The Lord of the Rings (50th Anniversary Edition)

Location: Home » body art - tattoo » General AAS » The Lord of the Rings (50th Anniversary Edition)

Similar Items:

•	The Hobbit
•	The Hobbit: 70th Anniversary Edition
•	The Children of Hurin
•	The Silmarillion
•	The Lord of the Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy (Platinum Series Special Extended Edition)

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description
The Fellowship of the Ring, part one of J.R.R. Tolkien's epic masterpiece, ﬁrst reached these shores on October 21, 1954, arriving, as C. S. Lewis proclaimed, "like lightning from a clear sky." Fifty years and nearly one hundred million American readers later comes a beautiful new one-volume collector's edition beﬁtting the stature of this crown jewel of our list. With a text fully corrected under the supervision of Christopher Tolkien to meet the author's exacting wishes, two large-format fold-out maps, a ribbon placemarker, gilded page edges, a color insert depicting Tolkien's own paintings of the Book of Mazarbul and exceptionally elegant and sturdy overall packaging housed within an attractive slipcase, this edition is the ﬁnest we've ever produced.

Customer Reviews: Read 166 more reviews...

5 out of 5 stars

The finest edition of LOTR ever published October 27, 2004
500 out of 513 found this review helpful

While the price of this book is steep, this is easily the best version of this book in existance. The gilded pages and high-quality leather look, smell and feel wonderful. This is not the questionable quality leather used on previous versions, this is the real deal. More importantly, this version has, as J.R.R. recorded in letters, reproductions of the Book of Marzubul. These are the pages from the Dwarven book found in the Mines of Moria by Gandalf and the Fellowship. In the begining and ending of the book are also included maps that fold out to render Middle-earth for the reader, again as the author originally wanted.

This is the book that Tolkien dreamed of having published but couldn't due to the realities of post-WWII publishing costs and questions about a 400,000 word publication.

For me, there is an emtoional response to this book for two reasons. One, it is as fine or better than the book the author originally wished to have published and two, it is a beautiful piece of art all on its own, suitable for display. If you love books or love Tolkien or both, this is a must have and the centerpiece of any worthy collection.

5 out of 5 stars

Water in a dry place October 1, 2007
172 out of 201 found this review helpful

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 importance 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.

Tolkien's work is water in a dry place.

2 out of 5 stars

Poor quality control December 5, 2004
143 out of 150 found this review helpful

Note -- Tolkien's work is rated 5 stars. The physical book is rated two stars.

When you pay $100 list for a collector's edition book, you expect it to be perfect in all respects. I am on my 3rd copy of this edition and am still dissatisfied.

The first book had paper that was poorly folded. There were many pages that were misfolded. I returned that and got another copy. This one had a whole signature [one group of pages] with a tear at the top edge.

I returned that and got a third copy. This one seems OK, but the pages are not centered in the hard cover. Its rather dissatisfying, but I think I will keep it.

The publisher should take their printer/binder to task. Three strikes in three pitches is unacceptable for what is a very expensive edition to begin with.

BTW all three copies had glue that overflowed onto the inside cover pages. When you try to separate the pages, they tear where the glue had been.

I think that the publisher dishonors Tolkien's marvelous work and insults their readers by publishing an expensive edition with such poor quality control.

3 out of 5 stars

Anniversary Edition: US vs. UK deluxe versions January 25, 2005
70 out of 76 found this review helpful

Houghton Mifflin has produced a slightly larger book in leather, a covering that extends to the slipcase; the leather has a faint marbled appearance and a brushed feel. The paper is good quality too, with an appealing translucency that sits well with the gilded edges (although when the book is closed, the gold looks a little cheap compared with the pale finish on the available HarperCollins India paper edition). The boards, however, both for the slipcase and book seem a little thin, which betrays the sense of quality, and once the gilded pages have had a cursory ruffle, it's a surprise to find the book needs squeezing back in the slipcase, which then bows out in response, giving the item a bloated appearance. Should you wish to remove the book, a good shake is required to free it.

Like other customers, it took me more than one attempt to acquire a good copy, by this I mean one where the signatures had been correctly centred between the boards, and where the leather had been firmly - if not tidily - affixed to the inside of the slipcase. Nevertheless, the manufacturer still seemed unable to correctly centralise the slipcase labels in their embossed frames. This would have been a nice detail if executed well.

Where the US edition shines, however, is in the inclusion of the two large-scale fold out maps, laid in at either end of the book. These are exceptional, and unavailable in the UK deluxe edition of this release.

What, the UK edition doesn't have fold out maps? At twice the price? Well, it does, but they are not the large-scale affairs that graced the original releases and which are represented in the US edition in question; the ones HarperCollins have laid in throughout the text of their deluxe edition fold out horizontally only, which is to say they are scaled down. I presume that this design choice is made to tie in with the format of the fold out Thror's Map in the matching deluxe Hobbit, but still, it seems a wasted opportunity.

Indeed, it is easy to see what the UK edition does not have: i.e., leather, big maps, two tone print, and gilding, but a cursory glance at the design and build of HarperCollins' deluxe edition quickly reveals its superior quality. For a start, the boards used for both book and slipcase are thickera and sturdier, and the uncovered slipcase innards are constructed from a sympathetic base material: here it is a closely matched, light grey board. Similar care has been taken in the UK edition's old fashioned presentation: the case has a gently curved front for effortless book removal, and a circular window reveals part of the book's front design, completing it with its own embossed motif. Although not leather, the selection of fine quality coverings cannot be faulted: the mottled grey paper perfectly complements the textured maroon quarter-binding and matching slipcase (in turn, the grey backing is also used on the deluxe Hobbit, going equally well with green).

Crucially, however, the execution of the design is spot on, something sorely lacking in the US edition: the folds of the covering within the slipcase are deep and symmetrical, which is even more impressive considering the curved front, and the embossing is firmly pressed in, lending depth and texture. Basically, everything you expect from the manufacture of such an expensive book is delivered in the UK edition; from the engineering of the slipcase window, to the squareness of every available edge, care with the details shines through.

With Amazon's discounts, both books are fair value, but as the UK edition reflects a 100 price tag rather than a $100 one, you inevitably end up with a better product, and one that just begs to be matched with its equally exemplary green counterpart.

3 out of 5 stars

Style over substance? June 17, 2006
57 out of 64 found this review helpful

This is a beautiful looking edition. I love the appearance of it. Unfortunately, while it looks good the quality is not up to par. The spine is thin & my edition had a tiny tear at the bottom, which I have managed to repair with a small piece of black card so it is unnoticeable. However, I suspect it could have gotten worse with repeated openings of the book.

The Harper Collins (UK) edition is much more substantial, but the problem I have with that one is that the slipcase is integral to the book, with a circular cut out to allow the embossed Eye of Sauron on the cover to show through. In effect, rather than the slipcase being there to protect the book it is part of it & has to be treated with the same reverence as the book itself. The prices of each reflect the quality - 100 for the HC edition as opposed to $100 for the HM. I wish HM had gone in for a little better quality of material & charged a bit more - this is a 'one-off' after all & will only appeal to true collectors, who would have stumped up for it anyway.

Faults have been pointed up already with the rubber glue sticking the maps together (what for???) when the book arrives. It is impossible to open them up without leaving small tears on the surface of the paper.

Now to the 50th anniversary changes.

This edition has '300-400' changes to the text to produce the text Tolkien 'would have wanted'. This assertion is questionable in some cases. The actual version of the Lay of Earendel which had extra verses & is given by Christopher Tolkien in the History of Middle-earth has not been included, but a change has been made to Legolas' words regarding Elves (the 'original' text published during Tolkien's lifetime has him saying that the Elves 'do not count the running years', while this version has him saying that they 'need not count them.' This may seem trivial. The change was made because CT stated that his father originally wrote 'need not' but when CT copied that out for him he omitted the word 'need' & when his father came to check it he wrote in 'do' instead. CT assumes that this was a mistake on his father's part & has authorised the change back. However, we cannot assume that Tolkien had not thought better of his original wording & decided that 'do not' reflected the Elves state of mind better than the original 'need not'. 'Do not' implies the Elves have no choice in the matter, that the passing years do not even register on their consciousness, 'need not' implies they can if they wish. This goes goes to the heart of Elven psychology & such a change is not to be made lightly.

We do not actually know what Tolkien thought. We do know that in all the editions (including his own textual revision made in the sixties) he left 'do not' to stand.

Changes have been made to the text without authorial approval under the excuse of producing the edition Tolkien wanted without much proof for that being the case.

Also, this edition does not include the revised Index by Hammond & Scull that has been included in the recent 3 volume edition of the work published by HC in the UK, but Tolkien's original, so there is a different 50th Anniversary version out there already. Tolkien's original index has, apparently, been superceeded by the H&S one for the future. Whether one considers the Index a part of the text proper is a matter of opinion, but it is part of the original text that seems to have been consigned to history.

With this edition you are not reading the version 'Tolkien would have wanted' - how could anyone (outside of a seance ;)) know what Tolkien would have wanted? You are reading a well intentioned attempt to put something like that together. Whether those involved should have bothered is another matter. Personally, I would like to have seen a facsimile of the First Edition put out to commemorate the Fiftieth Anniversary. That would have been interesting.

Still, it does look nice.

Powered by Associate-O-Matic