Reviews with content warning for Grief - The Return of the King

Girl this was a tad messy tbh
Stop naming all ur characters the same thing
Just feels like u didnt rly tie have the things up u just like mentioned them again
Also the big battle literallu every three pages is, and then he never opened his eyes again :( jk hes alive :D
Also

éowyn just being like eh u know what ur right i dont wanna be a solider or a queen 🙅‍♀️ i wanna be a healer 💁‍♀️ like are u fucking with me

Content Warnings

rikuson1's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.75

It was Okay 🥴
-★★✭☆☆- (2.75/5.00)
My Grading Score = 55% (C-)

The Return of the King I had high expectations for with it being the final part of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. And unfortunately, to say I came out disappointed is a bit of an understatement. I already knew that the first half (Book 5) was going to be all focused on the side of basically everyone who was not Frodo and Sam. And going off of how I felt in The Two Towers, I doubt anything they were doing was going to be able to intrigue me enough to care. And I was right they didn't do anything interesting enough for me to care. I can tell that Tolkien tried to give Pippin and Merry moments of their own to showcase some level of growth in them, but unlike Sam at the end of The Two Towers for me, I was still not sold on the feats that Pippin and Merry did. This first half is only a tad bit better than the first half of The Two Towers for me, but that's not saying much. It's the second half that I was looking forward to the most since going off the pattern that The Two Towers set up, its second half should engross me and hopefully save the book, as it did for The Two Towers for me.

The first half of the second half instantly engrossed me as it picked up right where the great cliffhanger that the Two Towers ended on. It was definitely the most fun I had with this book, which, at this point, I'm going to call "The third quarter portion" of this book. It focused on Sam continuing to showcase why he's my favorite character with great moments, scaring off enemies with imposing stances, taking out enemies, saving Frodo, and essentially nursing him back to care. Sam felt like he became the true hero this story needed in this portion, and I enjoyed basically all of it. The struggle shown when Frodo flipped out on him when Sam suggested that he could bare some of the burden of the Ring is also very well done. And when Gollum came back into the equation again, I was having a great time until I was not.

At this point in the story, I assumed that since now they are basically in front of the Crack of Doom ready to fulfill the overall story's objective, this is when Sauron would show up for one more last big attempt to stop them in some way shape, or form. I also thought this is where they'd take all the other characters like Gandalf, Legalis, Aragorn, and Pippin (but not really Merry since he was down for the count from his moment which I didn't care for nor anything associated with that so I'm not even going to talk about it) have them all reach the location of Frodo and Sam and assist them in the final clash against Sauron (and I guess Gollum as well). But this expectation never occurred. Now I understand getting mad/disappointed because what I wanted to happen did not happen is not the right way to go about this, but I can't help but feel that what was provided instead which was just essentially Gollum flipping out and taking the Ring from Frodo going insane because he finally got his "precious" back and falling into the crack of doom was a good end to Gollum as a character sure but beyond anticlimatic to the end Sauron and the Ring itself for me.

And then I come to find out that there's still a quarter of this book left to go beyond this point. I'm sitting here like what the heck else is there to cover? The extra epilogue feeling arc where characters are saying their farewells, coming back together, and going their separate ways back to their respective homes. The Hobbits go back to their shire, which starts an arc, which is known in the community as "The Scouring of the Shire," (and is also the name of the chapter this arc takes place in) which is very mixed in its reception and I can understand why. Now I understand the reasoning behind the existence of this arc, in a nutshell, it was the showcase how much The Hobbits have grown in regard to competence in dealing with dire situations. But that doesn't mean it was all that interesting to read, nor did I care for it to any degree outside of the showing of Saruman and Wormtongue at the very end. Once again, I felt it was quite anti-climatic to a villain who was hyped up as much as Sauron himself. The story felt like they portrayed him as basically "the evil Gandalf" but for this entire story, all I really remember him doing is arguing with Gandalf like a baby in The Two Thrones and this part right here where he basically gets killed by his own servant for treating him disrespectfully for that last time. Someone who is supposed to be almost as dangerous as Gandalf being taken out in such a fashion was such an anti-climatic way to go out, honestly to me it felt like Tolkien said "dang I feel like I need a bigger threat for The Hobbits to go up against for this arc I have here since they easily resolved the Scouring of this Shire, oh I know I left Saruman rotting in that castle a book ago let's bring him back before I completely forget about him and throw him in here at the last minute". To me, it honestly felt rushed, contrived, last minute, and once again anticlimactic all around.

When I finished The Return of the King and I looked back on The Fellowship of the Rings all the way to here and everything they've done, the first sentence I said to myself was "man this really could have been condensed into one book and did not feel like it needed to be three". Then I came to find out that Tolkien apparently only wanted to make one book, but his publishers wanted it to be more than one. If that is true, I can most definitely see that.

Verdict
I sadly can not use the words "I liked it" when it comes to the entry. I only like 1/4 of it. Everything else to me was uninteresting, too slow-paced here or too rushed there, too contrived here, or anticlimactic there. With that being said, though his prose still held up, his worldbuilding is still great and holds up. At absolute highest, this comes in at a C- for me, which is the highest rating of "It was Okay," which sounds accurate to me, for me. It was not bad, and I can't say, "I did not like it." I can probably say, "I mostly did not like it," though. I wouldn't be surprised if I like the movies more. (Update I do and by a lot)

It was Okay

Content Warnings

bearystarry's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional hopeful inspiring reflective medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

5.0

I love everything about the fellowship. If you’re not crying buckets of tears at the end of this book, you must be a very different sort of person to me. God… and such a beautiful, hopeful ending it is as well!

Content Warnings

pokecol's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark emotional hopeful informative inspiring reflective tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.75

Wowee, there is a lot to say. I am not certain where to open my thoughts because it is, expectedly, all over the place.
What I'll begin with is the big problem, as it is where my experience with Return of the King stems. Jumping off of the Fellowship of the Ring, we swing deep into the throttle of the Two Towers with the set-up, everything has to advance off of the last hook - the Fellowship is broken, side A must make their way south, and side B must persevere towards the end with only a party of 2.
At the end of the Two Towers, we are set-up for the climbing climax. Frodo is in dire straits, and Gondor's protagonists assemble in preparation for the last frontier. However, when we begin Return of the King (Book V) it all crawls to a halt. I wasn't even not expecting this, my mindset on the first chapter or two was that "yeah, of course, calm before the storm. Requisite set-up so that the weight and impact may carry." I thoroughly enjoyed Pippin's journey into and exploration of Minas Tirith, however, regardless of my cognitive explicit thought, I was implicitly, undercurrent, bored. After finally swinging into reading big-time and taking on the task before me in the Lord of the Rings which I loved so much, I was thrown against the wall and beaten into a reading slump. Where the first two 'volumes' I undertook a book per month (4 total for I-IV), the Return of the King took me the entire latter half of this year.
Of course, when things took their turn to progress there was a great change, but it would be remiss of me to say that the tranquility overstays its welcome when trying to drive the volatile intensity of narrative home. Leaving off Frodo and Sam, and dropping them until Book VI feels even worse, regardless of the formula established to leave congruence in storytelling.
I thoroughly believe a back and forth, between the Gondor-side and the Mordor-side, would have done a lot to help flow.

Now for a mishmash of thoughts. The first thing I want to speak on is a disappointment. I love Middle-Earth as a world. Part of me is enamored in the majesty of its magic and part of me is taken by the sheer magnitude of its scope, but sometimes the framing of writing and the world Tolkien uses makes it hard to enjoy as a reader.
It wasn't until this point at the end of this narrative, picturing things became a real difficulty. There were struggles before, and there were times when sweeping articulation could swap out to brief snippets, but from Minas Tirith onward this issue felt exacerbated.
I am unable to tell how much of this was a concern thanks to my experiences with ancillary LOTR media, and how much was actually the writing; what I will say is I was left out to dry in really conjuring an image thanks to the text itself. With Minas Tirith I felt like I was really battling against preconceived visuals in my mind - which, I won't lie, frustrated the hell out of me.
The original description somewhat allowed for an interesting image, but with Tolkien's contentment with letting a sleeping description lie, I had to fill in the blanks very often as narrative progressed, and with this story/world specifically it left me disappointed to fall out of an immersion constructed in the story I was reading and lean on interpretations from elsewhere.
It is by this token that some things came to a weird majesty and others didn't. There were severe struggles to picture the actual size Minas Tirith was supposed to embody, severe struggles to picture Pelennor, the river Anduin, to picture the breadth of Anorien. I severely struggled to picture the scope of Mordor and especially the direction of travel and mapping for Chapters 1, 2 & 3 of Book VI.
Though there were as well, very good times to this flipping, the intense switch to linguistic flourish made the contrast between mundanity and intensity so much more apparent. It was in this way moments could conjure into a true fantasy - and I will not lie, I never saw Lord of the Rings as a 'True Fantasy' in the high-magic sense, there are no spells, no weirdness and no strength of light to darkness in the typically fantastic sense; even if the story is the quintessential example of fantasy in modern day. However, the stand-off between the Witch-King of Angmar himself and Mithrandir at the gates of Minas Tirith was one strong moment where it all clicked into place as two historic powers of light and shadow presented to finally clash. It was not an image so magnificent to render long against ideals of fantasy in art, but it was a very powerful moment that I can't help but feel as though the books were more earnestly striving for, and that we have seen less of in recent interpretation for way media is presented in the 21st century.
There were also times when this battled with itself, Mount Doom was tough to image and the trail towards it. Barad-dûr was near impossible to get an idea of location for. The problem as with before in Two Towers reared its head hard in this climax of the Ring itself; where the writing devolved into text, and not storytelling. Specifically when an idea was lingered on and extrapolated in such a way that it stopped moving forward.
For example: "A hand swipes forth", is an action with enough description to tell us what is performing the action. "A lithe, scaly hand swipes, fast and forward", an expansion using description to inform the blanks we'd otherwise fill, interjecting the details that would normally slow down the pace of the sentence between each piece of the action so we continue to progress. What Tolkien does is this: "A lithe, scaly hand, a hand from an age past, once bore the One Ring, the hand now attached to the pathetic creature whose mind was turned to one purpose and one purpose alone, the hand swipes."
The section in bold is the idea that slows down pace as it is not, across the progression, stymied to allow things to flow forward - it literally, stops me, from being capable of picturing anything because nothing is "happening" in this passage. Tolkien does this but for multiple sentences at a time, and it is perhaps the thing I dislike most about his writing - as this, in tandem with sometimes frugal description of the immediate environment, make it so I am sitting there attempting to re-picture and frame the scene over and over again in my mind while nothing occurs. Any second longer than room enough for things of no-consequence to exist between passages, is too long. It is an interjected history lesson at times that pervades physical space - if the history lesson is done in only physical description it can slow down but exemplify specificity, but it will often be details that have no immediate image: for instance, you cannot 'picture' a 'year', it is not a physical thing, you can picture associated imagery but directly by detracting from the present imagery. And when there is no real way to commodify this amorphous idea's lack of entity in space I am just... 'reading words', the same way you can look at the word: "What". The word "What" has application, but alone, it means absolutely nothing, the best you can expand of it is W, H, A & T, all letters, probably with a history to their making, but the word "What" itself, hold no purpose in isolation. When we get these points of description so far removed from what is going on, there is nothing for us to picture, and while it is perhaps necessary information, the timing of its execution makes the literal act of enjoying and immersing oneself in a scene a horrible event. Picturing a moment as if I am pausing, rewinding, playing, pausing, rewinding and playing, over and over while I am still reading - feels awful.

There are lots of moments I like. Aragorn's arrival using the Corsair Ships felt powerful. The whole sequence of Sam coming up into save Frodo from captivity. Pippin and Merry's individual change into squireship for their lords and the crux of their growth as 'Men' they now stand to by at difference to their heritage. Éowyn and her showdown with the Witch-King.
There are many moments that each of their own merit stand as great peaks in the rising of narrative.

The thing that is odd to me, is all is writing back-ended. The book is framed as if to, in many ways, be a story written after events. It is not quite a story written by Frodo about everything that had happened, but it comes very close, and is heavily implied to basically be that by the appendices.
This is both a good and bad thing. The good thing, a device in narrative I've not really seen before but genuinely love, is how each conclusion to a thread of the story is closed proper and long. When someone dies on the battlefield, we step out from the narrative and examine very briefly the impact that holds in the meaning of their actions. Such as how the songs and stories will be said of the event that just occurred, and then we continue what was happening. It is strange to enjoy this with the above point of contention I just went over so heavily, but it presents such a narrative strength that this is a history being told to us as a reader. If this were a history shared around a campfire, deep in the Fourth Age of Middle-Earth, of course a moment of recourse would exist for the death of someone so great, to say not 'They died' and move on but to remind us that their legacy goes beyond this moment because victory does, and will, come.
The part of this I do not like, is when the story retroactively explains details that happened non-chronologically. Regardless of this being the Lord of the Rings, in typical story-telling this is sort of sinful, it acts much as a Deus Ex Machina, and then hands out a retroactive explanation.
For however much I enjoyed Aragorn's arrival to Pelennor, I did not love we had this whole story of the Corsairs and Oath-Breaker's fight at Pelargir post-mortem the conflict. The narrative was given a free 'out' and then the explanation was handed to us later. With being the history lesson way it is told, this can make sense, but presentationally as a story it isn't good. And this is done more than a couple times.

The two big talking points I really want to go over before final thoughts are as follows. The 'New' and the 'Book'.
I don't want to say more than I have, this is a review insofar as needed expanded thoughts and feelings that the narrative of Lord of the Rings provides. I do not wish to examine the philosophical meaning and personal gravitas of story here as those I need not really note to myself.
I can take a brief aside now to say, there is strength to it still. The Lord of the Rings, after reading it fully has a purpose in the way of presenting narrative and meaning in life, and while there are shoddy elements and very strong pillars here and there, fundamental capacity for expanding conflict and resolution on the personal, emotional and philosophical sense, remains strong. The Grey Havens was something I was looking forward to in that respect for a long time as the whole notion of bringing the larger world of Arda into scope, closing out the merit of actions and letting the result of character come beyond Middle-Earth feels important to me.

I'll use this above point as a segue, the book holds a lot of value as a book. I think now, reading it all, it is a "greater than the sum of its parts". I wish now I had read it as a single item and fully understand why it is classified as a single book. The Lord of the Rings fails in being a trilogy where it succeeds in being a novel. The highs, lows, and transitions of narrative tone, with pacing changes and style are all conducive to it being a single item - isolating the flow of Fellowship to volume 1, isolating the pacing and induction to volume 2, and isolating the characterisation and majesty to volume 3, is damaging to each book published in this course. For each lacks the merits of the others as a larger story and makes the all feel to hold more faults than they do - reviewing, if I could, all the Lord of the Rings as just one item, shows room for each of these traits and strengths to breath across the course of one story.
The world is focused on so much early because it helps set the ground work, the stakes and battles are exemplified well in the middle to show what we're up against, and the characterisation happens last to help explore the results of all the world's darkness on the protagonists after a journey so long.
While my review of The Fellowship of the Ring is what it is, Two Towers is what it is, and this book what it is; I would, in collective, give them a much higher rating as 'just 1 book'. The Lord of the Rings, as the story, deserves its higher score and greater memo in fiction than either of the individual volumes do, because they do not act well as self-contained narratives alone.

Lastly, the thing that excited me the most in reading Return of the King at last. I have explored lots of LOTR media in my time and know the ins and outs of almost everything. But I was excited to see where the deviations lie after the Ring has passed from reality.
From Book VI, Chapter 4, onward, it was almost entirely new territory to me.
The only thing I knew to come in the Scouring of the Shire, was that it was where the resolution of Saruman existed oppose to much earlier in the film adaptations.
First a concern, Saruman was handled... bizarre. And I do not mean in characterisation, his bitterness and resolution felt well done, but the fact we see him as... a beggar by the side of the road just randomly out in the middle of Dunland, only to beat the hobbits back to the Shire and re-enact some contingency he must've planned before? This was really weird. And I mean like, bad-storytelling, not good writer, weird.
Having left Orthanc how is Saruman completely diminished to nothing? I get the whole sequence of downfall, but he is still a wizard, a Maia. To have the deposition at charity with the party just... stumbling across him? So strange. And the timeline for him getting to the Shire, having been involved as 'Sharkey', leaving the Shire all the way down to the Gap of Rohan, and then making his way ALL the way back to the Shire to be there before the hobbits return is... not possible? Like, I don't even know what to say about this bit, its as if Tolkien just completely threw away his skills as a writer for this specific portion. Saruman explains that their willingness to take their time allowed him to come back in time, but that explains nothing. Saruman was alone, open road and only with Wormtongue - the Hobbits were all astride horse and Saruman had noway to know they would be taking their time. Did he just - after this brief meeting - decide to completely gamble on making the multiple country trek north to perchance beat the Hobbits back home on the random chance that, even with horses, enough detours would allow him to get there first? Why leave in the first place if he was already establishing the ruffians? HOW did he get to the Gap of Rohan? I truly don't understand this sequence, its literally just plain bad, and leaves me with little way to try and figure it out.
Regardless, the portion after is good, the Scouring of the Shire I had no real knowledge about and watching it play out was like truly new parts of the story never before told to me. The rise of the Hobbits against the Southern Men was great, and the role showing how Merry, Pippin and Sam had changed, had become leaders in their right, that the role of the outside world and the need to be strong comes back to help rise the complacency was really excellent.
I will say that I did not expect that Bag End would be ruined and places like the Party Tree would be torn down and destroyed, and at large I don't know how to feel about it, but as story it helps parallel the 'Never really coming home' especially for Frodo.
The, then, reconstruction of the Shire with the flora of the Elves and such was brilliant.
The bad part here was the weird repeated use of 'Squint-eyed men', felt like the first and only real instance of a potential racist real-world view peak into Middle-Earth, as while the Southrons were outsiders, they needn't have been all lumped under an ethnic background comparison - its a bit garbage.

Then the road to the conclusion, and the send off, the sorrow and grief and meaning of all events in their hereafter. It was great, and the Grey Havens felt like a true back-round having read the Silmarillion.
Knowing also in the appendices the send-off for all characters in their aftermath for Middle-Earth was great and helped exemplify this story as a history lesson of Middle-Earth's larger story as a world. I never knew that Sam eventually went West as well, nor Gimli and Legolas, but it is excellent to know. And that Pippin and Merry went south to rest aside Aragorn at the time of their passing - I also didn't know, though I feel weird about this one, seems a little strange to me that after all the years in returning to the Shire they'd want their final resting places to be in Gondor.

The last thing I want to go over in criticism as I remember it now is the use of chronology and years. The use of time in the Fellowship of the Ring was excellent. I really enjoyed the expansion of time in how Bilbo's birthday and more allowed the shadows to settle deeper and encourage further worry in Gandalf as well as loom things to come.
In Return of the King however, time is used more poorly. We get reflection on the Year(s?) of the War of the Ring and it never really clicks right. I understand that Tolkien has thought it out, the appendices make as much very clear, but in the story it is a mess. The group and whole journey is gone over the year, but then they talk about a year passing in Gondor and its unclear if they stayed a year AFTER the war ended or if it was the end of the single year since the Shire. Were there two years of their absence total?
Then at parts of their time traveling it feels like these aspects are referenced both which ways and I couldn't actually tell how much time had really passed.
This was made specifically a bother when the group came back to Bree. I really like Barliman Butterbur, he makes almost no appearance in other media but him being a 'come back to the tavern keeper that remembers you' trope was really nice. What isn't nice is how in heck this man remembers the group. Remember Gandalf maybe, but Butterbur had maybe one day with Frodo, Pippin, Sam and Merry and upon returning over a year later seems to treat them like old-friends, which makes no real sense. Perhaps remembering their day more vividly due to the Black-riders at the time and Frodo's Ring stunt, sure, but specifically remembering which room they had that night and asking if they'd like the same room is INSANE. I do not understand why Tolkien chose to write this, there is NO possibility he'd remember that and the significance of the room means nothing, asking if they'd like it doesn't add anything at all. It in fact, detracts a lot, this was one moment where the whole world felt tiny to me, which for Lord of the Rings, is unacceptable. Why on earth would such a hard narrative pivot in presentation exist? To exemplify the coziness of home compared to the distant climes of foreign country? Maybe, but this has been given just example by nearly every single other element of the narrative and is better explored in the Shire before and after. This is like going back to a foreign country and have a petrol-station worker recognise and remember your exact order for no reason a full year later - why? It is literally impossible.
I would not make any changes to the Lord of the Rings, even for things I didn't like because I believe they all serve a purpose larger, but Saruman's weird journey off-screen and this comment from Butterbur are both genuinely inadmissible, and stand out problems in a fairly high quality story.

In isolation I enjoyed the Return of the King just as much as the Two Towers. As above I believe in isolation the flaws are stronger than the strengths. As a full single story I rate it much higher, but as just the Return of the King it is about par with its predecessor.
Fellowship of the Ring being weakest of the lot with its forced explanation of the world - good for the story, horrible in an isolated book.

With that, I have read Lord of the Rings at long last. There are parts my mind has changed on, and others that have not. I will say I do not think, strictly as an author, Tolkien is as esteemed as the public consensus would describe but I also believe he is far above some of the unwarranted criticisms his detractors lay against him.
I am pleased to have read this at last, and very ready to permanently move on to new fantasy. Not perhaps baring in mind Lord of the Rings as a point of comparison at all, but to have now finally gotten all from it I needed - much as to Middle-Earth wearing its worth to Frodo, to need a different heal to a different hurt - I now sail to different places too.

Content Warnings

madamenovelist's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional reflective sad tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

Content Warnings

astrangewind's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous emotional hopeful slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.25

What a lovely, thrilling conclusion to this adventure. As usual, Tolkien's characters are brimming with life; their conversations with one another may be long, but they serve to deepen the reader's connection with them. Each aspect of the world comes alive before the reader's eyes: the landscape, be it lush or barren; the evil plaguing the land and its inexorable pull; every tension and connection. Just beautifully done.

Even at the end, when all was said and done, and the Ring was destroyed in Mount Doom, there were 70 pages left! I had trouble imagining what was left, and it turns out there was one last mini-adventure left, which I found equally as compelling as the original quest.

As with The Two Towers, the first half (roughly) of the book concern the war, while the second half is what continues the quest of Frodo and Sam. I tend to be less interested in war, even in fantasy settings, so I found it quite difficult to get through this section of the book. (The rest of it I devoured much more quickly.) Despite this difficulty, Tolkien's writing aligns both halves of the book in time, so that a deeper understanding of both storylines is gained upon reading.

One thing I struggled with is that nearly every female character who interacts with the main company ends up being reduced to nothing.

I loved Éowyn for her grit and desire to battle, but near the end, she drops all of that, claiming that she no longer wishes for that, in order to marry Faramir. We were so close to having an awesome female character!

I won't complain too much about the characters; while the female representation sucks, there are so many examples of intimate male platonic relationships. Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, and Legolas and Gimli are all major examples of true love - deep, intimate love - between male friends. I find that beautiful.

My one last gripe with this book is really a gripe with the editions of all three books. Occasionally, there are footnotes in the book that read something like, "Appendix F, page 1107." However, being three separate books, there is no page 1107, so the reader is left to either read the entire appendices (which are roughly 150 pages long in total and at the end of the third book), or compute what the page number actually should be. With this edition, I feel like these footnotes could have been rewritten to indicate the actual page number of the appendix. But, of course, this isn't an issue with Tolkien's story - only this edition.

Content Warnings

judassilver's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional hopeful informative inspiring sad slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.5

Content Warnings

More...