What age group is the Lord of the Rings intended for?

Question

I'm 16 years old and I was just wondering what age group are the three books, Lord of the Rings intended for. For whome did Mr Tolkien write them. Were they for children, young adults or were they just written for grown ups/adults.

Thanks,

Hoffie

Answer 1

Tolkien originally meant for them to be a sequel to 'The Hobbit' and therefore a children's story. However, as the story progressed he realized that it would be much darker than he intended.

I'm 16, and I love them. They are basically for most age groups.

Answer 2

Good question. I first read them when I was 11 going on 12, I didn't like them at all. Probably because I didn't really understand them. I read them again when I was 16 and I fell in love with Samwise. I understood them better. I didn't fully appreciate LOTR until I read them again when I was 22.

I think they're good books for late teens onward.

Just my opinion.

Answer 3

In “Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien”, letter 163, about “The Hobbit”:

“It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a ‘children's story’, and as I had not learned sense then, and my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the sillinesses of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had had served to me, as Chaucer may catch a minstrel tag. I deeply regret them. So do intelligent children.”

“As I had expressed the view that the connexion in the modern mind between children and “fairy stories” is false and accidental, and spoils the stories in themselves and for children, I wanted to try and write one that was not addressed to children at all (as such); also I wanted a large canvas.”

From letter 189:

“I find that many children become interested, even engrossed, in /The Lord of the Rings/, from about 10 onwards. I think it rather a pity, really. It was not written for them. But then I am a very ‘unvoracious’ reader, and since I can seldom bring myself to read a work twice I think of the many things that I read – too soon! Nothing, not even a (possible) deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread. Still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by ‘fate.’”

From letter 215:

“But the desire to address children, as such, had nothing to do with the story as such in itself or the urge to write it. But it had some unfortunate effects on the mode of expression and narrative method, which if I had not been rushed, I should have corrected. Intelligent children of good taste (of which there seem quite a number) have always, I am glad to say, singled out the points in manner where the address is to children as blemishes.

I had given a great deal more thought to the matter before beginning the composition of /The Lord of the Rings/; and that work was not specially addressed to children or to any other class of people. But to any one who enjoyed a long exciting story, of the sort that I myself naturally enjoy. ....

I am not specially interested in children, and certainly not in writing for them: i.e. in addressing directly and expressly those who cannot understand adult language.

I write things that might be classified as fairy-stories not because I wish to address children (who qua children I do not believe to be specially interested in this kind of fiction) but because I wish to write this kind of story and no other.”

“Do you limit your enquiry, as may be supposed, to (North) European children? Then in what ages between the cradle and the end of legal infancy? To what grades of intelligence? Or literary talent and perceptiveness? Some intelligent children may have little of this. Children’s tastes and talents differ as widely as those of adults, as soon as they are old enough to be differentiated clearly, and therefore to be the target of any thing that can bear the name of literature. It would be useless to offer to many children of 14 or even of 12 the trash that is good enough for many respectable adults of twice or three times the age, but less gifts natural.”

From letter 234, about “The Lord of the Rings”:

“It was not written ‘for children’, or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself. (If any parts or elements in it appear ‘childish’, it is because I am childish, and like that kind of thing myself now.) I believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and I am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand – if by that one means ‘recognize as something already known’.

In short, to Tolkien, to obsess over whether any book was meant for children is to be childish, but not in any good sense. Adults can and often do enjoy books that were explicitly written for children more than they enjoy some books that are written explicitly for adults.

More importantly Tolkien was writing for himself, for his own children (who were, by the time he completed the tale, grown up), and for his friends the Inklings. He wasn’t thinking of demographics, thank goodness.

No-one expected the book to take off. It was expected to be mostly of interest to the small numbe of people of whatever age who enjoyed the romances of William Morris, the works of Lord Dunsany, works by George MacDonald, works by E.R Eddison and so forth, regardless of the ages of those readers.

Answer 4

It was intended for any real reader on the "reading ability scale", but the subject matter was probably for teens and up.  Please remember that most grade schoolers in the 1930s could actually READ.  Most American High-schoolers today could hardly make it through a sixth grade reader from that era.  The author was a professor of Literature at more than one of Britain's very prestigious Universities.  He was also a religious theologian, "of sorts".  He actually was responsible for influencing C.S. Lewis in his religious studies. (C.S. Lewis wrote that he was on his way to the zoo with a friend and when he started out, he wasn't sure that god existed.  By the time he got to the zoo he was sure that J.C. was his "lord and savior".)

Answer 5

I read that they were intended for adults but I don't know whether Tolkien meant 'young adults' or what. I read them when I was twelve and enjoyed them hugely. Try them.

LuthienT

Answer 6

LotR was intended as a sequel to The Hobbit, following the growth of his son Christopher. I'd say young adult by contemporary standards - it's a silly term, because even 17-year-olds aren't adults. The problem for modern readers has to do with the language. Schoolchildren in the 1950s learned much better English than they do today, that's why even older people struggle (especially if they have the attention span of a retarded gnat into the bargain).

Answer 7

It's kind of funny actually. They were published as children's books but Tolkien himself said (not direct quote) that they were - if suitable for anyone at all - certainly not so for children.

I think he might be right but I believe that they are suited for teenagers, young adults, middle aged, and old people. They are marvelous and I believe that a 16 year old will have no problem with 'em.

So I hope you'll enjoy the read!