Customer Reviews
My All Time Favourite 
2007-12-31
This is an all time favourite with me, It's an amazing book. Most people seem to find Tolkien's narrative too lengthy and boring, but I just loved them. What use is a journey if you can't enjoy the landscape on the way? And what a landscape!!!! This book is just incredible, the plot is good and the characters are truly memorable. I love it.
After having reading this book for the 4th time... 
2007-09-22
I didn't like Fellowship of the Ring the first time I read it, but plowed on to the end and gave up on the other two "books" (it's really just one long book). I think I now know why. The first reason is that I had just read and loved The Hobbit, and was expecting another book along the same lines.
LOTR starts off with Bilbo and the wizard Gandalf in Hobbition, and mentions of Gollum. What a great opener! The problem was, for me, that these familiar elements were all moved into the background. The only times I felt hey this is cool, is when they jumped back into the story for a moment, and these were few and far between. When are we going to get to the good stuff, huh?
The other thing is that this is, except for the first chapter or two, in a completely different style than The Hobbit. It's pure fantasy in the sense of looking around at all the wonder. (often times of very not magic things eg, trees and grass and hills in the shire.) Indeed, the later books focuses on humans. (In the recent movies they injected Elves in places where there were none before in the story, I expect to increase general interest in the atmosphere)
The result is that I did not enjoy LOTR until I took a very leisurely attitude towards it, rather than an adventurous one, notwithstanding that there are adventurous moments. Every time I read it I find some facet of the world that I did not notice before, or that I forgot. That is now when I most enjoy the book. For others to enjoy this book I think you must enjoy the moment, and not be in a hurry for the plot to advance.
Centenary Edition (LoTR) 2007-09-07
This is not a critique of Profesor Tolkien's works: I defer to others more qualified than I to judge his writing.
This is merely a review and description of a specific version of The Lord of The Rings. A number of reviews and comments have prompted me to point out some sought-after features of this edition.
First, this is only about the edition known as "The Centenary (1892-1992)." It was published in a single volume by Houghton Mifflin in 1991 to celebrate 100 years since the birth of Professor Tolkien in 1892. To easily identify this book look for, on the back of the dust jacket, a special centenary medallion and ISBN-10: 0-395-59511-8.
Alan Lee, reknowned Tolkien artist, was specially commissioned to paint 50 illustrations for this "Illustrated Edition." They are beautifully rendered on glossy, high-quality paper and interspersed throughout the book.
The book is set in large type, with the typeface clear and easy to read. The paper is good quality, bright white and shows little print "bleed-through" from following pages. On a personal note, special attention was obviously paid to this edition, as compared to some of the other poorly printed editions. The cover boards are in brown cloth with a simple gilded imprint of the professor's trademark signature. Nothing very fancy, but elegant nonetheless.
What should be great news to many readers, this edition is CONTINUOUS from page one to the end. The table of contents lists the SIX books, as Prof. Tolkien intended! Page numbering does not start over after each book:
Books 1-2 (Fellowship) = pp. 33 - 428
Books 3-4 (Two Towers) = pp. 429 - 772
Books 5-6 (Return) = pp. 773 - 1069
Appendix A-F = pp.1070 - 1172
Six maps of middle-earth are bound in at the end of the book. They are of various aspects of middle-earth, in black and white, and are not fold-out style. They're of medium quality and nothing to write home about.
This is a wonderful edition, identified by its special Centenary medallion on the back of the dust jacket, quality printing and beautiful artwork by Alan Lee. If your wrists are strong enough to heft a single-volume LoTR, this makes a great reading copy for your library.
Beautiful 2007-09-03
This is a wonderful edition to our book collection. It's leather, hard cover, fat, & comes in a nice matching sleeve. The pages are gold edged. There is artwork as well. I know there are probably nicer & more expensive books out there, but come on! This is a great book for the price! It's a future heirloom sitting pretty on your book shelf!
21st Century Ahistorical Bibliophilia: Almost without peer, and the flaws have been been exaggerated in number and degree 2007-08-12
Two points to clarify about the most popular single-volume LOTR editions:
1) The 1991 single-volume Alan Lee-illustrated edition is the "centenary" edition, commemorating Tolkien's 100th birthday (cf. "centenarian") . The "centennial" edition won't be published until 2054, which will be the 100th anniversary of the original publication of Lord of the Rings. This is a very well designed and well printed/bound edition, built to last and beatufil. Its only fault is the absence of fold-out maps (it has the black and white maps printed in sections, often seen in paperback editions).
2) The reason for the broken type in the 1974 red leatherette "Collector's Edition" (and the occurrences of this number on the order of 1 or 2 characters on every 50th page or so) is more likely that the source text from which the negatives/plates were made and this edition printed was itself flawed and originally was some form of letterpress metal type, probably Monotype [a more 'modern' version of the old LinoType system], though depending on the date of that setting [up to mid-'60s, or even later] it may have been hand-composed. All metal type gets re-used, and becomes worn and some of it cracked/chipped over time. There were many books reprinted in this way through the early '80s (and a few publishers, such as Lindsay Books, of long out-of-print, mostly public-domain or 'gray rights' titles, still do this).
The problem is unlikely to have been caused by faults in photo-typesetting strips or process-camera negs in 1973 or so (when this LOTR Collector's Edition was first printed) since that process was a fully mature, climax technology by then, and quality control was simply outstanding (this was due to that extinct beast, the unionized master-printer, especially at Houghton Mifflin, a publisher with a very large academic textbook list, and an industry reputation for quality production; just look at any ten trade hardbacks circa 1973 and earlier, and compare any element of quality to any ten current titles and it's clear the the technology and practice of printing and book binding peaked long ago, and nothing of newer technology, especially computer technology has served the interest of producing better made books, quite the opposite. 2007 tech only makes it faster and cheaper, nothing else.
Remember also that it was the Allen & Unwin type-compositors who introduced virtually all the spelling and diction errors in both the 1st and 2nd editions, some of which have only finally been fixed in the 2004-05 50th Anniversary edition; and these were errors mostly such as 'dwarves' being "corrected" to 'dwarfs', 'elven' to 'elfin', and many others, primarily linguistic, along those lines; these would have been proper corrections with any author other than Tolkien, of course.)
As for the notion that photo-reproduction is at all like printing a Word document on a laser printer, then scanning it back into a computer as a JPEG or GIF image file, and finally printing it again, that is a facile and plainly inaccurate comparison. In short, unless one starts with a bitmap or similar low quality computer 'font', prints on low-brightness (<70) recycled paper via a cheap ink-jet printer, scans using a 75-by-75 dpi setting via low-end scanning hardware and software, and repeats printing as above, the result will certainly be nothing so poor as Jeff Sun describes in his review. Photo-reproduction via PC and peripherals or via process-camera, strips, and offset printing, can easily and does commonly achieve excellent results, provided the equipment is of first quality and the operator is skilled.
If anyone is obsessed enough to try this (as I clearly am), one fairly reliable way to tell whether a book is printed (at some stage) from some form of metal type is to use at least a 20x loupe and examine the vertical straight edges (particularly of upper N's, T's, L's, and E's) for irregularity. Metal type degrades in miniscule degrees after the first few hundred impressions, and will show this by cracking/splitting/chipping/warbling/bending and otherwise appearing NOT straight, sharp, and crisp (especially machine-set monotype/linotype which was all lead/tin, since it was melted down repeatedly; hand-set type has antimony and sometimes manganese in it, which makes it much harder to start and also casts more sharply; parts of letters break off but usually don't deform). It's a challenge to tell these apart, since photo-reproduction of letterpress can be hard to distinguish from original letterpress printing, if the latter is done by a highly skilled compositor and press operator. Some letterpress books show the impression of the type on the page, like a light embossing, from the force of the type striking the stock. Really good printing avoids this. So, if you have a book without this feature that does show feathering, breaks, waviness, etc. it may be either letterpress or photo-repro of LP, but if these traits are present it is almost certain metal type was used at some point in the life of the typesetting.
Two caveats to even to this: feathering alone does not definitely mean deformed metal type. Feathering,, or little veins and stream-like projects away from the character is often caused by excessive inking and watery ink, and also by cheap papers that are unsized (meaning a starch like substance is added during the paper's manufacture to prevent feathering and bleedthrough; newsprint is unsized and you can see how feathering works buy lightly touching a fountain pen to a piece of it for a minute or so). The other caveat is that some computer fonts, especially some high end ones for MAC typesetting systems, have been photographically captured/reproduced from books printed mostly before 1800, and their designers often deliberately retain some of the source type's imperfections (which are due mostly to the more primitive metallurgy of that era) to achieve a particular design effect. You might be surprised how much theory and psychology underlies type-design and typography; there is a lot. Need a dissertation topic?
This has become, I see now, a rant, and a really long one. First as a reader, then as a writer, then as apprentice in a letterpress print shop and bindery, I've always held the book as art-object or craft-work in very nearly as high esteem as the words contained within. I do think these issues are worth some ink, and I expect (or hope) that those interested in fine editions such as this so-called "Collector's " (Ugh! I so hate that term, it's like "deluxe" or "premier" and is mildly patronizing to the reader/buyer) edition of LOTR might also find at least some of the above ramble of interest and use. I do regard this red leatherette slipcased edition (ISBN 0-39-519395-8) as my favorite. It was this edition in which I first read LOTR, and though the Centenary hardcover and the HC 50th Anniversary editions (slipcased US and UK, different designs, both excellent) are on the whole and in most particulars better printed and bound, this edition is a nostalgia item for me. I also very much like the red binding, evocative as it is of the "Red Book of Westmarch," the foil-stamping on the spine, of the White Tree of Gondor, (which must be by either Pauline Baynes or by Tolkien himself) is a delight, and the two color printing, in spite of the ocassional bad character and slightly inconsistent inking, makes me feel like I'm reading an incunabulum. All of these speak across from the old world, though perhaps very long after the Third Age had concluded. I recommend it, highly and without reservation, even to a casual collector, especially now since it has recently gone out of print(ca. 2003-2005, around the time the slipcased, black bonded-leather, US 50th Anniversary edition [ISBN 0-618-51765-0] was published), and is very unlikely to be reissued. It (the Red) listed for $75, and Amazon last sold new copies for $47.50 last January. Now however, fine, used copies are nearing the original list price for the new, and new copies are nearing $100, and very hard to find. Buy one now, as soon as you find one available fine or better.
Mixed up order 
2008-04-12
The three volume set shipped included two copies of "The Two Towers" and no copt of "The Fellowship of the Ring". Having dealt with amazon customer support before it was easier just to have their mother buy the absent copy at Wal-mart.
What took me so long? This is a masterpiece of storytelling 2008-03-12
I first received *The Lord of the Rings* as part of a boxed set, complete with *The Hobbit,* for Christmas in 1985. I also received a boxed set of the first four *Dune* books. I was 13 and in 8th grade.
Like many 13-year olds, I loved *The Hobbit* but I thought *The Lord of the Rings* was simply awful. For one thing, the plot was not immediately obvious to me. (Keep in mind that at the time my enjoyment reading primarily comprised Doctor Who novelizations and Choose Your Own Adventure books.) Instead of the short chapters of plot and dialogue to which I was accustomed, Tolkien provided page after page of exposition, describing the local color and history with any "action" provided almost as an afterthought. And then there is what may have been the biggest problem of all with *The Lord of the Rings,* the scores of strangely named characters and places, some of whom are central to the story and others of whom are purely peripheral and which is which is unclear. I mean, sheesh, who names their two main villains Sauron and Saruman, names that differ by only one syllable?
It should be here noted that while I loved reading at age 13, I was also not the best reader. Memories of reading what I managed to of the trilogy consist mainly of reading a single page over and over and over again just to follow the main thread of the story. Somehow I managed to finish *The Fellowship of the Ring* and made it a few dozen pages into *The Two Towers* before I threw up my hands and abandoned Tolkien to the realm of "authors I think are overrated." I still have a vague recollection of giving a a pretty worthless presentation on the first book in front of Mrs. Fox's English class, the same class I was in when the Challenger exploded. (I also have an even vaguer memory of reviewing some disposable piece of genre SF called Dushau (Dushau Trilogy, No 1), but that's another story.) In short, I never thought I would ever read this book again, and considered all those folks who worshiped Tolkien to be little short of fools.
Fast-forward sixteen years. It's Christmas time in Champaign, and I'm attending *The Two Towers* with my coworkers, mainly because the bosses gave us cinema tickets for the holidays. As the movie begins to unfold, I remember those few dozen pages that I read at 13, and I slowly begin the journey of reappraising Tolkien. While I agree with those who urge reading the book as well as simply seeing the movie, I think that in this case I could not have done the former if I had not done the latter. Peter Jackson's trilogy allowed me to familiarize myself with the overall story arch (something that was hard for me to do from within the perspective of the novel, at least at first) and also helped me to handle the enormous cast of strangely named characters. (Finally Saruman and Sauron were decidedly distinct characters in my mind's eye, and the logic behind their naming, based as it is on Tolkien's invented languages, became more apparent.) So in fall of 2007 I finally decided to give the damned book another chance, mooched the one-volume "trilogy" (apparently Tolkien always considered it one big novel) through BookMooch, chose it over the New Testament for 2008's "big book" (sorry Mom), and devoured it in January, 2008.
In short, I loved it, particularly the exposition and the bizarre names for characters and places. Strange, huh, how the passage of time will do that to one's sensibilities? The very features of the novel that I found off-putting in 1985, I found absolutely ingenious in 2008. The names and locations in *The Lord of the Rings* all figure into a much-vaster cosmology and narrative history, and this becomes more apparent when the reader peruses the voluminous appendices. All the details that seemed arbitrary and distracting from "the action" were in fact anything but arbitrary, deriving as they did from a comprehensive mythology (of a world that did not exist until Tolkien wrote it into existence!). Take for example the appendix on the "translation" of the text explaining why Tolkien chose English words like "elf" and "dwarf" and "halfling" to "translate" the "original" Elvish words. Apart from the implication that there is really an original manuscript written in Elvish, this appendix also implies that the "elves" in this story aren't really elves, the "dwarves" aren't really dwarves, etc., but that these are the closest analogs that the translator could find in fantastic literature.
That these 1,000+ pages, with all their hyper-detailed exposition, are merely the tip of the iceberg of Tolkien's invented world, makes the novel all the more amazing. This really is a masterpiece of storytelling and myth-making. I can understand now why so many people love this book. I think I'm now one of them.
Top Shelf Tolkien 2008-02-23
I recently purchased the single volume illustrated version of the Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (Illustrated Edition). This is probably only for the (at least) semi-fanatical Tolkien fan.
I had owned a set of soft cover individual books (all four: Hobbit, Fellowship, Two Towers, Return) that were published in 1964 (before I was born), and they had, unfortunately, deteriorated, both from age and rough use (read in the bathtub, at the park just before a rain shower, jammed in a briefcase to be read at lunch, etc.) I thought about simply buying the new individual paperbacks, but researched and found this illustrated version, published in 1991, on the 100th anniversary of Tolkien's birth.
The bad news: this thing is massive! Holding one giant volume and actually reading it presents some problems.
That being said, this is THE version of the story, presented as Tolkien intended it: "One book to rule them all" to paraphrase the master. The size of the book emphasizes that this is the definitive work of twentieth-century fantasy. The red sash bookmark is classy. The illustrations are nice, and add an excellent counter-point to the words. To again paraphrase Tolkien's critique of his own work, "I only wish there were more [illustrations]." (Of course, there are plenty of books out there with a great deal of artwork, enough to satisfy just about everyone.)
In the end, this is like buying your mixed drinks in a bar, and insisting on top shelf alcohol. A real devotee can appreciate the difference, but to the average person is it really worth the extra money? As a bit of a Tolkien fanatic (I have read the story about fifteen times in the last thirty years), the $40+ bucks was worth it, even though I could have purchased a whole new set of the four in paperback for at least $10 less.
For each potential buyer, take the advice of Galadriel and look inside yourself. If you don't get that reference, this is probably not for you. If you do, and are nodding your head as you read this, call now and have your credit card ready!
Chuck Hinton
LOTR 2008-02-23
What can I say other than it is an awesome book, I could not put it down
Beautiful Pictures... otherwise a disappointment 2008-01-12
When this edition was printed back in 1991, it was at the top of my Christmas List. The pictures are really something; in those days it seemed almost axiomatic that there was no one fit to illustrate Lord of the Rings except (maybe) Tolkien himself. Lee proved that thesis wrong, which is a great achievement.
At the same time, preparing and typesetting a new and definitive edition of Lord of the Rings, especially one with color plates, seemed like an obvious opportunity to include some of the elements that Tolkien had wanted from the beginning: Fire Letters for the Ring, leaves from the Book of Marzabul. Instead this edition doesn't even have a fold-out map. So as an edition of the text, it is a definite let down.
