Book III in LotR is the weakest of the six

[kzer_za]

IMO of course. I've thought this since my last re-read a couple of years ago, and having just finished book V (which is masterful) in my current read my opinion hasn't changed. Unless I end up liking VI a lot less this time, which I really doubt. This might be controversial (I think the usual opinion is either book I or "none of them"), but I thought I'd put it out here for discussion.

Large parts of Book III, particularly the Rohan chapters, kind of leave me cold. I think the problem is that with several chapters containing no Hobbits, it shifts into complete heroic mode, and I just have a hard time connecting with it. I feel like the book suffers a bit from the Hobbits being absent so much. The Silmarillion lacks Hobbits too of course, but the Rohan chapters don't have the mythic wonder of the Sil (or of some other parts of LotR such as the Pelennor). King of the Golden Hall does very little for me, for example, and I don't particularly care for Théoden until he meets Merry.

A couple of smaller things that bug me:
- While some of the tensions between different orc groups are interesting, a lot the Uruk-hai dialog is really bad. PJ's version is worse, but it's not really by that much.
- No matter how many times I read it, I always find Helms Deep confusing and hard to follow. Tolkien really should have included a map.

With that said, there are obviously many parts that are excellent, such as Treebeard and the entire chapter of Voice of Saruman. And smaller things like Gimli geeking out over the Helms Deep caves. And even the weaker parts of Tolkien are still pretty good.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't think this is an uncommon opinion. And I never noticed that it was a common opinion to call Book I the weakest. IMO, it may be the strongest.

[kzer_za]

I don't think this is an uncommon opinion. And I never noticed that it was a common opinion to call Book I the weakest. IMO, it may be the strongest.

Really? I guess I've just seen people complain about the slow start a lot.

[Morwenna]

For me the only problem with Book III is that so much of it is given over to warfare which I don't really understand and don't want to either. But there's a lot of development there, of both plot and character. And a lot of interesting things, like the Ents. And where the hobbits appear, the chapters shine! The whole hobbits'-eye view of the trek across Rohan, the meeting with the Ents, the greeting of the victors of the battle at the gate of Isengard, Pippin's stealing of the palantír... Great stuff! And of course the death of Boromir I found to be very moving. Even in the absence of the hobbits, the Three Hunters came across as being very down-to-earth in their interaction and in the alternation of their chase with the hobbits' point of view.

[Morwenna]

Duplicate--oops...

[Passdagas the Brown]

Ah, right. I suppose it may be a common opinion among people who generally dislike the books, but among lovers of Tolkien, I have rarely heard complaints about a "slow start" (apart from Tom Bombadil, who Tolkien fans seem to either love or hate).

Book III does sometimes feel "staler" than the rest of the books, I agree. In that context, it may be the least enjoyable for me (though that just means I absolutely love it - just slightly less than the rest). Though I do find the Rohirrim very evocative, and enjoy the clash of the hobbits (essentially modern Anglo-Saxons) with the Rohirrim (essentially ancient Anglo-Saxons plus horses). It's like we are visiting the heroic past of the hobbits.

[Smaug's voice]

Ah, right. I suppose it may be a common opinion among people who generally dislike the books, but among lovers of Tolkien, I have rarely heard complaints about a "slow start" (apart from Tom Bombadil, who Tolkien fans seem to either love or hate).

I actually thought Book I was the weakest on my first read. yes it was slow, but more importantly about half of the chapters did not have a direct connection with the central plot.
But on subsequent reads I have grown to love it and currently, it is probably in the top 3. (alongwith Book II and Book V). I do not think though, that only those who dislike the books are the ones to dismiss Book I. Also, I am not sure but probably those who disliked The Hobbit would not like it much either. Since Book I feels exactly like the Hobbit sequel Tolkien planned to write and treads much closer in tone and structure to TH.

Anyway, on the topic.
I would agree that parts of Book III felt relatively dry compared to the others. But I find, to my surprise, that the chapters I do not enojoy that much are liked by most of you here. For instance, I did not really get into the Ent-subplot except for the introduction of Treebeard. Like Kzer_ca, I too find Helms Deep confusing to follow - and it is probably one of my least liked chapters from all the books. That said, I love the "King of the Golden Hall" as well as all the chapters involving Rohan and the Rohirrim. Théoden is one of my favorite human-characters.
Frankly, imo after Aragorn - the Rohirrim are the heart and soul of the men-subplot throughout the books. Their growth from a dispirited leaderless kingdom to being the saviours of the last "super-power" is a remarkable tale for me.

I do feel parts of Book III felt relatively dry but I also feel the same for the initial chapters of Book IV. After Gollum's introduction, I always feel a little less attached to the story till Faramir and the Gondorians come in. Probably my most disliked part from the books is Sam singing the song about Oliphaunts in front of Morannon! I am sorry to say, but I find it absurd and a bit illogical in the given context.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am very firmly in the camp of "none of them." While I certainly wouldn't say that LOTR is "perfect" it is "perfect for me." Each part of it is right for that part; I wouldn't change a thing.

[yovargas]

I am very firmly in the camp of "none of them." While I certainly wouldn't say that LOTR is "perfect" it is "perfect for me." Each part of it is right for that part; I wouldn't change a thing.

Surely there must be one page in the book that you find slightly less riveting than the other pages?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Maybe, though it probably would have more to do with my mood at that particular time than anything else. And likely would vary from reading to reading.

But I certainly would not rank Book III any lower than any of the other Books. Or any higher.

[Jude]

Being the weakest in a congregation of awesomeness is no shame.

[Frelga]

Well I absolutely love anything to do with Rohan. (Not "rehab", dear phone, thank you so very much) So there's my opinion canceling yours, kzer_za, in a tiny burst of gamma radiation.

[kzer_za]

Well, as the professor put it:

It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points, for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some blemish all by others specially approved.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Quite.