Book Review: Lord of the Rings

It is unfair to ask how Lord of the Rings ranks up to some of the more popular modern collections, like Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, and The Hunger Games, nor even its historical companion, The Chronicles of Narnia.

The reason why such a comparison is unfair is because Lord of the Rings (LoR) established the benchmarks by which all of these other books are judged. LoR doesn't even need to be your favorite books to say that (they aren't mine). With my lifelong addiction to pop culture and lack of historical awareness or appreciation due to public schooling, I have never enjoyed Shakespeare. I have no patience for Old English. That said, I know the problem lies in me. Shakespeare revolutionized the English language. In the same way, Tolkien revolutionized modern literature.

Having just finished the trilogy for the first time last night, I can say with confidence that Tolkien far surpasses all competitors in terms of the breadth and scope of the world he created. There is no imaginative world as impressive. He even wrote his own language (Elvish) and his own cosmology (study of origins--The Silmarillion) to accompany this world. As a linguist, he always (along with C.S. Lewis) a master of the English language. His prose and dialogue are beyond compare.

That said, I believe his characters lacked depth and development. Sure, Boromir briefly repented before his final showdown; Gandalf the Gray became Gandalf the White; Four hobbits came back to the Shire as heroes and warriors. But where were the windows upon their mental states, beyond fear and courage? And how did they develop in terms of personality and character?

Perhaps this critique is also unfair. Tolkien lived in a modern era of moral distinctions, linear thinking, and black and white perspectives. A character was either good or bad. The strength of postmodernism is that it allows for complexity and doesn't seek to easily resolve it. Do you love Severus Snape or do you hate him? How can you possibly categorize the brilliant Tyrion Lannister?(The weakness of postmodernism in this case is that it doesn't often know how to resolve complexity.)

I also thought the lack of emotional depth was overly compensated for by emotional rhetoric. I started reading this series alongside a book on 9/11. In both books, I became exasperated at the number of exclamation points! Did the survivors of 9/11 always yell when they were interviewed afterward?! Did some minor discovery by Frodo or Gimli really deserve an enthusiastic response?!

Finally, I found another flaw in LoR that clearly is my fault and not that of the story. It often gets bogged down in details and often goes long stretches without taut action or suspense. The first time I tried to read the series, around the beginning of college, I couldn't get past the first couple chapters of the first book. Harry Potter is wrestling with the potency of (non-supernatural) magic from the outset. The Stark family stumbles upon a pack of wolves. Katniss watches someone get hunted down and dreads the upcoming lottery. I am part of the ADHD generation, growing up with things that flash, beep, and go boom. I enjoy the LoR movies even more than the books.

(By the way, I hated the songs in LoR as well. Random snippets of Middle Earth history in convoluted form and without context. I read them, but man, were they boring.)

I think each series has its own strengths and weaknesses. In my mind, the most compelling story line belongs to Harry Potter, and thus, when the reader is immersed, it proves the most difficult from which to be extracted. Hunger Games ignites the most emotion (often in the form of righteous indignation), but fizzles out in bizarre and disturbing ways at the end. Game of Thrones is the most exceptional with regard to character development and complexity, but I'm not sure the author could clearly navigate the imaginative world that he created. And, of course, when compared to LoR, all three of these modern collections clearly lack Tolkien's imagination and their writing, especially dialogue and descriptions, comes across as somewhat vapid.

The two collections that clearly set themselves apart from all others, in my opinion, is LoR and Harry Potter. Why? Because their respective authors recognized that every great story needs a sacrificial, substitutionary hero who will willingly offer himself/herself in the place of others. Both Frodo and Harry show the greatest of moral courage in their own unique ways. Frodo journeys to destroy the Ring for the sake of Middle Earth, knowing that he will likely perish with it. Harry realizes that he will have to die on behalf of all people--magical or "muggle"--and would have to do it without ever saying "goodbye" to those who he loved dearly.

While often playing the part, Katniss ultimately misses the mark in this regard. She may have lifted the world from tyranny, but it was not at the cost of her blood, nor did she look particularly heroic at the end. Likewise, there is no true protagonist in Game of Thrones (which syncs up well with the broader cynicism that sees the pursuit of might or right as merely a means to power and oppression, in good postmodern style). I have a feeling that the ending of that series, if true to the story thus far, will be even more disappointing than Hunger Games.

Why is the sacrificial, substitutionary hero so important for a great story? Because it strikes the very deepest chord in the heart of man. We all need a hero--from sin, from suffering, from sorrow, and from death. Without such a hero, the world becomes a lot more like, well, the world of Game of Thrones--dark, depressing, and directionless. We all want to be the hero, but ultimately, no soldier will preserve a country forever, nor will all the lessons of the teacher be remembered, nor will the doctor be able to permanently stave off death. We need a hero, and that hero is not us.

The hero is Jesus Christ, the God-man who, though eternally God, was made man so that He could live the perfect life that sinful man was supposed to live, die as his sacrifice, and bring him new life through His death and resurrection. He suffered a wrath that exceeded that of Sauron or Voldemort--the hell of being utterly forsaken by the Father--so that a thankless, but beloved people could pass into a land beyond the security of Hogwarts or the tranquility of the Shire.

The nearer a story draws to this central story line of human history, upon which all else hangs, the nearer a story will draw to the hearts of sinners saved by grace and sinners in need of grace.