End of Return of the King
 

Hey all, just registered here today. I just finished reading the whole LOTR trilogy, and the ending depressed me. I actually read these books several years ago, when I was about 13, but I wasn't fully able to grasp many of the concepts. However, reading them now, and understanding the wonderful world that Tolkien had created, I have come to appreciate the books very much.

That leads me back to my first point, I found it very heart wrenching when Frodo, Gandalf and the others depart from the Grey Havens. After reading the appendix, I also found a timeline which shows that Samwise also departs to the undying lands. There was a air of finality in that last entry that left me with a heavy heart. Now I've read many books, but none of them had the effect that the ending of this trilogy had. I thought it a bit weird to feel that way, but has anyone else here had that sort of feeling after finishing the book?

Hi stryfe, welcome to the Downs!

Yes, I also had a similar feeling, and I'm sure many other Downers did as well. But compared to some of Tolkien's 1st Age stories that have a sense of finality that leaves nothing, emptiness, after them (I am talking about The Children of Hurin in particular, but The Silmarillion is full of these as well), LOTR has a gentler, bittersweet sense. All the characters have their end. Frodo and Sam left, unable to enjoy the peace in Middle Earth. But we know that they will be happy in Valinor - as happy as they could be. It's a logically happy, but emotionally sad ending. This doesn't make it less touching than the others, though. Just different.

In my opinion sad endings are better than happy ones, in general. There are many who disagree with me, but... happy endings don't have that effect. They don't leave something empty in you. Sad endings leave you more to think on.

LOTR has a nice, gentle, sad ending. COH has a bang-all's-lost sad ending. The Silmarillion has a slow/gradual defeat sad ending. The Hobbit has a now-I'm wiser-and-grown-up sad ending. That's one reason they're all so different but so touching at the same time.

I agree, the ending of ROTK is sad, but sad in a bittersweet way. Frodo, Sam, and some of the others had to leave because the world had changed so much that they could not longer find peace. But that is a better ending than COH and most of the Silmarillion where the ending is everyone dies a terrible death.

I think that JRRT was speaking to us in the last chapter of Return of the King when he has Gandalf say "Well, here at last, dear friends, on the shores of the Sea comes the end of our fellowship in Middle-Earth. Go in peace! I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil."

Not sure if what follows speaks exactly to what you're talking about, stryfe but it's what came up in my mind as a result of what you're saying...

Despite the deeply sad nature of this bittersweet quality, this finality is one of my favourite things about The Lord of the Rings: there is no open-ended hook for a sequel. Tolkien even attempted one, "The New Shadow" published in HoME XII, but although it is a fascinating read for a Middle-earth fan, he felt that it was somewhat pointless to explore bad guys and challenges that must pale against the enormity of Sauron and the Ring. One might say that, for Tolkien, there was simply no way to effectively "serialize" The Lord of the Rings--no way to make it the start of a series, that is: it is a self-contained story and when it's over it has ended.

The really fascinating thing about this, though, is the realisation within the book that it is only one story in the march of history. Examples of this include Gandalf and Bilbo's conversation at the end of The Hobbit about Bilbo's smallness in a much wider perspective, Gandalf's comment that the need to defeat Sauron is only one of an endless battle against waves of evil, and Sam's realisation that the light in the Vial of Galadriel ties them right into the story of Beren and Lúthien.

Perhaps that is it, though... while Middle-earth is more than wide enough to tell many, many stories, Tolkien was doing just that: telling many stories, not a single story over a series. When The Lord of the Rings ends, there is no going back for the "Further Adventures of Frodo" or "Sauron Strikes Back" or anything of that nature.

One of the points which intrigued Tolkien about literature was stories that are liminal, or on a cusp, of change between epochs. This was one reason why Beowulf interested him so much. His comments on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight suggest as much as well, although it is a shame he never elaborated on his brief comments there.

So, it's just my personal opinion of course, but it strikes me that one of Tolkien's strongest interests in writing LotR was to consider this change of ages, from the Third Age to the Fourth, from the end of the elves' dominion to that of man. Moving right into the Fourth Age, with a clear sense of the passage of the old ways, would give him less scope for exploring such historic changes.

So the poignancy of the end of LotR belongs not only to the simple passing of the characters West but also to the end of an era or age, once that cannot be returned to.

Yes, I also had a similar feeling.I read TROTK more slowly, because I wanted to stay longer than what the novel would allow. The four hobbits of the Fellowship become harden warriors, a trait that was virtually absent from their kind. Even though the novel finally came to a complete finish, it felt like it left room for more. It's to bad that there is no direct sequel, and while it answers most of the questions left from the end of The Hobbit, the reader can come up with plenty more questions upon finishing LOTR. Professor Tolkien did a work that was unexpected in its depth. He invented several REAL languages and writing systems, a complete history to back the novel, and created a wonderful world filled with diverse races and environments. Some fantasy authors may have tried to reach Tolkien's level in fantasy literature, but I am certain the The Lord of the Rings will never be duplicated. The Return of the King stands as the incredible conclusion of the greatest epic ever written. My only regret was that it ended. http://www.frou.info/g.php

Yeah, sure...

Welcome to the Downs, stryfe!

I did initially feel the same way you did, but then I found that The Lord of the Rings never really ends. No, I don't mean metaphorically. If you dive into The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and other works by Tolkien, you'll see that there's such a huge world that there's no way you can think it to end after Frodo leaves. At least, that was my experience.

I suggest you read more of Tolkien's works, and you'll probably find yourself compensated for the bittersweet ending in LotR :)

I didn't find it sad at all :confused:

No, well, there's the happy side to it - everyone has peace, everyone prospers, etc. But don't you feel there's a bit of child in you dying when Bilbo says his poem, and Gandalf comments that "he is not the hobbit that he was" (or something to that effect). It's sad to see Bilbo comprehend, collect, and put into words all the wisdom he acquired on his journey, even though on it's own it's a good thing.

TBH, no. I found it quite...inspiring. Am I a sadist? :eek:

Personal growth need not be a "death".

Bilbo was always odd for a hobbit, and his experiences just enhanced his "oddity" and gave him a greater perspective beyond the rustic insularity of life in the Shire. Fundamentally, he was still the same in spirit.

When did I say that Bilbo dies?

Whatever. I guess it is an oddity of mine to make everything have a sad ending.

You didn't, but that bit about a part of you dying caught my eye.

A question to ponder about: why do the two of us always get into a nitpicky argument? :rolleyes::D

So we're the Downs equivalent of Gimli and Legolas? ;)

I call dibs on Lego-Lass! :D



So yeah. In every Tolkien story I find something sad in the ending. Even if I have to search for a while. :cool: