Customer Reviews

J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (Modern Critical Interpretations)

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

 

 

This book is not a critical edition of The Lord of the Rings, nor should it be attributed to Tolkien himself. It is a collection of essays on LotR. While the essays presented in this volume are good, they are all reprinted from other sources. Many of them come from Tolkien and the Critics (ed. Issacs & Zimbardo), which is excellent and, alas, out of print. The only troublesome part of the book is Harold Bloom's introduction, if one can call it that. Barely a page in length, it falls somewhere between dismissive and hostile towards Tolkien's writing style while offering no other reasons why LotR merits any study except that it was popular in the sixties (though it was also popular in previous and subsequent decades). Bloom makes little comment on the essays he (presumably) selected and, based on his introduction, seems no more familiar with LotR than the average reader. Any of the contributors to this volume could have furnished a more helpful introduction. One wonders if Bloom's name is present merely because it, like Tolkien's, can move books very briskly.

Harold Bloom appears to have done little work and put very little thought into this collection of "Modern Critical Interpretations" of Tolkien. His so-called introduction is barely a page long and says nothing of the history of Tolkien criticism. He does not even explain why the included articles were chosen (and there are no introductions to individual articles either). In truth, his introduction is so short, supercilious, and devoid of substance that I do not believe it to even be a sincere scholarly effort-- it more has the character of something that was dashed off in 10-15 minutes.

Nor is a significantly greater effort evident in the selection of articles. The ten articles republished here are all 20-30 years old (written between 1968-1982) and do not reflect current (or even recent) trends in Tolkien criticism. That's not to say that they're bad or completely irrelevant, mind you. However, they are starting to show their age (especially the older ones, like Roger Sale's article and Paul Kocher's contributions, as well as the Jungian approach to ciriticism evidenced by the excerpt from Tim O'Neill's _The Individuated Hobbit_, and Anne C. Petty's application of Joseph Campbell's _Hero with the Thousand Faces_ and Vladimir Propp's _Morphology of the Folktale_ to Tolkien's fiction. Again, it's not that these are bad per se, but the kinds of approaches and methodologies they represent are pretty much passe-- both in literary criticism in general and in Tolkien studies in specific. They make some worthwhile observations, but they just seem old, tired, and a bit too well-worn. The one exception to this is an excerpt taken from Tom Shippey's excellent _The Road to Middle Earth_, one of the most recent works to be reflected here (published in 1982). In short, the essays included here have OK substance, but it's not entirely clear why Bloom chose such old ones-- or whether these were even the best old ones to choose.

All in all, there is enough substance in these old articles to interest a Tolkien fan or scholar in spite of their age-- however, don't expect a lot (or in fact, any) insight from Bloom himself on Tolkien's fiction or on the history of Tolkien criticism, because it just ain't there.

I am writing as a fan who has read LOTR perhaps 30 times. I've read the Hobbit and the Silmarillion 2-3 times each since I was turned on to Tolkien as a youth. I have recently read two of Christopher Tolkien's books as well. I purchased this book because I was looking for some hard academic criticism of Tolkien's works. Instead, the book is a mix of essays that alternately deal with Tolkien personally or professionally, as well as with his literary works.

The book is composed of 10 essays in addition to a brief introduction to and chronology of Tolkien's life. Amongst the essays, I did recognize a reprint of Paul Kocher's essay, Cosmic Order, from his focused and excellent work, The Master of Middle Earth, which I purchased 20 years or so ago. Some of the essays in this book focus more on Tolkien's business in the here and now, such as problems with publishers, critics (including the notoriously petty "Oo, Those Awful Orcs" essay written by leftist social critic Edmund Wilson in The Nation's April 14,1956 issue), as well as a pretty interesting discussion of academic philology.

Making a normative judgement, most Tolkien fans would probably be better off for their money reading the book that has Tolkien's letters or Christopher Tolkien's books on how his father created Middle Earth if they are looking for lore/information on Middle Earth itself. Readers of those works may derive better critical insights using their own judgment of Tolkien's efforts, rather than spending money on this book.

Having said that however, some of the insights offered here of Tolkien's writing are gems. Tolkien was in fact quite capable of doing some awful writing stylistically - in fact I originally thought that the story dragged on the first time I read it. Also, the idea that some of Tolkien's creatures (such as Hobbits and Ents) work better than others (such as the Balrog and Shelob) because he believes more in them as an artist was a nice idea. I just wish that the rest of this book were filled with more of these arguments and insights. Instead, one of the essays expounds on the need for more informed Tolkien criticsm. I am not entirely sure that essays like that belong in a book such as this.

The book's jacket mentions that Harold Bloom is the editor and writer of introductions to the Modern Critical Views series, which now contains over 200 books. One gets the feeling that Bloom assembled these essays in a haphazard way since there is little order in this book with regards to subject matter.

In all, I would give the book thumbs up, but with serious reservations. I took a gamble on this one because it was a new book. See ya.

Harold Bloom's name is on the cover, but his contribution to this volume is minimal at best. This book does not actually include any articles *by* Bloom, and his exceedingly brief introduction (barely 1 page long!) says nothing of substance. It does not even explain why the selected articles were chosen for republication or try to provide any sort of context for them-- something that introductions to collections of scholarly articles (especially when they are older articles) really are supposed to do.

The ten articles republished here are all 20-30 years old (written between 1968-1982) and do not reflect current (or even recent) trends in Tolkien criticism. That's not to say that they're bad or completely irrelevant, mind you. However, they are starting to show their age (especially the older ones, like Roger Sale's article, the contributions by Paul Kocher, as well as the Jungian approach to ciriticism evidenced by the excerpt from Tim O'Neill's _The Individuated Hobbit_, or by Anne C. Petty's application of Joseph Campbell's _Hero with the Thousand Faces_ and Vladimir Propp's _Morphology of the Folktale_ to Tolkien's fiction.) Again, it's not that these are bad per se, but the kinds of approaches and methodologies they are pretty much passe-- both in literary criticism in general and in Tolkien studies in specific. They make some worthwhile observations, but they just seem old, tired, and a bit too well-worn. The one exception to this is an excerpt taken from Tom Shippey's excellent _The Road to Middle Earth_, one of the most recent works to be reflected here. In short, the essays included here have decent substance, but it's not entirely clear why Bloom chose such old ones-- or whether these were even the best old ones to choose.

All in all, there is enough substance in these old articles to interest a Tolkien fan or scholar in spite of their age-- however, don't expect a lot (or in fact, any) insight from Bloom himself on Tolkien's fiction or on the history of Tolkien criticism, because it just ain't there.

Don't waste your money on this one.

I happily (because I didn't waste my money) borrowed this from a local academic library. I'm glad I read it, because I learned a lot about what I don't like.

Bloom doesn't like Lord of the Rings, so why he even bothers to assemble these old, dated, and tired essays is beyond me, unless it is to make money off the LOTR craze. His one-page introduction is an insult; he doesn't ever explain why he included any of the essays in this collection nor does he contribute any insight regarding Tolkien's work (I suspect he didn't have any).

I was amused, then annoyed by what he included: outdated Jungian comparisons to the Hobbit, a poorly-written history of the publication of Lord of the Rings. The one notable exception is Tom Shippey's chapter from Road to Middle Earth, but you're better off reading Shippey's book, or any of his books, than wasting your time with this one.

Professional critics have been the enemy of "Lord of the Rings" ever since that epic fantasy came out, decades ago. And while the old guard has passed away, many of their essays still live on. "J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: Modern Critical Interpretations" dredges up many of their strained, sneering writings on J.R.R. Tolkien.

There are a few decent essays in here, where the writers seem to have genuine affection or appreciation for Tolkien and his works. Jane Chance Nitzche turns out a decent essay studying such aspects like Tolkien's "Christian king," and the capable Humphrey Carpenter turns out a mini-bio of Tolkien, which seems to show where his characters and invented world came from..

Unfortunately, the bad outnumber the good: We have Jared Lobdell scrabbling rather pitifully for books that bear a passing resemblance to "Lord of the Rings," as does Randel Helms as he tries frantically to find a non-original source for Tolkien's orcs. Helms also claims that "Lord of the Rings" is "a political fantasy expressed in covert sexual symbols, but gives no solid explanation beyond prim hints at "caverns" and "darkness."

The sexual preoccupation continues in the first and worst of the essays, Hugh Keenan's laughable "Appeal To Lord of the Rings." He sneers that the "Lord of the Rings" is only fit for children or the childlike, clings to increasingly absurd sexual symbols. Just wait for the part where he claims that Frodo's attachment to the Ring is not an all-consuming addiction, but a sexual symbolism. He even gets basic facts wrong -- a line of the ent Treebeard's is attributed to "Fangorn," the name of a forest.

Nor do things improve with Burton Raffel's obnoxious work. Though he claims "it would be foolish to claim that Tolkien does not write well," he then proceeds to tear apart virtually every aspect of Tolkien's writing -- insisting rather snobbily that Tolkien doesn't use enough description, and whining about his formal poetry. Evidently Raffel doesn't read enough pre-20th-century literature.

Perhaps the worst sign is the foreword, in which the editor talks about his own dislike of "Lord of the Rings" -- in only about one page, the narrow-minded Harold Bloom manages to insult Tolkien and every person who has enjoyed his work. If Mr. Bloom cannot handle "stiff," archaic style, then he should avoid most of the literature up to the last few hundred years. To paraphrase what he has said, it might be too much for his sixty-nine-year-old self to handle -- especially since he is such a "skilled and mature" reader, while "Lord of the Rings" fans, by implication, are not.

It's always a bad idea to have people write critically about something they despise; it's certain to bring out all sorts of insignificant pet peeves that nobody except the writer cares about. Certainly it doesn't help that many of these writers communicate with all the vivacity of a dead fish.

While there are a small number of good essays -- only a few, actually -- the heavy load of self-important sneering is only for people who already hated "Lord of the Rings." Not worth the time it takes to read, or the paper it's printed on.

One would expect more from Harold Bloom, whose superb 'Shakespeare Invention of the Human' is such a marvellous collection of essays. While I appreciate the task of being an editor is different, I'm astonished that Prof. Bloom cannot find one piece of Tolkien criticism written more recently than 1983! Before today's college freshmen were born...!

Perhaps this book was a little hastily thrown together, but I can't help feeling that serious students of Tolkien will feel ripped off--and better off going to their college library for current critical studies. I fully expected to see, for example, a selection from Norman Cantor's superb "Inventing the Middle Ages", whose chapter on Tolkien gives an historian's interesting perspective on why, contra Bloom, the Lord of the Rings will take its place in the pantheon of great works of the 20th century ("aesthetic reservations" be damned).

Anyway, its the lack of recent pieces like Cantor's that makes Prof. Bloom's book such a disappointment....

Three new additions to Harold Bloom's 'Modern CriticalInterpretations' series will reach high school into college levels, compiling critical articles from a variety of sources and offering the in-depth analysis students will need to assist on detailed reports of an author's single work. Joseph Heller's Catch 22 (0-7910-5927-8) provides articles which examine how the sane can survive under insane wartime circumstances; Elie Wiesel's Night (5924-3) gathers critical writings on his story of life in a Nazi concentration camp, and the focus on Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings (5665-1) considers the contents and impact of the three-volume epic fantasy. All include essays by notable critics who offer different interpretations and focus perfect for classroom discussion or essay pursuit.

This book presents an excellent interpretation of the works of J.R.R. Tolkein. It adds an interesting prespective on his stories, as well as his life. This is a must have for any true Tolien fan! Peace.

While visiting a friend I took a book from his bookshelf and asked, "The Hobbit? I never heard of it. What is it?". As if in a daze, he looks directly at me, saying, "You've never read the Hobbit? Take it with you! Read it! JUST READ IT!" I thought it very odd for my friend to exhibit such passion about a book. I wasn't interested so I changed the subject, hid the book under a pillow and started to leave shortly thereafter. I did not get far. He caught me at the door and handed me the Hobbit and again, with that far-off glare, said "JUST READ IT!" ... I did read it and to this day I consider it the most wonderful gift I have every received. Like cake and honey and bread and beer, ...., as sweet and satisfying today as it was the first time. To this friend I will always owe a great debt.