Customer Reviews

The Lord of the Rings' Metaphors

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If you're going to do a book on metaphores about LotR, you have to realize one thing first: Tolkien HATED metaphore. Tolkien said in the forward to LotR:

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorial nor topical ... I cordially dislike allegory in all of its manifestations ... I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicabilty to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory' but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." (page x)

And that's exactly what Witzsche does. He applies his own personal propoganda to LotR and markets it to the public because of the LotR craze. He has a serious case of hero-worship of Lyndon H. LaRouch, Jr (who he mentions as early as the forward, and then continually licks LaRouch's feet), which seriously gets in the way of any sort of "serious" in-depth study. Not only is his hero-worship seriously distracting, so are the misspelled words, the wrong words that are used, and the typos that happen continually.

He also suggests thing that are completely insaine (with no back up to prove it). He suggests that AIDs may have been artificially created by aristocrates as a form of population control because of the emergence of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 (and even has the nerve to suggest that LaRouche could've prevented AIDs in Africa: "Has his call been heeded, AIDs might have been prevented, but it wasn't". Page 36).

Then, later, he suggests that the Jews could've prevented the Holocaust:

"The Jewish people had boxed themselves in, into a state of subjection. They had the cultural resources and the financial wealth to defeat [Hitler] during the early stages of his reach for power. But they failed themselves ... And so, they became a defensless people." (page 65)

And says that there are people in high places of power that have called Hitler a "great man" (page 43). Then, gives no names, no evidence of his claim. I want to know who, when and where on that one.

When he actually does look at the work itself, he misreads things and doesn't really use Tolkien's love of linguestics. He inserts things that Tolkien never ment by meanings of words (like saying that "wraith" is equal to "rage", which it's not (in Tolkien's work or any any other), or suggested that Tolkien ment "Nazi gules" by "Nazgul" (which is absurd), or even that Tolkien was meaning "spiegel" (German for mirror) when he was saying "Smeagol" (there is no evidence for this).

If you've never read LotR, or have only read it once, this book will completely send you in the wrong direction. If you're a fan (like I am), it'll do nothing more than make you want to burn it. Either way, don't waste your time. Get something like UNDERSTANDING MIDDLE-EARTH by Michael Martinez instead. That book actually has something to do with LotR, and isn't full of the author's own biases, misreadings, and typos.