On re-reading Tolkien (was: Favorite LOTR quote (Was Re: multiple copies)

[Rosmerta]

Jamieson and Amanda's dueling Tolkien quotes are prescient since I 
have been thinking about Tolkien a lot this weekend: 

Having read all four HPs to my 7-yr-old, we are now reading him The 
Hobbit, which spurred me on to dig out my Fellowship of the Ring et. 
al., which I haven't read since I was a teenager (and absolutely, 
positively adored and devoured). 

I'm not more than halfway through either book, but two quick 
impressions this second time around:

1) The LOTR is amazingly grim from the absolute outset, and it never 
lets up for a moment. From a frivolous-human-nature point of view, 
it's a wonder he got anyone to slog through the whole thing. And it 
sure makes you miss JKR's Uranus jokes and such. Even the light 
moments are filled with nearly unbearable forebearing. Did anyone 
else read the (very well done) essay in the Times' Book Review (4/21) 
on what Tolkien would think about the movie coming out? The writer (I 
think it was Judith Shulevitz?) had a comment at the end about how 
portentous the trilogy was. My first instinct was to leap to his 
defense, but actually re-reading the book, and comparing it to the 
Fred-and-George moments we've all come to know and love, I have to 
agree at least in part. 


2) On the other hand, in the Bad Guy department, even just the 
faintest whiff of Sauron is still enough to make Voldie look like a 
teenaged-wanna-be. Somebody who wrote a review when Goblet of Fire 
first came out (maybe Charles Baxter on Salon? or that weird Stephen 
King review in the BR?) gave an overall positive review but 
complained that Voldemort wasn't scary enough for the evil influence. 
I don't think anyone who's read the end of GoF can say Voldie isn't 
frightening, but I do have to say, nobody beats Tolkien when it comes 
to utterly terrifying, world-destroying evil. 

~Rosmerta, who's thinking it's instructive but dangerous to re-read 
much-beloved books as a different person.