Why Tolkien’s Works Should Be Read, Not Watched

J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth has enchanted readers for decades, but its adaptation into movies and TV series has sparked controversy among fans and scholars. While some appreciate these adaptations for their visual representation of Tolkien’s characters and settings, others argue that they fail to capture the essence of the original texts. This article explores why Tolkien’s works should be read directly from their literary sources, rather than relying on movie or TV adaptations, and how the depth and nuance of his world are often lost in translation, especially in light of the influence of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Hobbit films, and Amazon's Rings of Power—

1. The Inherent Limitations of Film and TV as Mediums

The primary challenge in adapting Tolkien’s works lies in the fundamental limitations of film and TV as storytelling mediums. Tolkien’s texts are richly detailed, with a strong emphasis on linguistic craftsmanship, intricate world-building, and an interplay of mythological and literary traditions—elements that are difficult to translate into a visual format. While films can vividly depict landscapes and action scenes, they often fall short in capturing the subtleties of Tolkien’s language, lore, and the inner reflections of his characters.

Literary Depth vs. Visual Spectacle:
Tolkien’s descriptions of landscapes, characters, and events are crafted to evoke specific emotional and philosophical responses. For example, his depiction of the Shire is more than just a picturesque setting; it represents an ideal of simplicity and nostalgia. These nuances, conveyed through Tolkien’s words, cannot be fully captured by cinematography alone. As a result, adaptations often reduce the narrative to external events, missing the internal experiences that the author intended.

Peter Jackson’s adaptations, while widely celebrated, illustrate this trade-off. The films brought Middle-earth to life in a way that captivated millions, but their focus on visual spectacle often overshadowed the quieter, more reflective moments that are central to the books. For instance, the battle scenes, particularly in The Hobbit trilogy, were expanded far beyond what Tolkien wrote, shifting the narrative focus from character development and thematic exploration to action-heavy sequences designed for cinematic appeal. The result was a Middle-earth that felt more like a high-fantasy action-adventure than the deeply textured and mythic world Tolkien envisioned.

In Amazon’s Rings of Power, the portrayal of Númenor exemplifies this issue. The series presents Númenor as a grand spectacle, but it lacks the deep historical and cultural significance that Tolkien infused in his descriptions. Rather than being portrayed as a complex society with a tragic destiny, Númenor is reduced to a backdrop for political intrigue, diluting the depth of the original narrative. The inclusion of modern political analogies, such as Númenoreans complaining that “them Elves are takin' our jobs!”, feels jarring and reductive when compared to Tolkien’s nuanced exploration of Númenor's spiritual and moral decline.

The Loss of Tolkien’s Language:
Another key limitation is the inability of film and TV to capture the beauty and precision of Tolkien’s language. Tolkien was a philologist—a scholar of languages—and his love of words is evident throughout his writings. The cadence of his prose, the careful choice of names, and the layers of meaning embedded in his dialogue all contribute to the richness of his world. These elements are often sacrificed in adaptations, which prioritize pacing and accessibility over linguistic artistry. For example, the poetic dialogue of characters like Aragorn and Galadriel in the books is often simplified or omitted, losing the mythic tone that Tolkien carefully crafted.

2. Loss of Authorial Intent and Philosophical Underpinnings

Tolkien’s works are imbued with philosophical, theological, and philological insights, making his narratives multi-layered and nuanced. His stories are not just adventures; they explore themes like power, mortality, and redemption. The dialogue, particularly in The Lord of the Rings, is designed to echo mythic and historical speech patterns, giving it gravitas and depth. Film adaptations, constrained by time and a need for broad appeal, often simplify or omit these intricacies, resulting in a loss of the original meaning and intent.

Example: Tom Bombadil and the Limits of Power
The omission of Tom Bombadil in Peter Jackson’s films is more than just a matter of pacing. Tom’s presence in The Fellowship of the Ring illustrates themes of detachment, humility, and the limits of power—concepts central to Tolkien’s work. Bombadil represents a being who is completely unaffected by the Ring, showing that power, even as absolute as Sauron’s, is not all-encompassing. Leaving him out reflects a disconnect between the thematic richness of the books and the requirements of visual storytelling.

Reimagining Characters: Galadriel and Faramir
Similarly, in Rings of Power, Galadriel is reimagined as a vengeful warrior driven by personal loss, which diverges from Tolkien’s portrayal of her as a wise, ethereal figure with moral complexity. This reinterpretation not only alters her character but also undermines the themes of wisdom and restraint that are integral to her role in the books.

In Peter Jackson’s films, Faramir is another example of a character whose complexity is diminished. In the books, Faramir resists the temptation of the Ring without hesitation, embodying the idea that power can be rejected through wisdom and self-awareness. However, in the films, he initially seeks to take the Ring to Gondor, creating unnecessary tension and undermining his moral integrity. While this change may have added drama, it also shifted the narrative focus away from Tolkien’s exploration of human resilience and wisdom.

3. Oversimplification of Characters and Moral Ambiguity

Tolkien’s characters are complex, with internal struggles, moral ambiguity, and subtle transformations. However, adaptations often portray them as one-dimensional to fit conventional film tropes of heroism and villainy.

For example, Halbrand in Rings of Power is introduced as a morally ambiguous figure with a mysterious past, but his character arc feels rushed and lacks the depth seen in Tolkien’s writings. Moreover, Halbrand’s storyline deviates significantly from the lore surrounding Annatar, Sauron’s disguised form in the Second Age. Tolkien’s texts emphasize Sauron’s subtlety, manipulation, and ability to deceive even the wise Elves of Eregion. By contrast, Rings of Power opts for a more straightforward narrative, reducing the complexity of Sauron’s character and his interactions with the Elves.

The films also simplify the moral struggles of Frodo and Gollum, often turning their internal conflicts into externalized action. While Tolkien’s Frodo is a deeply introspective character whose battle with the Ring is as much spiritual as it is physical, the films tend to depict his struggle in more visual and dramatic terms, losing some of the nuance that makes his journey so compelling in the books.

4. The Shift in Cultural and Fandom Discourse

Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy fundamentally reshaped how Tolkien’s works are discussed. Before the films, discussions were largely confined to academic and niche fan communities, focusing on themes, symbolism, and language. The films introduced a shared visual framework for Middle-earth, creating a dominant interpretation that has since influenced how fans and scholars approach Tolkien’s works.

The "Jackson Effect":
The films popularized Tolkien’s world, making it accessible to millions who might never have picked up his books. While this accessibility is perhaps positive, it has also led to a shift in how Tolkien is understood. For many, the films are their first and primary exposure to Middle-earth, meaning that Jackson’s interpretations often take precedence over Tolkien’s text. This has sparked debates among fans about fidelity to the source material and the merits of the films versus the books.

Representation and Inclusivity:
The films also brought discussions about representation in Tolkien’s world to the forefront. While Tolkien’s works are rooted in European mythology and reflect the cultural context of his time, modern adaptations have introduced debates over greater diversity and inclusivity. These modern interpretations sometimes clash with Tolkien’s original vision, highlighting the tension between contemporary priorities and fidelity to the author’s intent.

5. The Value of Direct Literary Engagement

Reading Tolkien’s works directly offers a more rewarding and authentic experience than consuming adaptations. The slow, deliberate process of reading mirrors the journey through Middle-earth itself—a journey filled with moments of reflection, discovery, and gradual understanding. Tolkien’s language, with its intricate rhythm and style, requires the reader to savor each passage, drawing them deeper into the world and its meanings.

When readers engage with the text, they are free to imagine Middle-earth in their own way, guided by Tolkien’s poetic and suggestive prose. This personal engagement fosters a connection to the material that is unique to each individual, allowing the world of Middle-earth to become a living, breathing creation that grows with the reader over time.

6. Respecting Tolkien’s Legacy and Vision

To truly honor Tolkien’s legacy, it is essential to approach his works on their own terms—through the written word, where his language, themes, and characters can be experienced as intended. While films and TV series offer fleeting glimpses of Middle-earth, they are ultimately limited interpretations that can never capture the full scope and depth of Tolkien’s genius.

Tolkien himself expressed reservations about adaptation, noting in his letters that his works were meant to be read, not visualized. He understood that the power of his stories lay in their ability to inspire the imagination of each reader, creating a deeply personal and intimate experience that cannot be replicated on screen.

Conclusion: A Call to Return to the Source

Tolkien’s works deserve to be read, pondered, and cherished in their original form. While Peter Jackson’s films and Amazon’s Rings of Power have expanded the reach of Middle-earth, they should not be seen as replacements for the texts themselves. Adaptations may offer an entertaining introduction to the world of Tolkien, but they lack the depth, nuance, and sense of timeless wonder that only the books can provide.

The act of reading allows for a richer engagement with Tolkien’s world, one that is not filtered through the lens of a director, screenwriter, or production team. It offers the opportunity to experience Middle-earth as Tolkien intended, with all its linguistic beauty, philosophical depth, and mythological resonance intact. Readers can connect with the broader themes of mortality, hope, and the burden of power in ways that are deeply personal and often transformative.

For those who have only encountered Tolkien through the screen, reading his works can feel like visiting Middle-earth for the first time. The landscapes become more vivid, the characters more complex, and the themes more resonant when experienced through Tolkien’s prose. It is through reading and re-reading his books that the true magic of Middle-earth is revealed—a magic that no screen, however grand, can replicate.

Adaptations have their place, and they serve as a gateway for new fans. However, to fully appreciate Tolkien’s genius and the enduring power of his stories, there is no substitute for engaging directly with his writing. As Tolkien himself famously said: “The tale grew in the telling.” And it is in the telling, through his own words, that Middle-earth becomes timeless.

Final Word: A Legacy Worth Preserving

The conversation surrounding Tolkien’s works has evolved significantly since Peter Jackson’s adaptations brought Middle-earth into the mainstream. While these films and subsequent projects like Rings of Power have broadened the audience for Tolkien’s stories, they have also introduced new challenges, particularly when it comes to preserving the integrity and depth of the original texts.

Ultimately, Tolkien's legacy is one of imagination, language, and storytelling—a legacy that thrives most vibrantly on the page. In a world increasingly dominated by visual media, returning to the source material is an act of preservation and reverence. It is a way to honor Tolkien’s vision and to ensure that the magic of Middle-earth endures for generations to come.

References:

Tolkien, J. R. R. (1977). The Silmarillion. "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1980). Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth. "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn" Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Tolkien Inspiration. (2012, July 13). Christopher Tolkien’s interview to Le Monde: "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25". Tolkien Inspiration. [link]
Reddit user. (2022, October 16). I'm sad that Tolkien was ever adapted. Reddit. [link]
Wolfe, G. (2001, December). The best introduction to the mountains. The Night Land. Retrieved October 4, 2024, from [link]