A first time reader's actual experience

Rachel Port

Well-Known Member
I was thinking of the first-time reader experience that came up in MatthewW's post here, and happened across this video made by a first time reader as she went through the books. The first 28 minutes are about the books. I haven't watched her comments on the movies which she went through after reading the books. Anyway, I've been trying to remember my first read when I was 18 back in the dark ages, and what I most remember is wanting to know what happened next, not concerned with all the details we are going over. I was sure Gandalf wasn't dead. I don't think I cared about what the powers of the Ring were, I just wanted to know how it affected the characters and whether Frodo would get it to the Cracks of Doom and whether the Ring would get destroyed. The Ring itself was rather a McGuffin, though I didn't know the word at the time. And so this reader's response is to the characters and the story, and that is what I remember from my first reading, and I still share a lot of her thoughts.

So I wonder if taking the point of view of a first-time reader is actually possible in this kind of close reading (well, microscopic might better describe it). A first time reader reads for the story and for the characters she comes to care about. And yet this young woman ends up talking about the pacing of the writing, how it felt simply to take time over a book in these hurried times. And the moments that stand out for her resonate with my feelings then and now, and with a lot of what we discuss here.

Anyway, here is a real first time reader talking about LOTR.
 
Hi Rachel,

I'm sure you are right that almost all first-time readers read for the story and the characters. They do not do a particularly close reading. I'm sure I did not when I first read at age of 10. But, TLOTR is probably one of the few books (besides the Bible, Koran, etc.) which many people re-read multiple times. Each re-reading prompts more questions and becomes closer and closer reading. For 23 years, there was no Silmarillion to muddy the waters. Then, for many more years, there was no complete History of Middle Earth, to illustrate just how muddy the waters were.

By re-reading 3 or 4, I was doing pretty close reading. By re-reading 20 or 30, very close reading.

Still I remember that even on the first reading it was not at all clear until late in the book that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron, and win the War. I think, if I guessed upon reaching The Council of Elrond for the first time, how the story would develop, I would have guessed two themes, Frodo and Sam trying to destroy the Ring (to play keep-away from Sauron), probably being captured by Saruman, probably escaping by using the Ring to turn invisible, probably learning enough from witty banter with Saruman to get the clues on how to achieve both destroying the Ring and winning the war. Much like Bilbo with Smaug. (Though they would not realize the import of those clues until later.) Meanwhile, Aragorn and Boromir would be trying to win the war. They would probably get the clues on how to do this from Frodo or Sam. Something like that. (I had read The Hobbit, and plenty of other fairy stories by that time.) I'm glad those possible suppositions turned out to be far too simplistic!

I think when we try to adopt the point of view of a first-time reader, we are suggesting that we adopt the point of view of an unusual first-time reader who is doing a close reading. After all, we are doing a close reading.
 
I think when we try to adopt the point of view of a first-time reader, we are suggesting that we adopt the point of view of an unusual first-time reader who is doing a close reading. After all, we are doing a close reading.

Exactly - this kind of reading is wonderful, but not what a first time reader does. On the other hand, sticking to the text is another issue, much more possible - skipping the Middle-earth mythology/theology and everything that came afterwards and everything else Tolkien wrote, except what is actually in the Lord of the Rings text, might be possible, but in this kind of class they can be a lot of fun.
 
So I wonder if taking the point of view of a first-time reader is actually possible in this kind of close reading (well, microscopic might better describe it). A first time reader reads for the story and for the characters she comes to care about. And yet this young woman ends up talking about the pacing of the writing, how it felt simply to take time over a book in these hurried times. And the moments that stand out for her resonate with my feelings then and now, and with a lot of what we discuss here.

Anyway, here is a real first time reader talking about LOTR.

I have been about 10 years old and a bookworm loving reading thick books and I remember marveling at the details of world buiding like e.g. the champignon fields of Farmer Maggots - the fact that not all details in the story were just to serve the main plot, but that the other side-characters had their own lives and issues - which made the world feel alive. I found the Nazgul completely terrifying. And I was so offended by Gandalf death in Moria (I really felt cheated as a reader) that I've stopped reading for around a year alltogether untill a friend gave me the spoiler that he will come back later - only then I've resumed reading again. ;-) That experience makes me laught each time someone says the story is predictable and all good guys live...
 
Last edited:
I think there are two perspectives from which to view a close reading of TLOTR.

One is the perspective of the first-time close reader. What can the first-time reader (who may previously have read 'The Hobbit' deduce or speculate about the text based only on what has been read up to that point?

The other is the perspective of the close reading re-reader, who has read all of TLOTR and can use all that material to base deductions or speculations on.

Both these perspectives are examining the work of art, and only the work of art.

The perspective of using 'The Legendarium' to interpret the work of art is fun and interesting, but it brings in many problems.

We know now that 'The Legendarium' was constantly changing and being revised. That JRRT never came up with a completed work of art that satisfied him. So, it is hard to determine what parts (if any) of 'The Legendarium' might be considered 'evidence' to be applied to interpreting TLOTR.

A close reading of TLOTR would not suffice, if we were to take the perspective of a reader who had read both TLOTR and 'The Legendarium'. We would also need to cover a close reading of 'The Legendarium' (which we are not doing).

Better to apply close reading to TLOTR and 'The Legendarium' separately. In fact, I would say it would be far more useful to apply passages from TLOTR to a close reading of 'The Legendarium' than the other way around. "The Legendarium" is not a completed work of art. A study of it is a study of the evolution of JRRT's mythology, or the study of a collection of sketches, rather than the study of a finished work.

There is merit in studying a work of art as its own thing.

Of course, applying insights from an artist's other works (even sketches and unfinished or discarded attempts) can be interesting (and fun), but, much more difficult to interpret than what is in the work of art itself.

I am fine with the occasional reference to 'The Legendarium' to ask, "this is baffling. Does 'The Legendarium' contain anything that might help us understand this?" As long as we realize that 'The Legendarium' is a suspect, non-authoritative, and not fully connected source.

We should be very careful about applying 'Legendarium' passages to interpreting TLOTR.
 
I think there are two perspectives from which to view a close reading of TLOTR.

One is the perspective of the first-time close reader. What can the first-time reader (who may previously have read 'The Hobbit' deduce or speculate about the text based only on what has been read up to that point?

The other is the perspective of the close reading re-reader, who has read all of TLOTR and can use all that material to base deductions or speculations on.

Both these perspectives are examining the work of art, and only the work of art.

The perspective of using 'The Legendarium' to interpret the work of art is fun and interesting, but it brings in many problems.

We know now that 'The Legendarium' was constantly changing and being revised. That JRRT never came up with a completed work of art that satisfied him. So, it is hard to determine what parts (if any) of 'The Legendarium' might be considered 'evidence' to be applied to interpreting TLOTR.

A close reading of TLOTR would not suffice, if we were to take the perspective of a reader who had read both TLOTR and 'The Legendarium'. We would also need to cover a close reading of 'The Legendarium' (which we are not doing).

Better to apply close reading to TLOTR and 'The Legendarium' separately. In fact, I would say it would be far more useful to apply passages from TLOTR to a close reading of 'The Legendarium' than the other way around. "The Legendarium" is not a completed work of art. A study of it is a study of the evolution of JRRT's mythology, or the study of a collection of sketches, rather than the study of a finished work.

There is merit in studying a work of art as its own thing.

Of course, applying insights from an artist's other works (even sketches and unfinished or discarded attempts) can be interesting (and fun), but, much more difficult to interpret than what is in the work of art itself.

I am fine with the occasional reference to 'The Legendarium' to ask, "this is baffling. Does 'The Legendarium' contain anything that might help us understand this?" As long as we realize that 'The Legendarium' is a suspect, non-authoritative, and not fully connected source.

We should be very careful about applying 'Legendarium' passages to interpreting TLOTR.

You do forget that Tolkien was no less dissatisfied with the inconsistences of LOTR itself (all of which he found impossible for him to amend after it has been published) and that he choose to revise the Hobbit dramatically even after it has been published - no guaranty he would not choose to change both Hobbit and LOTR to make them fit his beloved Simarillion. So this attitude towards Tolkien's work - which is actually the World of Arda, and not so much his actual writings - which are just his attempts to capture it to a greater or lesser extend - imho would actually impoverish the experience of Tolkien's work. And we are even going as far in the course to not allow the last books of the LOTR to explain the first books of it! Is this not "dismembering" the work itself?
 
So, for all I know Herman Melville may have had later ideas on how to revise 'Moby Dick'. It does not matter. We interpret the 'Moby Dick' we have. Furthermore, it helps us little to try to apply anything from 'Billy Budd', which Melville never finished, and which was published 33 years after his death, to enhance our understanding of 'Moby Dick'.

I think you missed my second take on good perspectives for close reading, which was the perspective of a close reading re-reader, which takes account of the whole work of art.
 
We know now that 'The Legendarium' was constantly changing and being revised. That JRRT never came up with a completed work of art that satisfied him. So, it is hard to determine what parts (if any) of 'The Legendarium' might be considered 'evidence' to be applied to interpreting TLOTR.
I agree completely with your general premise that LOTR can - and should! - be appreciated as a discrete work of art.

But I think it is worth noting that - whether it was 'completed' or not - he submitted The Silmarillion for publication numerous times. So he felt it done enough, at various points, to dearly wish to see it in print, and to argue in his letters that it was 'essential background' to LOTR. (From Letter 131. Funnily, given our recent classes, he also notes that much of the Council of Elrond could be cut, if only The Silmarillion were published.) Of course that didn't happen, and the version we have - for which I am grateful - is not identical to any JRRT would have published. So I do agree we should avoid using it as a sort of proof text, or wiki of canonicity.
 
Last edited:
I agree completely with your general premise that LOTR can - and should! - be appreciated as a discrete work of art.

But I think it is worth noting that - whether it was 'completed' or not - he submitted The Silmarillion for publication numerous times. So he felt it done enough, at various points, to dearly wish to see it in print, and to argue in his letters that it was 'essential background' to LOTR. (From Letter 131. Funnily, given our recent classes, he also notes that much of the Council of Elrond could be cut, if only The Silmarillion were published.) Of course that didn't happen, and the version we have - for which I am grateful - is not identical to any JRRT would have published. So I do agree we should avoid using it as a sort of proof text, or wiki of canonicity.
But this also implies the LOTR itself is not the optimal version that Tolkien would like to have in print, his ideal version would be the one where SIL and LOTR are published together, and BOTH of them would have been different. So we have only - in Tolkien's view - subpars version of both at hand anyway.
 
Last edited:
But this also implies the LOTR itself is not the optimal version that Tolkien would like to have in print, his ideal version woud be this one where SIL and LOTR are published together, and BOTH of them would have been different. So we have only - in Tolkien's view - subpars version of both at hand anyway.
I don't think many authors ever arrive at an 'optimal' version of their work, in their own minds, so much as a version worthy of publication, based on an intersection of artistic and practical factors. Of course what that meant in this case is we got a 'JRRT published' version of LOTR - however much he kept tinkering with concepts contained therein - and not a similar version of the Silmarillion. I simply think it's worth noting that he did try. Ultimately each reader has to decide how to approach and integrate JRRT’s collected works. I don’t suggest there’s a global ideal, just that I have my own preferences.
 
Last edited:
Odola, I love your story of your anger at Gandalf's death. What I remember is feeling bereft, as if the book could not be complete without him, but then, when I got to The White Rider I whooped out loud and said I knew he couldn't be dead.

I do think Lord of the Rings is a discrete work of art, and a complete work in itself. It is were not, it would not have stood up all these years, and there wouldn't be so many readers like me, who read it over and over again without wanting anything else to go with it. As for Tolkien thinking it was subpar, though perhaps incomplete would be a better word, perfectionists are like that.

The major revision of The Hobbit was necessary because while Tolkien was writing LOTR he realized more about the Ring and about Gollum's story that he hadn't known when he wrote The Hobbit. The fact that he never made such a change to LOTR might imply that he never discovered anything that seriously contradicted anything in it.
 
I agree completely with your general premise that LOTR can - and should! - be appreciated as a discrete work of art.

But I think it is worth noting that - whether it was 'completed' or not - he submitted The Silmarillion for publication numerous times. So he felt it done enough, at various points, to dearly wish to see it in print, and to argue in his letters that it was 'essential background' to LOTR. (From Letter 131. Funnily, given our recent classes, he also notes that much of the Council of Elrond could be cut, if only The Silmarillion were published.) Of course that didn't happen, and the version we have - for which I am grateful - is not identical to any JRRT would have published. So I do agree we should avoid using it as a sort of proof text, or wiki of canonicity.

Hi Beech27,

Did JRRT ever submit 'The Silmarillion' for publication? I think he submitted portions or excerpts (do we even know exactly what he might have submitted? And how much it might have resembled what Christopher eventually published?)

His publishers would have been well aware (from their previous experiences with JRRT) that anything they received from him in draft would have been heavily revised before he agreed to publication.

We know that JRRT submitted a version called 'Quenta Silmarillion' to his publishers in 1937. It was rejected. It was almost certainly very different from 'The Silmarillion' published by Christopher, since he used mostly post-LOTR versions of the Legendarium tales. Does anyone know exactly what was submitted to the publishers in 1937?

When JRRT tried to get TLOTR and 'The Silmarillion' published simultaneously, in the 1950s, I am not sure what if anything of Silmarillion material he submitted to the publishers. Does anyone know?

Even though he tried to play off two publishers against one another in the 1950s, to get one of them to agree to publish 'The Silmarillion' neither would agree to do so.

By the time that TLOTR was a global best seller (say the late 1960s), and JRRT would have had publishers falling all over themselves to publish anything, he was just revising and revising, and adding and adding, and never happy to have found a solution which he liked, so he never published anything when he could have.

By the way, I assume almost everyone in this class and forum has read 'The Silmarillion'? You may be surprised to find out how few readers of TLOTR have. TLOTR has sold over 100 million copies worldwide. 'The Silmarillion' has sold 1 million copies. It would appear that only about 1 in 100 readers of TLOTR has also read 'The Silmarillion'.

So, 99% of TLOTR readers would have no knowledge, even today, of Silmarillion or Legendarium material. Their only means of understanding, interpreting, appreciating TLOTR would be TLOTR itself. Yet it seems that most of them appreciate it very much.

Knowledge of the Legendarium is un-necessary to appreciation of TLOTR as a work of art on its own.
 
Knowledge of the Legendarium is un-necessary to appreciation of TLOTR as a work of art on its own.

But not Arda and this is what Tolkien really cared about. What he wanted to make others to join in caring about. Without Arda LOTR is "just another story", a good one, but nothing more than that.
 
When I heard that The Silmarillion was going to be published, I reread LOTR and bought the Silmarillion as soon as it came out. I was disappointed - I think I wanted more about the LOTR characters or background specific to its events. Incidentally, I didn't read The Hobbit until some years after that. I have read it several times since then, including just a couple of years ago, but it has not stuck very much. I really should reread it now that I know more about Tolkien and his work. Undoubtedly I will at some point. But I could not agree more that knowledge of the Legendarium is unnecessary to appreciate (I would add and to love) LOTR on its own.
 
But not Arda and this is what Tolkien really cared about. What he wanted to make others to join in caring about. Without Arda LOTR is "just another story", a good one, but nothing more than that.

Oh, I totally agree Odola. Both are great. It is just that they are two separate works of art, each of which should be read as it's own. Sure, there are some connections, which are sometimes interesting or illuminating, but they should not, and cannot be relied upon.

TLOTR is one work of art. One story. It should be appreciated as such.

The Legendarium is multiple works of interconnected art evolving over time. It is the story of an emerging mythology. Also to be appreciated as such, but only loosely connected to TLOTR.
 
Oh, I totally agree Odola. Both are great. It is just that they are two separate works of art, each of which should be read as it's own. Sure, there are some connections, which are sometimes interesting or illuminating, but they should not, and cannot be relied upon.

TLOTR is one work of art. One story. It should be appreciated as such.

The Legendarium is multiple works of interconnected art evolving over time. It is the story of an emerging mythology. Also to be appreciated as such, but only loosely connected to TLOTR.

Then explain to me how one can Galadriel's eagerness to play matchmaker for Aragorn and Arwen (where also lovers names do start with the sound "A" by the way) without knowing that she knew Luthien personally and that she lost one of her brothers permanently to an uncompleted human-elf marriage?
She is risking her daughter Celebrian never forgiving her*, but still does everything she can to encourage Arwen to embrace her fate and to love Aragorn, knowing that by doing that she (Galadriel) will loose her granddaughter but that her granddaughter will not end up consumed by regret for the rest of time of Arda or even ends up in Mandos permanently like one of her grand uncles.

Without this knowledge (in LOTR alone) it just seems she wants her granddaughter to die for no apparent reason?

____________
*BTW that must have been an intersting conversation after Galadrien's return to Valinor: "Dear child, thou wilt never see thine again as I've succefully hooked her up with a mortal king."
 
Last edited:
If looking at LOTR alone, one might wonder whether Galadriel is 'matchmaking'? Is she 'matchmaking'? It is not clear. She gives Aragorn some new clothes when he arrives in Lothlorien, which it seems helps him attract the attention of Arwen. But he arrived from long journeys with 'wayworn raiment' and needed new clothes. So there is no real evidence that Galadriel was match-making before Aragorn and Arwen plighted their troth. I guess we could say that she did nothing to disrupt their budding romance, but we don't see her doing anything to promote it either.

However, if we were to consider her at least favorable to the match, some possible speculations as to why might be:

1. Galadriel is devoted to Middle-earth. Does she think it a mistake for the Valar and Elves to have abandoned it? Does she have a pre-sentiment that she might have to leave it? Does she think that another marriage between Elves and Men might be a good thing for the future of Middle-earth?

2. At the end of TLOTR we note that Galadriel is on the ship, but Celeborn is not. We might then speculate that Galadriel married for political position, but regretted it, and favored Aragorn and Arwen because she believed that Arwen chose him for love?

I am sure other speculations could be made as well.

No need to delve into The Legendarium to come up with reasons for Galadriel to look favorably on the match. Though, no real reason to speculate at all, as in TLOTR, there is no evidence that Galadriel is 'match-making'?
 
If looking at LOTR alone, one might wonder whether Galadriel is 'matchmaking'? Is she 'matchmaking'? It is not clear. She gives Aragorn some new clothes when he arrives in Lothlorien, which it seems helps him attract the attention of Arwen. But he arrived from long journeys with 'wayworn raiment' and needed new clothes. So there is no real evidence that Galadriel was match-making before Aragorn and Arwen plighted their troth. I guess we could say that she did nothing to disrupt their budding romance, but we don't see her doing anything to promote it either.

No need to delve into The Legendarium to come up with reasons for Galadriel to look favorably on the match. Though, no real reason to speculate at all, as in TLOTR, there is no evidence that Galadriel is 'match-making'?

1. She does not simple give him new clothes, she clothes him like an elven prince of Valinor and then shows him off to her granddaughter.
That IS matchmaking.

2. She gives Aragorn the family jewel on behalf of Arwen before he is king - so even before he has met the condition set by Elrond.

3. Celeborn being Sindar is not yet "ready" to leave. Galadriel is tired, and she has some explaining to do towards Celebrian. Celeborn looks after the two boys still left. Celeborn's moving from Lorian to Rivendell after witnessing the fading of Lothlorien is actually a step in his getting ready to leave.

Why? She knew Luthien personally and seems to consider her marriage to Beren a success - even if there was a price to pay for it -and she saw her very own brother got himself self-confined in Mandos for the rest of his time in Arda for an "unlived" love - in the end for just a wasted oportunity which resulted in nothing.

She doesn't know Aragorn much at that point yet - so this cannot be out of her high regard for Aragorn's character.
Her behaviour needs the background of the Legendarium to be understood. It is no possible to understand it out of TLOTR alone.
 
Last edited:
Did JRRT ever submit 'The Silmarillion' for publication? I think he submitted portions or excerpts (do we even know exactly what he might have submitted? And how much it might have resembled what Christopher eventually published?)

His publishers would have been well aware (from their previous experiences with JRRT) that anything they received from him in draft would have been heavily revised before he agreed to publication.

We know that JRRT submitted a version called 'Quenta Silmarillion' to his publishers in 1937. It was rejected. It was almost certainly very different from 'The Silmarillion' published by Christopher, since he used mostly post-LOTR versions of the Legendarium tales. Does anyone know exactly what was submitted to the publishers in 1937?

When JRRT tried to get TLOTR and 'The Silmarillion' published simultaneously, in the 1950s, I am not sure what if anything of Silmarillion material he submitted to the publishers. Does anyone know?

Even though he tried to play off two publishers against one another in the 1950s, to get one of them to agree to publish 'The Silmarillion' neither would agree to do so.

These are good questions.

The Tolkien Society hosts a 'map' that attempts to demonstrate which versions of the Silmarillion (in composition and chronology) we have published, here: https://www.tolkiensociety.org/blog/2017/01/the-later-quenta-silmarillion-a-readers-map/

I have always read this, from the intro to Letter 131, as implying he had sent something like a draft to the two publishers. But I do have to admit that it's not explicit on that point.

After Allen & Unwin, under pressure from Tolkien to make up their minds, had reluctandy declined to publish The Lord of the Rings together with The Silmarillion, Tolkien was confident that Milton Waldman of Collins would shortly issue both books under his firm's imprint. In the spring of 1950, Waldman told Tolkien that he hoped to begin typesetting the following autumn. But there were delays, largely caused by Waldman's frequent absences in Italy and his ill-health. By the latter pan of 1951 no definite arrangements for publication had yet been made, and Collins were becoming anxious about the combined length of both books.
 
These are good questions.

The Tolkien Society hosts a 'map' that attempts to demonstrate which versions of the Silmarillion (in composition and chronology) we have published, here: https://www.tolkiensociety.org/blog/2017/01/the-later-quenta-silmarillion-a-readers-map/

I have always read this, from the intro to Letter 131, as implying he had sent something like a draft to the two publishers. But I do have to admit that it's not explicit on that point.

After Allen & Unwin, under pressure from Tolkien to make up their minds, had reluctandy declined to publish The Lord of the Rings together with The Silmarillion, Tolkien was confident that Milton Waldman of Collins would shortly issue both books under his firm's imprint. In the spring of 1950, Waldman told Tolkien that he hoped to begin typesetting the following autumn. But there were delays, largely caused by Waldman's frequent absences in Italy and his ill-health. By the latter pan of 1951 no definite arrangements for publication had yet been made, and Collins were becoming anxious about the combined length of both books.

Hi Beech27,

I must admit, that I find it baffling and frustrating that despite all the scholarship that has gone into JRRT and the history of his writings we do not know what (if anything) of Silmarillion material he submitted to publishers on the two occasions when he sought publication.

I would have thought that Christopher Tolkien should have known, or been able to find out during his researches? But, as far as I know, he never revealed it. Why?
 
Back
Top