The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R Tolkien

  When I first picked up The Fellowship of the Ring I was about fourteen. I soon put it down again. I picked it up and put it down a few more times after that. For the life of me I just couldn't get myself past the prologue 'Concerning Hobbits.' So, this time when I set myself the challenge of reading it all (or at least all of The Fellowship) I was not expecting to fall completely in love with the story, or actually want to proceed to The Two Towers and then The Return of the King. In many ways, I felt obliged to want to read it.  The fact that The Lord of the Rings topped the BBC's Big Read list of novels voted for by readers made me feel like I had been missing out on something, although I didn't exactly get what it was. If I'm honest, I felt like seeing the movies was enough because they were so great anyway.  This time I persevered with it and although I did not get into it straight away, once I did I was rewarded for my efforts. I could not put it down.  I was completely drawn into Middle-earth. 
  So, I'm going to give brief outline of the plot.  A young hobbit named Frodo Baggins inherits a ring that turns out to be the One Ring of power of the Dark Lord Sauron. Discovering Sauron's evil purposes for the ring he sets off on a quest to destroy it with three other hobbits and the guidance of Gandalf the wizard.  On the way they are joined by two men, an elf and a dwarf, each of whom are charged with protecting the ring-bearer (Frodo) on his journey.  As their journey becomes more perilous the fellowship is forced to split up and take separate paths. On their different journeys they endure many hardships and battles, and meet different peoples of Middle-earth whose fates are joined to that of the ring.  Frodo and his companion Sam also encounter a former ring-bearer, whose desire for the ring will push him to the ultimate levels of treachery and deceit.  All of this the company must endure before the enemy can be vanquished once and for all.
  That is the plot in brief, but it does not do the novel any justice.  The scope of The Lord of the Rings, the sheer magnitude and depth of craft, imagination and intellect cannot be conveyed in a mere paragraph.  Tolkien has not just written a novel, he has created a whole world with languages, history and different cultures.  He has also created an incredible landscape for Middle-earth, with different climates and geographical features.  The result of all these things creates a work of literature where fantasy and reality interweave seamlessly, creating a world that is at once unlike ours, and yet could have been our own once upon a time. 
  The Lord of the Rings is considered to be a work of 'high-fantasy' because it is set in an alternative world or universe.  To a certain extent, this is true.  In many ways, Middle-earth seems otherworldly, with elves, dwarves and wizards running around.  However, many of the customs, histories and the very geography of Middle-earth makes it feel very much of this world, even if it is of this world in a very, very different time.  It is a fantasy novel which, because of the way it has been crafted, seems almost real. 
  Published between 1954 and 1955, The Lord of the Rings is certainly influenced by the experiences of the two World Wars of the early Twentieth Century.  Certainly, the war depicted in the books is by all accounts a world war, with all the people's of Middle-earth caught up in it for one side or the other.  The anticipation of death and destruction, and the fear of their fate should their enemy succeed, is in everyway a reflection of what Tolkien must have experienced as a veteran. I think that reading it in this post-war light, adds an extra level of poignancy to an already moving story.
 Above everything else, the thing that I love the most about The Lord of the Rings is the relationships between the characters. The fact that there is a love-story or two going, however welcome, is of much less interest than the friendships forged between the comrades at arms.  The relationship between Frodo and his faithful servant, Samwise Gamgee, is especially moving. Sam's role throughout the books has been a supportive one to Frodo. He is loyal, would follow him through thick and thin, and always puts the needs of Frodo above his own. Sam is an unassuming character and considers his main duty to be serving and protecting Frodo, and yet through this master/servant relationship a true friendship is formed.  Sam is very much the underdog, and yet in the end I believe him to be the true hero of The Lord of the Rings. Without Sam, Frodo could not have succeeded in his quest.
 Needless to say, I LOVE The Lord of the Rings. I was not expecting to, having had my many failed attempts at reading it in the past.  However, now I have read it I feel that I will read it time and time again.  Once I had finished, I felt genuinely sorry that I had to put it down and leave Middle-earth.  I have also come to a conclusion that I didn't think was going to be possible. As great as the movies are (and I do love them), they are no where near as great as the books.


Link for BBC Big Read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml

Animal Farm by George Orwell

   Before I begin I should state that I have never been Orwell's greatest fan. I read Nineteen Eighty-Four in school as part of my A-Level course and I have to say I did not get on easily with it. When I eventually got into it I found I respected the novel but that I could not enjoy it. Indeed, is Nineteen Eighty-Four a novel that can be enjoyed?  So, it was with a feeling of foreboding that I looked for Animal Farm in the library. I believed that it would be like the other in terms of, well, just about everything. You can probably imagine my surprise (and relief), therefore, when I realized that it was nothing of the kind.  True, both act as a sort of critique of communism in the case of the Soviet Union, but I feel that the two novels do this very differently.  Where Nineteen Eighty-Four supposes a time in the future (or the future when Orwell was writing) and one can recognize it as a work of fiction, with Animal Farm we get a concise political history of the Soviet Union in the guise of a 'fairy tale.' Plus, it is much shorter.
   Published in the United Kingdom in 1945, Animal Farm chronicles the rebellion of the animals on Manor Farm and the consequent overthrowing of their human master Jones. The animals then take over complete ownership of the farm and start to envisage a world without humans at all.  Indeed, 'four legs good, two legs bad' becomes the central party line. However, amidst the fight for total equality amongst the animals, we bear witness to the rise and power struggles of the pigs. Before long, the pig Napolean takes his place as the 'leader' of the animals. In his rise we see a complete turn around in policy. Indeed, the initial commandments of the rebellion become so edited they now have the reverse meaning. Even the basic precept of animalism, that 'all animals are equal,' changes to 'all animals are equal, but some are more  equal than others.' Along the way animals disappear and even the most hardworking are betrayed.  Ultimately, we see how the pigs break each of the formative principles of animalism and in doing so treat the animals worse than their human counterparts ever did.  The final sentence of the book sums this fact up succinctly:
  "The creatures outside [the farmhouse, looking in on a gathering of pigs and local human farmers] looked from pig to man, man to pig, and from pig to man again; but it already was impossible to say which was which."
  As with Nineteen Eighty-Four, I can't exactly say that I particularly like Animal Farm. Both are books I respect more than like.  This is especially the case with Animal Farm. I respect the way in which Orwell has made a complex subject i.e. totalitarianism, in particular that of communist totalitarianism, accessible by conveying it in the manner of a 'fairy-tale.'  It is easy to read as the language is uncomplicated, and the fact that the characters are animals creates the impression of a story that even children could understand.  Yet the fact is that if you were to replace the animals with human characters you would not have a 'fairy-tale.' 'Fairy-tale' implies fiction, made up, fantasy. If Animal Farm were about humans you would have a book that is pretty far removed from the realm of fiction. 
  It is a book that I am glad that I have now read, if for no other reason than just to be able to say that I have.  Maybe one day I will go back to Orwell and have my mind opened further to his works, but in all honesty I am in no rush to pick them up again any time soon.