This has been a perennial personal favorite of mine since I first read it in the 1970s. I don't know how many times I've read it since then, but a conservative guess would be at least a dozen times. I just finished reading it again last weekend - it was once again, outstanding!

So, what should you know if you are pondering your first foray into Tolkien's tale of Middle Earth? Lets see...

1) "The Fellowship of the Ring" done not include a complete stand-alone tale. It is, rather, the first book of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy which also includes the volumes "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King". So, when you get to the end of this volume you are left hanging there...you MUST get the other two books to complete the tale. (That's what happened to me when I read this book the first time [as an assignment for a college English class I was taking])
2) This is a classic tale of good versus evil, but, as you can read in the forward, Tolkien states that it is not meant to be an allegory; it is just a tale that he wanted to tell.
3) Be prepared to have your traditional views of what an elf, wizard, etc., are to be challenged.
4) This book can be enjoyed by readers of many ages. I read it first when I was in college, and, later, when I had children of my own I read this trilogy to them while they were in elementary school (one was even a pre-schooler - that was years before the movies of the same names were released).
5) There is no objectionable language in the books, though many parts convey a dark image of a world under the sway or impending threat of evil.
6) You do not have to read Tolkien's "The Hobbit" before reading this book. And I found this trilogy to be far superior to "The Hobbit" when I did read it.

At first I wondered at the Amazon-indicated reading level of 9-12 yrs for this book. I would not have guessed that when I first read it, but now that I have children of my own that have consumed the entire "Harry Potter" series as well as many other long novels, I can see how a 9-12 yr range could work for these books as well...depending on the child. Be aware though, that there are many places in the book where Tolkien's characters launch into sometimes extensive recitation of verse as part of the story. That can put off some younger readers (I sometimes skip over those parts myself...though that may offend some Tolkien purists out there)

If you have children that like books like "Harry Potter", "Eragon", etc., and they are looking for a new adventure, you might suggest this one to them. I have read the "Harry Potter" books, and if I were to compare them to Tolkien's works I have to say that Tolkien's story conveys a richer image of a world to me than do the books of JK Rowling (though I also enjoyed them).

All in all, this book launches a top-flight story and represents what I consider to be the prototypical modern fantasy story - "The Lord of the Rings."

Definitely 5 stars (only because I can't award more)

"The Lord of the Rings" is the sequel to J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy classic, The Hobbit. The Fellowship of the Ring is the first book of three (followed by The Two Towers: Being the Second Part of The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King: Being the Third Part of The Lord of the Rings), but it is actually one epic tale.

More adult oriented concepts are included than in The Hobbit, and there are refferences to the pre-history Tolkien was developing and published in various "Middle Earth" books, making this a more challenging read (I always have trouble getting through the first part of The Two Towers).

The story picks up some years after Bilbo Baggins returns from the adventure told in The Hobbit. Now older, Bilbo is ready to leave his beloved home in the Shire, passing most of his possessions (including the Magic Ring he aquired in The Hobbit) to his nephew Frodo. Gandolf, the wizzard, has doubts about the Ring that are soon proven correct and a great quest is set before the young Hobbit and his group of friends.

This is an epic tale, with many story lines running concurrently. This has it all, Monsters, Wizards, Battles, Treason, Love, Self Sacrifice and much more!

Highly recommended!

I'm one of those people who saw the LOTR films before reading the novels. And now, I've just finished reading "Fellowship of the Ring" last night, and I must say that I didn't really enjoy it as much as other people did. I mean no offense: I still think that LOTR is classic literature that should never be forgotten, but here's the thing . . .

After I saw "Fellowship of the Ring" on DVD (both the theatrical and the extended; I now own the Extended Edition), I went on to read different fantasy novels. I've read Robert Jordan's first ten books of "The Wheel of Time" series, Robin Hobb's "The Farseer Trilogy," Diana Pharaoh Francis's "Path" trilogy, Scott Lynch's "The Lies of Locke Lamora" (I'll be reading his sequel soon), and so on. Through the years, I've noticed a fomulaic structure that are prevalent in some of these books: average guy/girl in small village goes on a quest, average guy is world's only hope, etc. Terry Brooks's first "Shannara" trilogy falls into that category very well. But anyway, while I still enjoyed these novels, I couldn't help but be a bit irritated that they included the same basic structure that's typical in the fantasy genre. And now that I've read "Fellowship," I couldn't help but think of all the fantasy cliches in many other books. But I know that Tolkien's works were somewhat original back in the day, and that the cliches were formed to perfection throughout the later years.

But that's not all. I found "Fellowship" to be a bit more light-hearted than the actual film, which is fine with me, but light-heartedness isn't for everybody. I grew up watching TV shows like "Millennium," "Deadwood," "24," and "House". And you already know that there are lots and lots of adult situations in them. Well, I prefer these hard-hitting adult shows over those crappy half-naive half-melodramatic teenage shows like "One Tree Hill" or something like that. And you know what, I think all these adult shows have affected my reading of "Fellowship". I feel "Fellowship" wasn't intense enough to sustain my interest, but I guess it's just me.

Now, I'll start with the CONS for this novel. "Fellowship" gets things going in the second half, but the first half is very slow and tedious. "A Long-Expected Party" and "The Shadow of the Past" were interesting enough (it's the history of the Ring that makes it all worthwhile), but then as I got to "Three is Company" it became a bit tedious. "A Shortcut to Mushrooms" and "A Conspiracy Unmasked" is when it started to slow down even more. Then, as I got to "In the House of Tom Bombadil", I couldn't help but be constantly irritated at its melodramatic overtones. Bombadil's a bit too much on the bright side. But then, the pace quickened up when I got to "At The Sign of the Prancing Pony" and "Strider". And some of the most intense sequences in LOTR are found in "A Knife in the Dark" and "Flight to the Ford"; this is when it becomes interesting again. As for the second half, "The Council of Elrond" was just downright hard to read through. Gandalf, Elrond, Men, Elves, and Dwarves just talking and talking and talking and talking. Though, lots of information on Saruman and the Ring are found here, it was just a very big hassle.

But I have to say that the PROS are much better here. The concept of a hobbit going on this quest is highly unlikely, and that's why this book's so compelling. Tolkien broke the mold back in the 50's when he created Bilbo (for "the Hobbit") and Frodo Baggins. And having eight companions to follow the hobbit to Mount Doom makes it all the more exciting. Even though I don't find Hobbits very fascinating anymore, the thought of having one of them go on a journey to Mordor is still outstanding. And let's not forget the writing itself. Tolkien's imaginative narration soars above every page that's written here. It's all so rich in detail and amazing in imagery (Alan Lee's artwork really helps, too). And let's not forget the races. I know that orcs, elves, wizards, and dwarves are a cliche nowadays, but here Tolkien gives them something more. There's history, culture, social issues, and politics. Finally, the sequences in Moria and Lothlorien are brilliant in almost every way.

I would have to say that television shows and other contemporary fantasy novels have affected my reading of "Fellowship". The epic content I admire, but the formulaic structure I should try to tolerate. And I think it's not just fantasy novels and TV shows: there's contemporary books like "Mystic River" and "The Ha-Ha" and "House of Sand and Fog".

But anyway, I did enjoy the first part of LOTR, but not that much, sorry to say. I'm glad, however, that other people have enjoyed it much more. And I admire Tolkien for his creation of a beautiful imaginary world. Now on to "The Two Towers" . . .

Grade: B

J.R.R. Tolkien was the master of fantasy, and that's not just because he was the first to write a very popular modern epic.

What makes Tolkien superior was how he used his extensive knowledge of mythology and linguistics to create his own complex world. He was a professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford, a fellow of Pembroke College, and a fellow of Merton College where he studied and taught the linguistics of early English. Over many years he created his own elvish language with a complex syntax and grammar, and a complete history and mythology of Middle Earth (see the twelve volumes of The Histories of Middle-Earth below.) This gives his works so much complexity and texture that when you read them, you feel like you've dropped into the middle of a real civilization.

Besides the amazing world-building, Tolkien builds excellent characters and uses them to explore such heavy human themes as friendship, love, greed, power, redemption, gender-roles, self-sacrifice, and death. This is not a light epic for a Sunday afternoon. This is intense, bone-chilling, goose-bump raising stuff. You can feel the weight of the world on the shoulders of Frodo and his companions. And, though there's a happy ending, it comes with much suffering and loss.

And all the while, Tolkien's writing is beautiful and poignant. In my opinion, the only writers I've read who even begin to compare are Ursula LeGuin, Susanna Clarke, and perhaps Lois McMaster Bujold.
~FantasyLiterature.net

It would have helped if I read the Hobbit first.

This book had a depth, I had never read before. The complexity of Middle Earth was astounding to the 11 year old boy who first read this book. This was a book that couldn't be put down and mostly read under the blankets late at night with flashlight.

I have reread the book 10 times throughout my life. I lived in Israel for a year and when times were tough or I was lonely for home. I went to the school library and would start reading the familiar pages of this book.

I look forward to my kids discovering the book and Tolkein's world on their own.