Simplified Series - The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings

Where's The Silmarillion? You might ask. Do you think I'm made of time?

My feverish pursuit of MOAR content brought forth this feature: Simplified Series. Here's the pitch: quick synopses (I'll try and keep them spoiler-free, but you know, most of these are past the statute of limitations on spoilers) of the entries in a series followed by the reasons you should or shouldn't read it. This week:

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien

Background Info: I mean, you know what these are. Anyway, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was a philologist, which is what a linguist was called before the academic underpinnings of modern linguistics were developed in the early 20th century. Ever since his youth, one of his hobbies was inventing constructed languages (conlangs). And really, it was this hobby that lead him to begin writing his Middle-Earth novels and stories. After all, what good is a conlang without anyone to speak it? So, he started working on The Silmarillion in 1914 and continued to do so for the rest of his life. While he never completed that work to his own satisfaction (it was released posthumously), he did publish The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings during his lifetime. So that's what we'll talk about today.

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (1938) - Alleged non-burglar Bilbo Baggins spends most of this book breaking into people's homes and stealing their belongings. Whether it's the sole possession of a mentally ill shut-in or literally the only treasure his employer actually cares about, if it's not bolted down to the floor Bilbo will steal it. Which makes it all the more strange when he gets home a year later and is upset to see that his family are having an estate sale. This story is supposedly about how Bilbo helps a dwarf king reclaim his throne, but it's really more about how homesick Bilbo is and how often Gandalf mysteriously disappears only to show up in the nick of time to save everyone. Will Thorin be the King Under the Mountain? Will a literal nobody of a character somehow prove to a small lake settlement that inherited rule is far superior to representative government? How long will it take Gandalf to confirm his suspicions that Bilbo Baggins is in possession of the most dangerous object in Eä?

The Fellowship of the Ring, being the First Part of the Lord of the Rings (1954) - 60 years later, Gandalf confronts Bilbo about the ring, finally telling him that it's probably dangerous and he shouldn't take it on his retirement trip. Bilbo leaves the ring with his younger cousin Frodo who just leaves it on the mantle for 17 years while Gandalf finally gets around to confirming his suspicions that its actually the ring which belonged to the evil demigod (well, Maia) Sauron (who should not be confused with Gandalf's boss Saruman, seriously guys, their names sound nothing alike, and sure, Saruman's also evil and also a demigod (well, Maia) and wants to replace Sauron, but that's no reason why you should confuse the two). Anyway, Frodo and his gardener, Sam, get roped into helping Gandalf destroy the ring, along with six other people, but the only important one is Aragorn, the descendant of the last king of Gondor. Gandalf, the most powerful member of the party, gives his life to save his comrades from a monster. Can the rest of the fellowship get to Mordor and destroy the ring without their wizard? Will Frodo make the questionable decision of splitting up the group a la Scooby-Doo? Will my claim that there are literally no other important characters in the fellowship hinder my ability to write dismissive summaries of the remainder of LotR?

The Two Towers, being the Second Part of the Lord of the Rings (1954) - Well, Frodo went and unilaterally decided everyone should split up, so he and Sam disappear from the narrative for about 200 pages. Aragorn and his dwarf and elf comedy duo sidekicks are looking for Frodo's two idiot cousins who've gotten lost in the woods. They don't find them, but they do run into a wizard they initially believe to be Saruman! Don't worry, it's just Gandalf, back from the dead. Fortunately, he had the foresight to not die until he'd collected enough XP to level up. Together, they help liberate a kingdom of horse vikings from the real Saruman's control while Frodo's idiot cousins hang out with tree-people. Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam carry the ring to Mordor, followed closely by Gollum, the mentally ill shut-in Bilbo stole it from in the first place. Will Gandalf finally get the chance to tell off his old boss? Can Sam and Frodo trust Gollum to lead them to Mordor without feeding them to a giant she-spider? Have I somehow not explained what a hobbit is yet?

The Return of the King, being the Third Part of the Lord of the Rings (1955) - After one of Frodo's idiot cousins sends Sauron the equivalent of a late night "u up?" text, Gandalf absconds with said IC to Gondor, warning Aragorn and the horse vikings that everything might not be peachy keen when they get there. Then Aragorn immediately peaces out with his comedy sidekicks so he can recruit some cave men and ghosts to help defend Gondor in case Sauron attacks. Gandalf arrives in Gondor to find that nothing is peachy keen so he overthrows the government and gets the city ready for war. After a series of climactic battles involving cross-dressing and elephants, Tolkien leaves those plot elements behind so you can trudge along with Sam and Frodo as they cross Mordor on their way to Mount Doom. Will the ring be destroyed just as it seems that Sauron's forces are about to win the day? Will Aragorn's prowess on the battlefield and in the healing tent prove that he is the rightful king of Gondor, even though his ancestors abdicated their responsibility to their subjects centuries ago? Will nitpickers everywhere harp on the goddamned eagles for sixty goddamned years?

Why should you read The Hobbit and LotR? Tolkien essentially invented the modern fantasy genre. If you're reading something with elves, dwarves, orcs, tree people, and short people that are distinct from dwarves, it's probably derivative of Tolkien. He created an immersive experience with its own history, traditions and languages, and a story that's resonated with readers for generations. And for a work that was self-consciously written to serve as a kind of new mythology, in some ways it is surprisingly contemporary: whether it's Sam witnessing the horrors of war or Frodo's feeling of emptiness after completing his quest, Tolkien often goes out of his way to subvert the idea that his heroes will get to return to their idyllic lives after the events of LotR. Except for Aragorn's comedy duo sidekicks, don't worry, they get to stay best buds and sail off into the sunset together.

Why shouldn't you read The Hobbit and LotR? Tolkien was an excellent linguist and world-builder, but let's be honest, his works are incredibly self-indulgent. Whether its pages of description of bucolic countrysides, or dozens of poems that are passable at best, or the six appendices that fill out the final volume, or the interlude with Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, it's clear that Tolkien was unafraid of making this work (How I can put this diplomatically?) incredibly boring to readers who do not share his tastes and sense of aesthetics.

Links:

Oops, looks like Leonard Nimoy beat me to summarizing The Hobbit. By several decades.

Or if you're one of those more serious Tolkien nerds, you may enjoy this tumblr which attempts to answer obscure Middle-Earth questions.