what is the Lord of the Rings about?

i read the hobbit when i was 12. i liked it, but moreover my memory of it is
clear. i got 30 pages into lord of the rings and tossed it. so i'd like to
know what it's "about" -- now, this is an open ended question, but i'd rather
not hear your personal rewrite of plot and adventure . . . several times i've
been around 1 tolkien nut who meets another tolkien nut and, presto, i don't
exist anymore, and i tune them out as they stroll merrily hand in hand down
fagberry lane.
tolkien was a scholarly busybody. it is said that the lord of the rings,
unlike harry potter, is a work that is apparent to the reader like a fully
bloomed orchard under a dark sky, with the wind picking up just a little and
all the fruit ripe and ready for inspection; but under this orchard, where
the reader cannot see, is a vastly intricate system of roots. this system of
roots is what i'm interested in when i say, "what was the lord of the rings
about?"

20 responses total.

the question came to me because i've talked to a couple friends in recent
months who gave me their shpiels, in ways that intrigued me enough to try
reading them. maybe. i'm not going to see the movies until i read the books,
and i may never read the books. i'm getting off track . . . the idea the first
friend had was more involved than i can put in writing at the moment, but he
claimed that tolkien had mashed the essentials of the story of the old
testament with a world he created out of old northern european culture built
on runic 'media' (if thou wilt). letting the dog have its day, i suppose. the
other friend said as he read it a 3rd and 4th time as a developing teenager,
he began wondering if it was the story of WWII.

examples.
so, have at it.

A newspaper article says the trilogy is about the  effort to destroy
an "evil" ring. Take as a modern reference the effort to eliminate
weapons of mass destruction. 

good start. needs a little more *oomph*, though.

And Tolkien specifically denies such a message in the foreword to the
second edition.  He writes, "I cordially dislike allegory in all its
manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough
to detect its presence" (_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring_, Houghton-Mifflin,
2nd edition, page 7).  "it is neither allegorical nor topical" (ibid, p. 6).

Generally, it is interpreted and accepted as a new mythology, another
explanation of the world before our known history, how we got from
nothingness to nowness.

It's a work of fiction.  You know, a novel?  It was a kind of hobby or 
game to Tolkien, who invented the languages first and then imagined the 
creatures that spoke them and the history of the world they inhabit.  
Either you enjoy it or you don't.  If you approach it, or almost any 
novel, really, with the question "What is this guy trying to say," you 
turn the game into a dreary lesson.  Go away.

Me, I loved it when I first read it.  Very engrossing, loads of 
intricate fun.  I started looking through it again recently and some of 
the fun had worn thin.  I read it around the time Nabokov's Pale Fire 
was published (1962?), which I read right after it.  Pale Fire's fun is 
as fresh today as it was 40 years ago.  But that's just me.  Both books 
sit there on their shelves unchanged.

But of course.

For me, at least part of the fun is the language work.

Btw, I don't think I was old enough to appreciate Pale Fire in its 
entirety, I just got seduced by the words.  (I was definitely old 
enough for LOTR, however.)  The two books have a lot in common -- 
invented languages, imaginary kingdoms, poetry by the characters, a 
quest theme.  They're a matched set in my mental library.

in august i woke up on a dusty loveseat and read the first third of Pale Fire.
i'm not old enough for the rest of it yet.
the thing about LOTR being just a new mythology is that if it's this then my
questions revolves around new mythologies born in the 20th century, as opposed
to 6000- years ago. different tastes in styles of fun notwithstanding, the
likelihood of different interpretations -- "new creation myth"; "kinda like
Pale Fire" -- popping up while reading the books is high.
if sheer joy of good reading was what i's hungry for then i'd just log off
and start on all my new xmas stanislav lem acquisitions. tolkien fesses up
to 'no allegory!' among his intentions, but i'm not necessarily interested
in his intentions.
so, "what does LOTR mean --" and to ease the dreariness of the lesson "-- to
you?"

Even drearier.  Now we all have to sit in a circle while each person 
reads his little paper on "What Lord of the Rings Means to Me."  I 
might have to drive my mother to the doctor's that day.  Either that or 
water the neighbor's house plants, I forget which.

how do you find the time with all this grexing to be done?

When anyone asks me "What does it all mean?", I always remember
Mr. Natural's response.  Sometimes it's the best you can do.

did mr. natural read LOTR?

        Everything I've ever seen from the pen of JRR seems to suggest that
The Lord of the Rings is ... just a story, even though I've seen religions
with less background.  

The LOTR can be interpreted to mean may things, due to the fact that there
is so many themes invloved in the story.  But I think one of the most
important ideas behind the book is easy to relate to life...no matter what
you encounter, believing in yourself, and having faith in those who care for
you can help you conquer most anything in life you encounter.  Ofcourse, this
is broad, giving the fact of what the book is about, armies, war, love, magic,
bla bla bla, but this is an important theme that most people over look.  At
least, that is one of the things that I saw in the writing.  On a lighter
note, i personally love the writings, the war of the rings is an absolute
great novel.

Hmm.  That's a theme that I'd have to say I don't see at all in it.  Put that
way, anyway.

This response has been erased.

smoov like butta

the lord of the rings is the best book of all times!I' m sorry , i dont speak
english very well, but i will try!! Tolkien created one new world, with
yourself lenguage, yourself people, yoursef people! I'ts a Big book! everybody
need to read this book and to laugh and to cry with this book. This is biggest
aventure for conquist of the middle hearth.

not bad.

In my opinion LOTR is about friendship. It's about what the people you care
about (and the ones that care about you) are willing to go through for you
and vice versa. As I understand Tolkien wrote LOTR as a hobby, he didn't feel
like England had an adequate enough mythology so he took it upon himself to
do it justice. I think personal episodes in his life, like the deaths of
people close to him, made it through into his writings in the form of the
Fellowship.

I myself am a rabid Tolkien fan. I've read The Hobbit a couple of times and
The Silmarillion (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) at least 4-5 times.

Each and every time I read his works I'm amazed at how rich and intricate a
world he crafted. There is always some new insight or perspective I take away
when I finish the book.

BTW, I know it's been a long while since anyone has posted to this topic but
I'm such a fan I couldn't help but throw my 2 cents in.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss