The Two Towers: A Comparative Book Cover Analysis

I happen to own two copies of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I did not set out into the world with this intention. It just happened. All because I have an amazing best friend who knows me as well as I know myself and gives excellent Christmas gifts.

The first copy I bought for myself (surprisingly much later in my life than this obsession interest began). I went on a ridiculously lengthy hunt for different book covers, and illustrated versions, and ultimately went for the movie art because...uh no one really wants to know the tedious specific reasons. One copy of a book is usually enough, but now I have two so it won’t make a difference if I end up with every edition of The Lord of the Rings on my shelf, right?

It was on this hunt that I found the most fantastic book cover I have ever seen in my life. I mean that in all seriousness. Just wait.

My best friend knew about this cover because, as she’s my best friend, I told her immediately. She found the whole set by accident at a second hand bookstore and I fell over and cried when I opened it. I promise I’m a perfectly normal adult with perfectly normal adult hobbies like collecting dolls and Lego minifigures. But that’s not what this post is about.

The second set is from the 1980’s, and you can tell. I don’t know the exact year this edition was printed, but the maps in the front of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers are different from the maps even in The Return of the King from the same set.

Already you can see a huge difference from color alone. The spines of the newer books on the left (which I bought 2017. I don’t know when this edition first was printed either so for the sake of clarity I’ll just refer to it as 2017) continue the art from the cover but are darkened and obviously are heavily influenced by the movies. The books from the 1980’s are, aside from The Hobbit in black, very bright. The Return of the King is PINK. If it were a book being published today with that title and that color, (but by an unknown author) I don’t think it would sell well. You can’t (and shouldn’t) judge a book by its cover, but admit it, you do it too.

I also think the focus on the titles is interesting. Notice how the 1980’s version has Tolkien’s name as the big selling point. It’s the largest print on the spine and it’s at the top. They want you to notice his name first. The individual titles of the books are much less important, but it’s also interesting to note that “The Lord of the Rings” is nowhere on the spine, and it’s only in small print on the front cover. 2017 however, makes sure you know it’s The Lord of the Rings, and that it’s connected to the films by using the same typeface and spacing. It’s understandable. Such an obvious connection might get someone who has never read the books but has seen the films to pick them up. Film is such a huge industry today, and it’s no surprise that a lot of times a film adaptation is more widely recognized than it’s book.

Before I get off topic let’s take a look at the front cover of The Two Towers, which is supposed to be my main focus for this post.

It’s dark, has lots of muted tones, and the art is straight from the film. I think it might have been the art for a poster as well. At the top it references The Hobbit, which you can be sure had new covers made to utilize imagery from that film trilogy as well.

Most importantly, however, is how this cover alludes to the title. Neither the title or the image really tell you what happens in the story, but they tie together. The title is The Two Towers so there are two towers on the cover. DUH. Orthanc is in the foreground because it’s the most pivotal to the story and an actual location the characters visit within the narrative. Barad-Dur is in the background. It’s less important at the moment, but it’s still looming off in the distance as a reminder that it will be important later.

Now look at The Two Towers from the 1980’s. Just look at it.

Look at it.

If you’re not seeing what I’m seeing then I’ll get to that in a moment. Once again Tolkien’s name is the first thing that stands out. The gold contrasts with the background color (which is a very confusing color that can’t decide if it’s blue or purple) so you can’t help but notice it first, and the way everything is centered and stacked draws your eye right down to the art inside the random archway inscribed with runes.

It’s just...I mean, it’s just...everything about this makes me want to collapse on the floor in helpless giggles. I just love it so much. The art style, their pose, the warm sunset painting the sky behind them. I don’t know how many of you have ever wandered through a used bookstore just for fun, but this cover looks like 80% of the romance section, only gay. Especially with a name like The Two Towers? If I could wipe all knowledge of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings from my brain and pick up this book, I would assume that some very un-Tolkien things happen within the pages.

Now, maybe I’m biased. Legolas and Gimli are my favorite thing in The Two Towers, and quite possibly my favorite thing in all of The Lord of the Rings. I did after all, take my Asmus Toys figures of them into the backyard and spend two hours laying in wet grass to take pictures of them in an embrace for my digital photography class. I told you I’m a perfectly normal adult with perfectly normal adult hobbies. But I will try to take an objective approach and actually compare it to the 2017 cover.

First of all, I don’t see any towers, unless you count whatever that building is in the background, which I guess might be Helm’s Deep? So that’s obviously unimportant compared to Tolkien’s name, the title, and who it’s about. With the insane amount of characters in The Lord of the Rings it was probably hard to decide who should be featured. The Fellowship of the Ring cover features Gandalf and Frodo; The Return of the King features Aragorn. Those seem like natural choices. But The Two Towers follows three different story lines. So by putting Legolas and Gimli on the cover it lets the audience know that these two characters are important, and not only are they important, but they’re important to each other. There doesn’t seem to be any real definable place or action happening, so that also lets you know that where they are and what they’re doing is much less important than the relationship.

I can’t decide how I feel about the window/archway, other than it’s a weird stereotype choice like someone thought “archways are fantasy right?”. And the runes at the bottom. I’m curious if they actually mean anything or if again someone was like “runes are fantasy right?”.

And that hair. Damn, Legolas.

Also, Errol Flynn called. He wants his Robin Hood costume back.

Well, that’s pretty much the extent of what I had to say about both covers. If you made it to the end, here’s a gold star. I’ll also give you a cookie if you pretend this wasn’t an obvious excuse to talk about The Lord of the Rings.

“It’s the job that’s never started as takes longest to finish.”
J.R.R. Tolkien