Disclaimer: I watched the movies before I read the series, so that may have influenced my opinion and biased my perspective.Ā
My brother must have introduced me to the film series The Lord of the Rings when I was in middle school, and I have watched them multiple times since. Along with a beautiful soundtrack, stunning visuals, and captivating action, the films have extremely compelling characters. And so I was expecting the sameāno, betterācharacterization in the book series by J. R. R. Tolkien.Ā
In fact, Peter Jackson, the director, writer, and producer of the LOTR films, said:
“I’ll tell you what the key thing with Tolkien is. And we did spend some time, obviously, at the very beginning thinking, ‘Okay, we’re making these films, what is it about the books that people have loved for forty/fifty years?’ There’s a secret to it. There’s like a key to it. And we wanted to know what that key was. And the one thing that we realized is that even though Tolkien has the battles, and he has the monsters, and he has all the fantastical elements, what people love about those books and what draws them back to read them over-and-over again are the characters. It’s the characters. It’s the hobbits. It’s the courage. It’s the bravery. It’s the friendship. It’s the characters.” (Article)
Jackson was right in a way; the hobbits, courage, bravery, and friendship is all there. But I call that plot. The plot is undeniably great in the books (or else it wouldnāt be considered a classic); characterization not so much. The lack of strong individual characterization was my main issue with the book series. As Iāve said before, I gravitate towards character-driven novels, and I personally believe strong characterization is one of the most important aspects that make a novel āgood.ā I do find merit in world-driven novels (for example, I enjoyed Starless Sea by Erin Morgenstern), but they rarely captivate me as deeply. And I do understand that Tolkien had to devote a lot of pages to worldbuilding, since his created world is so complex, and he did an absolutely great job in that aspect; that alone is just not my cup of tea. I believe Tolkien fell into the trap of having too many characters, so it was hard to really become invested in any of them.Ā
I have a lot to say about characterization in this novel, so buckle up. Iām not going to talk about all the characters featured in the series; Iām just going to talk about the ones I had strong opinions about. I divided a lot of the characters into the categories āBetter in the Booksā or āBetter in the Moviesā (see chart below), but I simply could not decide on some (like Samwise Gamgeeāsince he was a darling the majority of the time in both versionsāFrodo, Gandalf or Pippin). And note that while I did think some characters were better in the books, this does not take away from my overall criticism of weak characterization. The reason some were better in the novels is due to the difference between the length of the movies versus the length of the books. The novels had more time to devote to some characters, but overall, the books were still lacking. When looking at the different versions as a whole, the fact that the movies had better characterization with less respective length to work with is a serious flaw with the books.
Some fans of the books think that the movie reduces some characters to comical oafs, and i suppose I can see where theyāre coming from with Gimli and Merry; however, Gimliās character was so under-developed in the books, I think the movie ultimately added to his character. The movies werenāt able to reduce him to anything, since he was already basically nothing. Besides, I am a sucker for humor. I am also of the opinion that although Gimli did provide some comical relief in the movies, it did not take away from his strength or competence.
However, I was extremely disappointed with both Gimli and Legolas in the novels; they had next to no characterization. I love both of those characters in the movies, but they didnāt seem necessary in the novels. In fact, unless Iām remembering incorrectly, there was no mention of Legolasā incredible sight until the second book, and then it was suddenly a huge help on their journey and mentioned multiple times. It felt like Tolkien had just thought it up two/thirds of the way through the series, and added it on a whim. Gimliās and Legolasā characters simply did not seem well thought-through.Ā
As for Merry, he is one of the few characters that are better in the books, and perhaps the only character in which this judgment is not based on the differing lengths between mediums. When Merry was left alone by Pippin, then again by Aragorn and his entourage, and was āadoptedā by King Theoden, he developed so much as a character, which wasnāt really present in the films. He might be the only character in which I see the above criticism (that the movies reduce characters into comical oafs) as valid.Ā
The two other characters that I thought were better in the books were Faramir and Eomer.Ā
If I had read the books before I watched the movies, Faramir might have been my favorite character of the LOTR alongside Samwise Gamgee. However, since that didnāt happen, Sam, Aragorn, and Legolas stole my heart. Faramir in the books is stern, but gentle, fierce, but merciful. There isnāt much to Faramir in the movies except that he is always under Boromirās shadow. This is probably due to the limited time in the movie. So the win goes to Tolkien on this one.
The movies simply downplayed Eomerās character, and I understand why they did so. I donāt necessarily believe that Eomer in the books is necessarily compelling; he simply had more āscreenā time.Ā
Letās discuss the women in the novels.Ā
Tolkien was a product of his time, and wasnāt the most progressive when it came to females. Although Galadriel and Eowyn (and Iād argue Galadriel monumentally over Eowyn) are relatively strong female characters, especially for the time period, Tolkienās treatment of women left much to be desired. I think itās obvious why I placed Arwen in the āBetter in the Moviesā category. Did she even have more than one line in the books, and was her name mentioned more than once or twice? She had a much larger role in the movies, and was transformed from a nothing to an actually compelling character.
Ugh, Eowyn. Sheās actually the product of some controversy; Iām not sure if anyone is satisfied with either Tolkienās or Jacksonās treatment of her. The author of this article claims that Tolkien wrote Eowyn much better, claiming that the movie was āfrustrating when you realize Tolkien, writing in a time that was quite a bit less progressive than now for women, did it betterā (Mariah Huehner). I might have to watch the movies again to accurately judge Jacksonās treatment of her, but I highly doubt he treated her worse than Tolkien.Ā
Firstly, Tolkien wrote Eowyn as suicidal because of a rejection from Aragorn: āBut when he gave you only understanding and pity, then you desired to have nothing, unless a brave death in battleā (page 943 in my version). This wasnāt enough for me to throw my book against the wall, since Eowyn had a really rough time as her beloved uncle deteriorated, a really creepy dude stalked her around her own home, and no one paid attention to her. Rejection could have just been the breaking point after all of that, which is fair, so this incident just induced a simple raised eyebrow. However, then Tolkien made Eowyn turn her heart from Aragorn to Faramir in the space of one sentence? Uh-huh. Oh, and the magic of Faramirās love suddenly healed all of the darkness within her? As in, extremely suddenly. I honestly had to take a break from reading after this section, because Tolkien botched it up so badly.Ā
Now for Aragorn. I placed Aragorn in the āBetter in the Moviesā category not because of botched characterization, but because of my personal preference. I simply prefer the reluctant hero trope to the higher-than-thou future great king. He wasnāt exactly arrogant in the extreme, but he was still a little too self-important in the books for my taste. I remember having difficulty wrapping my head around Aragornās character when he first appeared in the books, because he seemed rather different from the Aragorn Iām used to from the movies. It took me a while to differentiate the Aragorn in the novels from the Aragorn in the films. I finally realized I simply preferred Peter Jacksonās version of Strider.Ā
Brief, general criticisms of the books outside of characterization:
- Dialogue could be stronger in places. I think Tolkien devoted the majority of his energy to worldbuilding, and wasnāt as interested in dialogue and characterization.
- Too many exclamation points; it was a bit distracting.
- The destroying of the ring was rather anticlimactic in the book.
I will say that I was more interested when reading parts of the books that werenāt in the movies, so that might say something about my bias, since I did watch the movies first and was extremely familiar with the plot lines. If I had read the books first, I might have simply considered the characterization as it should be, and Jackson took creative liberty. However, coming from the movies, the characterization of the novels just seems lacking and not compelling at all. I was not entirely invested in the books, and read them simply to get it over with. Which is unfortunate, because I do appreciate the creative world Tolkien came up with and his emphasis on Frodo as the reluctant hero (although Jackson did a better job maintaining this trope with his version of Aragorn).Ā
