a life-long scholar of the English language).
LoTR is second to none in aesthetics and style, and it is definitely the best book that I've ever read.
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
I dearly love both, and personally can't imagine putting one above the other, so don't think I'm flaming.
Re:Never read them... should I? No. (Score:2)
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)
Start with The Hobbit (Score:2)
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.
Re:Start with The Hobbit (Score:2)
Re:Start with The Hobbit (Score:2)
I also think that if you aren't ready for some "meaty" reading material that The Hobbit is also a good starting point. I would recommend The Hobbit for an introduction to Middle Earth for children who are still beginning readers that may get lost with LOTR. I also know friends who turned in a book report for LOTR in elemtary school, getting it rejected because the teacher thought that the student couldn't have possibly read the book because it was too difficult for her to read it.
BTW, knowing how to operate Unix OS shells is certainly useful to running Linux, and it also helps to know the history of Unix if you are going to try and make some changes to the Linux kernel. I would like to see somebody make a substantial kernel changes without knowing at least in thumbnail another Unix system. If you are refering to a "novice" computer user... you may be more correct, but it would still help to know general Unix commands (which are quite a bit different from non-Unix based OS's like VMS, CP/M & dirivatives (including MS-DOS), Amiga OS, etc.)
A bit of advice (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:A bit of advice (Score:2)
Actually, it was written when his children were quite young. He said later in life that if he knew at that time what he learned later about children, he wouldn't have "dumbed down" The Hobbit.
sPh
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
Real science fiction doesn't get movies and TV shows made about them, because the populace wouldn't understand the stories. Sci-fi is supposed to make you think. B5 is much closer to real science fiction, although the problem is that it has a tendency to be very hammy and crappy - plus the tendency to go totally paranormal (day of the dead) keeps it slightly in the realm of fantasy. I believe B5 is a very well laid-out series and JMS is a genious, but whatever writers he's got working for him are boobs. Still, its damn good sht.
Ah well, I'm just talking out of my ass. Anybody who believes me already reads the good stuff.
Whatever, read Tolkien. B5 already feels like it as is in a lot of ways (Tolkien quote in B5: "do not trifle wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" or something like that)
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
Try your hand at "Cryptonomicon" or "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (or "Interface" by the same author, writing as Stephen Bury). If you hate the detail in them, the way that the story branches fractally to cover odd corners of each character's experience, culture or technology and then resumes the main story a page or two later, then you'll not manage LotR. If OTOH you can deal with the complexity of Cryptonomicon, then LotR is definitely for you.
One warning - the language in LotR is intentionally "old-fashioned", since it was modelled on old Saxon/Norse fantasies. This may make some of the conversations sound stilted - it requires a little suspension of disbelief to imagine that ppl would actually talk that way, the same as reading/watching Shakespeare.
Grab.
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
I read the Hobbit because I had gone through everything else that looked interesting on my sister's bookshelf. I loved it, simply loved it. Later I discovered the other Tolkein books, and read them (I was 10 or so at the time). I didn't like them as well -- my 10 year old imagination wanted faster action.
Coming back to the books when I was in my late teens, however, the texture was completely different. I loved the complexity, the background, the depth the books had.
If you've read a bunch of people who say "Tolkein changed my life, he's my God", I'm afraid the books may not live up to your expectations... very little can with a build-up like that.
If you intend to watch the movies, I recommend reading the books first, so you won't be colored by the movies' take on Tolkein's vision.
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
For you, probably the answer would be: no. If you're mostly into just sci-fi, then most any fantasy, including Tolkien, will probably fail to excite you.
I can only speak for myself as a sci-fi fan, but I what I always disliked about fantasy was how unoriginal most of it was. I've tried reading lots of fantasy books from the local library, but almost all of them read like D&D campaigns gone horribly wrong. I love LOTR, but not much else in fantasy. Is there any newer fantasy that's really original? Something besides the "group of overpowered heroes slaughter orcs and save the world" kind of stuff? I'd really like to read something better.
Re:Never read them... should I? (Score:2)
A related literary review book (Score:2)
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.
Not just the maps... (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Not just the maps... (Score:2, Informative)
There's a perfectly good reason for this. JRRT was by profession a philologist and lecturer at Oxford University. His academic specialities were Norse, Old English and Saxon saga-form stories. [1] The development which became the Lord of the Rings began with a dream he began having prior to WWI of a great tidal wave engulfing an island, with a norse-style long-ship sailing out of the destruction. This dream later saw the light as the original stories which became, during the 20's, the tale of the Fall of Numenor.
He began evolving a mythology and language for the elves of a semi-Norse alternate past during the twenties, and his aim was to make his experiment in language theory (the intentional creation of working, practical language) as full as possible, by creating the things which influence language: myth, stories and 'history'.
He then wrote a story, which grew out of his enduring love for the Warwickshire and Oxfordshire countryside and the people therof, called The Hobbit. To his eternal surprise, it was a huge success, and he began to be plagued with requests for further stories about Hobbits. While discussing this with Stanley Unwin, he came up with a way he could bring his Hobbits into the world he had begun to create as a setting for his philological experiments, and this he proceeded to do on and off for the next 35 years.
If you're interested in where I got all of that from, the places to start are 'The Book of Lost Tales' (parts one and two, ed. Christopher Tolkein) and 'Tolkein's Letters' (which is an absolute must-read if you're interested in Tolkein himself as well as his middle-earth fiction).
~cHris[1] His translation of Beowulf was a set text when my sister was studying at degree level in 1994. It's a very good translation.
Re:Not just the maps... (Score:2)
Is Tolkien's Letters published under Christopher Tolkien as well? That's one of the few I don't have. The Book(s) of Lost Tales are great though, I haven't read them in a few years, but those are some of the ones I'm planning on rereading.
If you like Book of Lost Tales, you'll probably also like Unfinished Tales, I forget if it's published under John or Christopher. But then you seem pretty in to this, so you probably have that one, too
Re:Not just the maps... (Score:2)
Re:Not just the maps... (Score:2)
Thanks for the info, just the same.
BTW, Tolkien inspired me to *major* in Linguistics
Once again, a perfect eight. (Score:1)
A short review.. (Score:2)
"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?
Re:Your criticism of his writing disgusts me (Score:2)
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.
Middle Earth Atlas (Score:1)
Re:Middle Earth Atlas (Score:2)
Technically not impossible, since JRR said that the Shire is located in north-central England. However, that would put Isengard about at the endpoint of the boot of Italy, meaning most of the interesting parts are underwater today. Perhaps this occured at the time Atlantis sank? Hard to say.
sPh
Re:Middle Earth Atlas (Score:2)
Isengard is != Atlantis."
Not disagreeing, but are can you cite a reference for that?
Anyway, what I ment but didn't express well is that if, per the Appendices, the Shire is in England, and neither the moon nor the constellations are much different from our time, then tLOtR can't have happened more than about 10,000 years ago. That implies that the mountain chain running down the spine of Italy must be a remnent of the Misty Mountains. Isengard would be about at the southern tip of Itay (which checks with the amount of time it took to walk there from Rivendell).
BUT, if this totally bogus speculation on my part is correct, there is a whole lot of land missing south and southast of Italy, including most of Gondor. That would have had to have sunk at some point in the not-too-distant past. The sinking of Atlantis seems a logical event to cause this.
sPh
Re:Middle Earth Atlas (Score:2)
The Lost Road was Tolkien's attempt at writing a time-travel story (while C. S. Lewis was writing his space-travel story, Out of the Silent Planet), which he later abandoned, but incorporated into his mythology; see The Lost Road and Other Writings (The History of Middle-earth, volume 5).
Something I've been wondering... (Score:1)
Schnapple
Re:Something I've been wondering... (Score:2)
"The Hobbit" has quite a lot of light entertainment in it which makes it less heavy going than some of the children's books above (TL,TW&TW is definitely older children only!) but there's still some bits which are darker than usual, which gives it the depth many children's books (and adults' books, for that matter) are sadly lacking.
Grab.
PS. I know I'll get flamed for mentioning Harry Potter.
Re:Something I've been wondering... (Score:2)
After you're through with LoTR, you might want to try The Hobbit, but if you start with it there's a good chance it will put you off entirely. Then go for The Silmarillion -- but that's a different animal entirely. It has no coherent plot, being presented instead as an episodic series of loosely connected legends, and is written in a highly formal style. Although it's indispensible for people who really get into Tolkien's Middle-Earth, it's clearly not for everybody. You can follow up The Silmarillion with Unfinished Tales, which fills in some of the remaining gaps in the histories based on some of Tolkien's more complete fragments. Then, if you decide you're really a Tolkien wonk, go for the History of Middle Earth series, a scholarly assemblage of Tolkien's rough drafts and fragments edited by his son Christopher that traces the development of the entire legendarium from the earliest beginnings in 1914 or thereabouts to his death.
Amazing book (Score:1)
Details? (Score:3, Informative)
This is the kind of info that should be IN THE REVIEW.
I'll have a copy, thank you (Score:1)
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.
Fantasy, LOTR, and movies (Score:2, Interesting)
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!
wrote more books dead :-) (Score:2)
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.
Reading order (Score:2)
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.
Re:Reading order (Score:2)
Actually, it has a very twee style until the climactic battle scene, and I think most adults would find it off-putting. I certainly did. I've re-read LoTR many, many times over the years. I just don't have the stomach for The Hobbit.
There's nothing in The Hobbit you need to know about for Lord of the Rings that isn't in the prologue for the latter. The Hobbit can be skipped entirely unless LoTR piques your interest in it.
An amazing atlas (Score:2)
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 [theonering.net] (TORn).
-Ted
The Layman's Silmarillion (Score:3, Interesting)
This book seems like an easier to read version of the silmarillion
Any Tolkien fan will tell you that the of the five books mentioned above, the Silmarillion reads like a cross between the Bible and 1980's VCR instructions. It is heavy with volumes of mythology, unpronouncable names and maps thet Bryce couldn't render. This book seems like an easier to read version of that most enigmatic of JRR's books.
Think Ill go get it and use it as a companion so I can finally finish teh Silmarillion.
Well, that's because Tolkien didn't write it. (Score:2)
The Silmarillion was collected together by one of his sons, based on notes and unpublished stories, and then published posthumously. A large part of the actual prose -- the part that reads like the 1980's VCR instructions -- was actually written by Christopher as glue text. Think of the contents of the Sil. as simply one snapshot from a massive CVS repository.
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...")
Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's (Score:2)
Few things pissed Tolkien off more than people inventing allegory and claiming his work fits it.
Re:Middle Earth geography maps to Europe's (Score:2)
You are absolutely right. People, just read the damned books, enjoy them, immerse yourselves in the great fantasy world it offers, and study its roots by reading the Sylmarillion, but don't ever try to fit it onto todays world.
TLOTR is simply the most believable fantasy book I have ever read.
Encyclopedia of Arda (Score:2)
Re:Encyclopedia of Arda (Score:2)
I'm listening to the radio drama right now!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What cmdrtaco does in his spare time (Score:1)
I for one am going to give the book some of my time.
Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? (Score:1)
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?
Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? (Score:1)
Yes, dammit, I am a Tolkein nerd!
Re:How about posting a book review for _adults_? (Score:1)
As someone who had never read any of Tolkien's works until about 6 weeks ago, and who is an adult (22) I feel qualified to reply to this.
I took "The Lord of the Rings" on holiday with me. I read it in 7 days. It was *so* gripping that I could not put it down - and I spent until 6am on many of those nights fighting back tiredness to read "just one more chapter"
I'm not much of a person for fiction - whilst I read avidly, you're more likely to catch me reading books on physics, programming, system administration, and similar. (The year before I took "Programming Perl" on holiday with me :) So this was the first work of fiction I'd read in about 18 months.
I had almost forgotten how much fun Science Fiction was. And the skill with which he conveyed the sense of Fear when Minas Timor (if I remember the name correctly - apologies if I don't) was being attacked was very effective.
A few months ago, I might almost have agreed with you - and would have dismissed fiction altogether. I'm very glad I didn't. Re-kindling my imagination, my desire to explore, and my love of an adventure is something I'm very glad I did. I'm now egerly waiting my next break :)
And I am very loathe to allow "The Lord of the Rings" to be dismissed as "Mediocre". A book that gave me so much pleasure will surely do so to many others - and I heartily recommend it to everyone
pagan, not christian (Score:2)
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.
Re:pagan, not christian (Score:2, Informative)
Have you read the Silmarillion? (Well, you must have... considering you don't even get to see that stuff in the other works.)
I actually find it to be a fascinating mixture of both pagan and Christian ideas.
There is a pantheon of gods (primarily the Valar, and to an extent the lesser Maiar), having individual traits and attributes... and mythological stories to go with them. Very pagan type of structure, similar to the classic Greek/Roman/Norse/Celic pagan mythologies.
But at the same time even they are subject to a Great Creator (Iluvatar). Whom is as much God in relation to them as they are to anyone else. The Valar run things day to day and have their exploits... but the overall picture is run by Iluvatar (God) and even they don't ever fully grasp it, or see the direction.
Kind of a weird combination of both mono and polytheism. There are a few aspects that approach actual Christian ideas, too...
Elves and Men - Actually children of Iluvatar, albeit with different destinies.
The chaining of Melkor (Satan) - Achieved by the Valar, but ultimately due to intervention by Iluvatar. He is the great evil, but after the close of the 1st age he needs an agent to act in his stead. (Sauron, his former leiutenant.)
The sending of the Istari (wizards, in particular Gandalf) - Actually Maiar... to help "save" middle earth from Sauron (probably a Maiar himself). The actual mission being to organize and inspire... not actually do the job. (Gandalf accomplished much himself, but primarily followed this ideal... Saruman did not, resulting in his fall.) Not exactly synonomous with a Christ figure, but with enough similarites to have been noticed by many. Probably as somewhat of a "savior" element, which is present in many mythologies, not just Christianity.
Anyway, Tolkien was not fond of allegory, and not intending any by his writing. But he drew on many ideas for his works, and tended to lean towards concepts (and the emotions created by them) found in mythology, including all those named above. I think he did a pretty good job of that, with the result being unique in its own right.
A bit of trivia... Tolkien was a devout Catholic. And his Christian-mythology-writing buddy that you mentioned... C.S. Lewis. Most people know that. But did you know that "Jack" Lewis had at one time been essentialy atheist, and had come around to being essentially agnostic right about the time he met Tolkien? And that he became an actual Christian as the end result of many arguments/discussions with Tolkien? (And another friend that used to walk with them... don't recall the name right now.) I didn't know that until recently, and it suprised me quite a bit. But very interesting, considering the reputation Lewis made for himself afterwards.
(No, I'm not a raving looney... I hope! My sources are both his and his son's published works, and a biography I read recently. Would give the author, but I don't remember and it's at home.
Re:pagan, not christian (Score:2)
Besides, the premise is wrong. There are very very few morally unambiguous characters in LoTR, and even the strongest "good guys" were subject to temptation to evil. Not a few of them succumbed to it. And not all the "bad guys" are irredemably evil, or even evil by nature. You really need to pay better attention to what Tolkien actually write.
Re:Some Characters of Ambiguous Morality (Score:2)
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.
Re:A Trilogy? (Score:2)
Re:Who owns the Middle Earth copyright? (Score:2)
Yes, he's been dead for almost 30 years now. Mind like a steel trap, you've got...
Who has the right to say who can get some and who don't?
International copyright law. Copyright on Tolkien's works is held by his estate on behalf of his literary heirs. Tolkien's children and grandchildren are benefitting from their forebear's creation, and who's to say they shouldn't?
Re:Lord (Score:2)
Re:pain-staking? (Score:2)
Re:And When Yer Done with Those... (Score:2)
I'd read The Hobbit and LOTR 3 or 4 years earlier and was able to enjoy BOTR even more than he did.
Re:Has it changed since the hardback 1st edition? (Score:2)
Yes, it includes all the changes that have occurred in Tolkien's imaginary world in the past few years. :-)
Seriously, I have no idea what changes, if any, have been made in the content, but I expect the price will have been increased by the "movie tie-in bandwagon jumping" factor as well as regular old inflation.