39 of 40 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Timeless classics
The effect of these books upon the reader is unique. Certainly the only books I have ever read that draw me back to re-read them again and again. They are more than just literature, they are priceless works of art. The gift of a brilliant writer possessed of an imagination that has no parallel in the history of literature to a world finding itself sadly bereft of tales of...
Published on 17 Nov. 2000 by Wayne Robinson
41 of 48 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Great Writing, Average Quality Edition
I bought this box set but always felt I wanted the illustrated set, so I bought that as well!
This set is printed on yellowy paper with very small print (too small in my opinion).
The illustrated set has better quality paper (whiter) and more pages (bigger print).
My advice is buy the illustrated set and pay the extra 10 quid. Well worth...
Published on 22 Feb. 2012 by J. Ritchie
Most Helpful First | Newest First
5 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A wonderful fantasy book,
By A Customer
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit (illustrated hardback) (Hardcover)
The Lord Of The Rings stays the most finely crafted and delightedly detailed fantasy saga in the world. True, it can be a little slow, compared to most modern fiction. But that's exactly the point, that's an approach highly significative of Tolkien's nostalgic view of life. Interesting, dramatic, entertaining. A book to read.
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars,
Lord of the rings........... what more can be said.
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars,
My husband is about to watch them for the 2nd time
4 of 7 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars This rating is for the paperback edition only, not the actual quality of the books as literature,
This review is for regular size paperback only, as far as the books themselves, of course they're classics. Unfortunately Amazon links their reviews to multiple versions of the same product (meaning you can write a review for an audio book and that same review show up on a paperback edition of the same title. It's really bad for music reviews, let me tell you!).
If you should by this edition of HOBBIT/LOTR really depends on what you what for your money. I first purchased trade paperback editions of THE LORD OF THE RINGS back in the early to mid nineties. They're nice and more portable than, perhaps, other editions of the book if you looking for some quick reading on the beach/airport/wherever and they're economical.
However, these editions tend of have more misprints, are not as sturdy as other editions of Tolkien's classic texts, and the maps are just hell to look at. As any regular size paperback they are not as hardy as other, better found bound books.
The oversize paperback editions are better, but overall the books do not hold up as well or are durable as hard back editions. If you do want to read the stories though without having to worry about the shape the books are in then the regular paperbacks would be the way to go, as (for me anyway) I want to keep the nicer editions in relatively clean condition.
Given Tolkien's status of one of the world's most popular writers, I would recommend picking up nicer editions of these works anyway, as you can get them at reasonable prices and they are much better purchases than the paperback box sets. The only real drawback is there is no general uniformity between the editions of THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS that I recommend, if that is important to you.
Douglas A. Anderson's THE ANNOTATED HOBBIT, is the definitive text of THE HOBBIT, has numerous textual annotations and examines in complete detail all the different revisions Tolkien made to the work in the subsequent decades after its initial publication in 1937.
For THE LORD OF THE RINGS, the most accurate text is the 50th Anniversay edition prepared by Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull. I have the one volume oversize paperback edition of LOTR and am quite pleased with it.
The only way I would recommend purchasing the boxset of these books is if they published The Annotated Hobbit and the 50th Annivesary LOTR text as a uniform set as those are the definitive versions, and personally I'd prefer to see all four volumes hardbound. I don't think I've seen a hardbound version box set of all four works, though there are plenty to be had of LOTR.
In summary, unless you are wanting cheap editions of these books, you will be better served by purchasing other editions of Tolkien's books
[As that was only in regards to these actual editions of Tolkien's work and not reviews of the books themselves, I am also including my separate reviews I have written for Amazon of THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Also included is an abandoned review I wrote for THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING all the way back in early 2000 but was never posted on Amazon, explaining how Tolkien's life work of THE LORD OF THE RINGS is NOT a trilogy but rather three parts of one work divided up for publishing purposes]
[I originally wrote a review back in 2000 for "The Hobbit", detailing the differences between "The Hobbit", "The Lord of the Rings", and "The Silmarillion". In 2012 I wrote a new review, and am editing my original text to include this new review. Mike London 10-3-2012]
New Review 2012: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit." Thus begins the most famous series in fantasy literature. For such a universe of high caliber, the sentence is a rather unassuming beginning for quite an unassuming, down-to-earth race known as Hobbits.
Unfortunately "The Hobbit" has become overshadowed by "The Lord of the Rings", seen as an "enchanting prelude" to the more substantial sequel. C. S. Lewis said in "A Preface to Paradise Lost" that to accurately judge an item, you first must know its purpose. The books were written for different purposes - "The Hobbit" as an entertaining story for his children, and "The Lord of the Rings", initially a sequel to "The Hobbit", became much more a continuation of "The Silmarillion". For those who underestimate "The Hobbit" using the criteria of "The Lord of the Rings" as their guide are missing out on a rich work.
What are Hobbits, you may ask? If you go researching where Tolkien got inspiration for the Hobbits, you will soon get mixed up in "The Denham Tracks" (a 19th century list of various folk-lore creatures) and E. A. Wyke-Smith's ""The Marvellous Land of Snergs (Dover Children's Classics)". Honestly, neither of these will get you very far.
The Denham Tracks reads like a laundry list of folk-lore creatures, and though the actual word "hobbit" appears, there is no context for what a "hobbit" actually is. "The Marvelous Land of the Snergs" will get you a tad bit further. Snergs are creatures about half the height of man (like the Hobbits), enjoy their food (again, like the Hobbits), and there the resemblance ends. The World of the Snergs is far removed from Middle-earth, having more to do with 19th century adventure stories set in fantasy with such dispargant elements as a vegetation Troll (by far the best character in the book), witches, knights similiar to stories of King Arthur, ad a waylaid sea crew hailing from the ship "The Flying Dutchman"
Tolkien certainly anticipated the question, for he answered this inquiry within the opening pages of this very book. They are a race two to four feet high, shy of "Big People", and have no beards, unlike dwarves. Hobbits are chubby, "dress in bright colours, (chiefly green and yellow)", and wear no shoes because of the hick tufts of hair and thick leathery soles of their feet. They eat as often as they can.
The story of "The Hobbit" is well known, having been published in 1937 and continually in print (save only for a brief interruption in the early 1940s, when Great Britian were facing paper shortages due to World War II).
"The Hobbit" began life as an entertaining story of Tolkien's children (as so many of Tolkien's stories began as well). Written between 1929-1933, the book details the adventures of Bilbo Baggins. Gandalf the Wizard meets with Bilbo in the opening pages, telling him he is looking for some "to go on an adventure". Bilbo, not quite as respectible as he would like to believe himself to be, tells Gandalf life was much more interesting when Gandalf was around, but no, he would not have any adventures, thank you very much. Naturally, thirteen dwarves show up, and ultimately Bilbo sets off to reclaim the gold that the Dragon Smaug has stolen from the dwarves. Like the later Aragorn, Thorin Oakenshield, the chief dwarf, is a king-in-exile, and wants to reclaim both his throne and his gold stolen by the dragon..
The real meat of "The Hobbit", and one of the reasons why I believe the book has had such a long lasting appeal, is the book's transformation of Bilbo.
"The Hobbit" shows the reader how an unassuming modern character (for though Bilbo lives in the far removed past, he is THOROUGHLY MODERN) goes from being an out-of-place bumbler in situations far removed from his life experience to an equal among beings and races that belong only in the distant past.
Although initially inept, Bilbo, just as Gandalf predicted, proves to be a worthwhile companion, coming through for the dwarves on several key occasions, such as freeing them from the Elven prisons, fighting back the spiders, and facing the dragon alone. He even eventually aids in bringing about a resolution to the growing distress between the Dwarves, Men, and Elves after the fallout of Smaug's demise (albeit, rather unconventionally, using the Arkenstone, the Heart of the Mountain and the jewel which Thorin prizes above all others).
This journey, this transformation of Bilbo into something more, something greater, is the true heart of the book. Tolkien himself said that he removed Gandalf from the story shortly after Beorn's house, due to the dramatic need for Bilbo to proove himself without assistance from the wizard. Fortunately, Tolkien was able to use Gandalf's absence as a springboard into more expansive story ideas when he began developing "The Lord of the Rings" after the unbridled success of "The Hobbit".
Also, the book displays a moral complexity often not seen within the confines of children's liteature. By this, I am referring to the whole matter of Bilbo's handling of the Arkenstone, the chief jewel of the hoard that Bilbo and the dwarves are setting out to recover. The claims of the Elves and Men, and counter claims of the dwarves, and Bilbo's claiming of the Arkenstone and how he wants to use the Arkenstone to move the uprising battle toward resolution are complex and startling legal in tone.
For all its story-book qualities, "The Hobbit" is a much different work from its subsequent heir, "The Lord of the Rings". Although early manuscripts explicitly prove Tolkien was casting the "The Hobbit" in the universe of his mythology from initial composition, "The Hobbit" features several elements and passages that are altogether incongruous with "The Lord of the Rings", especially in the First Edition published in 1937.
For one, the ring found in Gollum's cave is not the One Ring, the Ruling Ring of Sauron. The magic ring was simply that - a magic ring, a stage prop that, in the words of Tom Shippey helped equalize Bilbo in the archaic world he found himself in. Tolkien only began developing the concept of the Ruling Ring AFTER publication of "The Hobbit" when he was trying to come up with ideas for a sequel. When reading "The Hobbit", readers, especially those who know the sequel, may approach the Ring as though this was truly a dark and sinister ring, which the text does not simply support. Indeed, Bilbo's deception about the ring, so important in "The Lord of the Rings", is not explicit in "The Hobbit".
Next, and probably most fascinating of all, is the nature of Gollum himself. We all know he's a hobbit, long ago corrupted by his long possession of the One Ring. However, prior to 1951 when Allen and Unwin (Tolkien's publishers) published the revised version of "Riddles in the Dark" that Tolkien had written in 1947, not only was Gollum explicitly NOT a hobbit, we were not even sure what kind of creature he was (or what his physical size was). He was more akin to Tom Bombadil and Beorn, a one item category unique unto himself. There were no textual indications of Gollum's size in comparison to Bilbo, leading some illustrators in foreign editions to show Gollum as a much larger creature than he would later become.
Then there's the matter of the original version of "Riddles in the Dark". Initially Gollum was going to give away his magic ring as a gift if Bilbo won the contest as well as show him the way out; after winning, Gollum is unable to find the ring (naturally, as Bilbo had already found the ring), so he showed Bilbo the way out, constantly apologizing. In "The Return of the Shadow", Book Six of "The History of Middle-earth", we find Tolkien trying to work within the parameters of this original chapter. Naturally, Tolkien ultimately abandoned the original conception and rewrote the chapter in 1947 as a specimen of what a new chapter could look like and sent this to his publisher. Tolkien was quite surprised to see that, four years later, Allen & Unwin published the rewritten version, and Tolkien accepted the text as authoritative.
While that's the most interesting of the differences, there are still several passages at odds with Middle-earth as described in "The Lord of the Rings". There is no Shire. There are references to policemen and an unnamed "king". The trolls fit more into fairy-book stories than Middle-earth, and, as Douglas Anderson points out in "The Annotated Hobbit", Tolkien references other trolls with multiple heads, a thing not found in Middle-earth. Then there are the stone giants, which only appear once and then are never heard of again in any other story, before or after. There is speculation that one of Bilbo's ancestors took a FAIRY wife, a conception wholly alien to Middle-earth. There are no fairies in Middle-earth. Then there's the matter of the ruins of the mysterious city upon which Lake-town is built upon. This ruined city is mentioned only in "The Hobbit"; it goes unnamed, unreferenced, and undocumented in any of Tolkien's other writings regarding his legendarium.
Probably the single biggest difference between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" is there is no developed nomenclature in "The Hobbit". The majority of the names are simple descriptions of the things involved: Bilbo lives in The Hill, is traveling to the River Running, visits a city named Dale, as neighbors across the Water, etc. There are very few proper names in "The Hobbit". The thirteen dwarves names and Gandalf (with the exception of "Balin") are all simply lifted from "The Devergatal", a section of the Elder Edda In "The Lord of the Rings" however, nomenclature is king, and Tolkien spent vast amounts of time creating vast landscape, cultures, and races all with their own unique linguistic flavour.
There are also some geographic inconsistencies between the two works. From the bridge to where Bilbo and the dwarves meet the trolls is within sight; however, in "The Lord of the Rings", this same spot takes Aragorn and company SIX DAYS to go from the river to the spot where the trolls are.
Tolkien was aware of these differences, and in 1960 wrote several different passages and revisions to bring "The Hobbit" stylistically more in line with "The Lord of the Rings". These passages were published for the first time in 2007 with "The History of The Hobbit". However, he showed the revised passages to someone (it is unknown who) who discouraged him from changing "The Hobbit".
Ultimately, "The Hobbit" is a much different experience than "The Lord of the Rings", much more akin to classical fantasy fairy tale books such as "The Wind in the Willows" and "The Marvellous Land of the Snergs" in both style and tone than "The Lord of the Rings". Too its credit, the success of "The Hobbit" was what prompted Tolkien to write the sequel.
In the seventeen years between initial publication and the appearance of the first volume of its sequel (1937-1954), "The Hobbit" never went out of print (save only for a brief period during World War II due to paper shortages) and was a tremendous seller, without support from "The Lord of the Rings". It is indeed a rich work, and is an undisputed classic. This book is so much more than a "prelude" to bigger and better things. It's a keystone work in children's fantasy, and stands among the titans of literature.
The Lord of the Rings - J. R. R. Tolkien
***** Despite vehement critical hostility, Tolkien is among our most important writers because the way he handles Myth, 26 Sep 2007
Over the past several decades, THE LORD OF THE RINGS has sold millions of copies and is commonly regarded as one of the most influential fantasy novels ever published. Many first time readers have began their trek into Middle-earth with Frodo and the Company of the Ring in recent years. What they will encounter there has been loved by millions of readers before them, and if they allow themselves to respond to Tolkien and his Myth will doubtless become a loyal and ardent fan of Tolkien and those furry-footed hobbits. What's also notable about THE LORD OF THE RINGS is, for a book as long as it is, many of its readers reread the novel many times over. Yet despite its enduring popularity, Tolkien is often held in complete disregard by the literary establishment.
The real question is why? In the literary climate that is characterized by modernism and post-modernism where the twentieth and twenty first century is a wasteland why does a "series" of fantasy novels become one of the most beloved works in modern times?
It's because the power of myth over the human imagination works wonders, creating a longing and a hunger that, Tolkien argues, is met by the Christian religion. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis are the flip-sides of the same coin, with Lewis giving us accounts of the longing and Tolkien providing the books that would create that longing. And what about the longing? It's that longing for Myth, that love for those beauties which Tolkien shows us in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. It's that longing that sets man apart from all other creatures in the universe: a craving for beauty and for joy. The German word for this longing is "senhsucht". In a time characterized by fast-food, cell-phones, materialism, superficiality, the account of a Hobbit working against all odds in a mythic landscape so captures the human imagination (and this is NOT hype) that an entire genre is created. It is because of how Tolkien so masterfully handles Myth that he has been so highly treasured by such a large fan base.
Still, there are a few things to consider when reading Tolkien nowadays. Looking over the reviews, it proved rather shocking to me that people have been complaining that, although it was original when it was published, much of what Tolkien has done has become cliche and that other writers are much better working with these cliches and making them more exciting than Tolkien. They complain about his "endless descriptions" of the natural world, very detailed accounts of geography and not enough "characterization." The characters are unrealistic: the "human drama" required by the book's very nature is beyond Tolkien's scope as a writer. THE FELLOWSHIP is both uneven and very weak in pacing, with so much invested in the world and its history Tolkien forgets to make us care about the characters themselves. Another fault oft cited against Tolkien is the lack of "female characters," and there have been accusations that Tolkien is racist; one of my favorite misconceptions is that Frodo and Sam are homosexuals.
Academia has no time for Tolkien, and many of our key critics have denounced Tolkien as ill-written or escapist (Harold Bloom said that THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a period piece which will simply not die but just keeps lingering on long after its relevance. This is the stance taken by a lot of professional critics with a grudge against Tolkien, and wonderfully have been proven wrong). To this day, while not nearly as openly hostile as previous decades, academia in general harbors resentment against Tolkien and everything he's done. As far as they're concerned, he's done something that is actually popular and therefore unworthy of study. It's one of those "high-brow vs. low-brow" situations, and instead of producing "worthwhile" academic research, Tolkien instead writes a "series" of novels which become one of the most established authors of this century. In recent years, academic support has grown tremendously for Tolkien, but he is still a very hotly contested modern writer, unlike some other "academically undeniable" classics such as James Joyce. Unlike the academic favorites, Tolkien highly polarizes the professional literary establishment. Fortunately he has gained some ground here though.
Much of the complaints voiced against THE LORD OF THE RINGS are both unimportant and irrelevant. Tolkien is working with literary traditions not in-tune with the modern mind, but is instead handling narrative threads of Myth. Tolkien gives us solid archetypes to work with, bringing out the very qualities of masculinity and the beauties and stark wonders of femininty, but all expressed in mythological terminology. The idea of Sam and Frodo as homosexual is both ridiculous and totally unfounded. In Myth, good is characterized and seen as "White," and the evil is dark and perverted. Those who say Tolkien is racist approach him from the wrong standpoint.
As for the modern fantasy reader, those who complain about Tolkien's originality (while acknowledging it, but that later writers do a much better job with it) is like saying Shakespeare, while a good dramatist, is not that good because other people take his principals and make them more exciting, etc. I heard a story once about a person who went to see a Shakespeare play and went away complaining there were too many quotes in the play to make it any good. Shakespeare is the source of these quotes and he did not even realise it.
Most people know that Tolkien founded modern fantasy. Tolkien laid down the template for the fantasy genre in general, and anyone who reads fantasy has been touched, directly or indirectly, by Tolkien's work. Almost all of the major fantasy authors have acknowledge their debt to Tolkien, and the shadow Tolkien casts over fantasy literature is very long indeed. Because there is fifty years separating us from the original publication, it is much harder to approach THE LORD OF THE RINGS as those first reviewers, for those who have grown up reading fantasy literature are now accustomed to Dwarves and Elves and Dark Lords and Epic Quests, but when it was issued THE LORD OF THE RINGS transformed and invented an entire new genre. It is not Tolkien's fault that his vision of a mythology was so successful that everyone else decided they would try their hand at fantasy and work within Tolkien's templates. The main problem with fantasy authors in general are they are more interested in emulation than they are in true "myth-making." Much like early rock and roll, which, because rock was not an established form of music, the early musicians relied on other forms to create a new genre, Tolkien did not have this tradition to fall back on so instead he used various literatures and epic poems to create his own vision of myth. A lot of fantasy writers do not work in the context of myth any more, but rather rely on genre stereotypes which are generally found in Tolkien. Many readers who are interested in "pulp" fantasy get bogged down in Tolkien because he takes the time to fully explain his world and its cultures, because his goal is different. There is plenty of action in LORD OF THE RINGS, but those raised on the pulp fantasy will not care for it.
Ultimately, THE LORD OF THE RINGS's criticism has shown itself to be of little important on its durability as a major text. Ever since its publication in 1954, 1955, and 1956, LOTR has become one of the most important literary works our era has produced, highly regarded and passionately loved by an enormous amount of people. Despite the very vocal minority who despise Tolkien and his work, THE LORD OF THE RINGS has consistently topped the polls for the best book of the last one hundred years. Whatever the critics say, THE LORD OF THE RINGS is here to stay because popular imagination has grabbed hold of Tolkien's vision and ran with it. Tolkien and Lewis have been wonderfully vindicated in their belief that there is an enormous adult appetite for Myth and fantasy literature.
For many, it's more than a mere novel. It's a glimpse of the divine.
It is like water in a dry place.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is NOT a trilogy
I have been looking over the reviews THE LORD OF THE RINGS. There is one consistent problem that keeps jumping to my attention: the reviewers keep talking as if each volume in "the trilogy" is a self-contained novel. They are not actual novels. THE LORD OF THE RINGS is not a trilogy - it's a single novel divided into three parts for publication purposes. That's why they're published Part I, Part II, and Part III instead of Book I, etc.
When Tolkien wrote it and had it published by Allen & Unwin, Sir Stanley Unwin had doubts about its size and the market (remember, this was back in the 50s, and THE HOBBIT had been a book for children - now they have this book that has all the hall marks of a publishing nightmare). Instead of publishing it as a whole, they decided to divide the novel* into three parts. Because there were six subdivisions therein (although I might be mistaken, and these Books I-VI might also be publication impositions), they chose to publish THE LORD OF THE RINGS in three books. One purpose for this was to hide the sheer size of the book. The second reason for doing so was to get three reviews instead of one. Tolkien himself, however, always made it a point to tell people that it is not a trilogy but a single, unified work.
Although THE LORD OF THE RINGS basically invented the fantasy genre, from a publisher's standpoint, it was a dangerous gamble. It had to be sold at a high cost (21 shillings) to the reader, but Rayner Unwin (Sir Stanley's son) thought it a `work of genius', so they published it. Instead of usual royalty payments, Tolkien got half of all profits, which meant that if the book flopped (most probable) he wouldn't get anything, because the book had to pay for itself before either the author OR the publisher got profits. Obviously Tolkien came out far ahead on that deal than had he gone with a more traditional publishing arrangement with Stanley Unwin.
THE HOBBIT Review - Inferior to THE LORD OF THE RINGS? I think not! No, just different!, April 7, 2000
The biggest problem with this novel is perception. Tolkien wrote this story for children; to be more specific, this was written for HIS children. There were several stories like this, but it was this, The Hobbit, that was his master achievement in children's literature.
The Lord of the Rings ( a single epic, NOT a trilogy) was written to cash in on The Hobbit's success. Tolkien wanted to get on with the more serious work of his mythology, and ultimately that is what happened with The Lord of the Rings. It became attached to his mythology, and became as important to him as The Silmarillion.
So delineation is required if you want to read this. Do not go in with the thought that The Hobbit is a "precursor" or any such nonsense to The Lord of the Rings. Think of it like you would think of any other children's classics: children's classics. If you take it on The L. R.'s terms, this is a failure, primary because it is not written to be like that. But, on the flipside, The L. R. is as much a failure in children's fiction. It is not children's fiction, it is epic fantasy, and one should not equate it with children's fiction. That is EXACTLY what people try to do with The Hobbit. They try to put it in the same type of genre or playing field as The L. R. They are both masterpieces, and I love them both dearly. But one is for children, the other with adults.
Of course, Tolkien is part of the problem. How many books do you know that is a children's book and has an adult sequel? Not very many. The Hobbit, scarcely 300 pages, was written and published in the children's market. He then talked to his publishers, and they wanted a sequel. So he began "the new Hobbit", as C. S. (Jack) Lewis so aptly put it. He was preoccupied with his mythology, and the sequel was drawn into it. So we have two works, spanning two different genres, and as far as surface connections go its little more than prequel/sequel. Instead of looking at The Hobbit as a prequel, a precursor to his ADULT masterpiece, an inferiour version, think of as his CHILDREN'S masterpiece. The Hobbit is top of the class in children's fiction, one of the few contenders against such other great children's works as Narnia and Wrinkle in Time. The Lord of the Rings, likewise, is THE crowning masterpiece of the fantasy genre, of which its influence is incalculable to that fantasy market. Both are as important as the other, just in different fields.
I haven't talked about The Silmarillion much. I have already reviewed it, so I won't go real in-depth here. But the same thing happened with it. People, expecting another Lord of the Rings, were inevitably disappointed with the Biblical style of the published version. If Tolkien wrote that book out in narrative form as he did Lord of the Rings, it would be ten times longer than Lord of the Rings. The biggest problem with Tolkien is people have to many preconceptions that are incorrect.
So, basically, in conclusion, think of it like this:
1. The Hobbit - Children's masterpiece. He scores big with this one.
2. The Lord of the Rings - a single fantasy, not a trilogy. (Tolkien was always quick to point that out). The Crowning achievement of modern fantasy.
3. The Silmarillion - the Bible of Middle-earth. Much more for students of his work than the causal reader.
10 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Best Book Of All Time,
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit (illustrated hardback) (Hardcover)
I was reading reviews of this book and was shocked to read that a reviewer only gave it 1/5. He also said that 'The Wind In The Willows' made it look basically like rubbish. He also said that the films were so dreary. If that is so, then how did 'The Return Of The King' manage to scoop 11 oscars this year. This person obviously doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Look at any poll, anywhere in the world and you will see that The Lord Of The Rings will win it. How can he say it's boring. It was by far the best book ever wrote. Anybody I've known to read it said it was 'magnificant', 'illustrious', and 'cunning'. The fact that this book was the second most read book of the 20th century(after the Bible) surely proves this man wrong. The review he wrote was an insult to Tolkien's memory.
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars,
Bought as a gift. The recipient was well chuffed.
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars,
Very pleased with item fast delivery thank you
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars,
It was a present for my Grandson who loved it.
5.0 out of 5 stars Happy,
Deliveried on time, great books. Good price.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien (Paperback - 29 April 2010)
Used & New from: £46.23