Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien ... (ISBN 0618422536)

Clear, comprehensive, and insightful:
This is an excellent collection of essays on various aspects and interpretations of Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. I would first like to highlight some of the high points of specific essays and then highlight some of the overarching conceptualization of Tolkein's themes. C.S. Lewis offers an excellent essay on the Dethronement of Power which explains in as clear a manner as I have ever read, the Christian philosophical underpinning and explanation as to the corrupting nature of power. Why does power corrupt? Lewis asserts that all earthly power is illusion and frail in comparison to the source of all true power, which he sees as God. Thus, when given access to this force, even when intentions are good, the power corrupts because it is not in the hands of its rightful owner, God in Heaven. Whether one believes or does not believe this concept, it does correspond with Tolkein's world view expressed in the Lord of the Rings. W. H. Auden's essay on the Quest Hero resonates with the works of Joseph Campbell especially when he analyzes the concept of the heroic friendship, using Frodo and Sam as the example. Auden links the heroic quest to the quest of all human beings for transcendence. He sees human nature as a nature continually in quest of itself, 'obliged at every moment to transcend what it was a moment before'. Two essays, written separetely by Rose Zimbardo and Patricia Meyer Spacks deal with the relationship between moral vision, meaning in existence, and the embedded existence in a moral universe. A moral universe is one that reveals God's signature and unveils the infinite good news that GOd plays an active role in the universe and the conditions of men. Thus a pre-Christian universe in Tolkein's vision, would be one in which God plays a major role upon the universal stage, much like the conception of the Universe established in the Old Testament as conceptualized by religious Jews. This world, expressed by St. Augustus, is one in which nothing is created evil, in fact evil is good that has been perverted. This world view also then brings up the issue of individual reponsibility which is thus seen not only as to one's own individual integrity but is a cosmic integrity. This responsibility is justified by the existence of some vast unnamed power for good. Marion Bradley writes a compelling essay on the relationships embedded in the text, focusing on Merry and Pippin; Eowyn and Arwen; and ending with a superb analysis of the friendship between Frodo and Sam. Verlyn Fleiger writes of the vast differences in heroic behavior between Aragorn and Frodo. Read this essay after reading the Auden essay since they deal with similar themes. Patrick Grant does a superb job of interpreting Lord of the Rings from a Jungian perspective, acknowleding that the work can not be totally rendered or reduced into Jungian terms and concepts. Grant demonstrated both mastery of Jung and Tolkein and I felt Grant actually had enough concepts packed into one essay that he could have written a book. I especially liked the point that Frodo was on an inner quest of individuation and that certain characters were excellent examples of Jungian archtypes, such as Gollum as the Shadow; Galdriel as the Anima; Gandlaf as the Wise Old Man; Aragorn as the Heroic King; and Shelob as the dark Anima. Grant however also integrates Milton into the analysis and points out the theme of the Christian epic in which the true hero is on a spiritual quest, growing in faith and hope which is based on charity. Grant also points out the realm of fairie is the realm of dream and myth where interior journeys through the psyche occur, stabilized by archetypal structures. Jung used the term 'enantidromia' to mean that evil leads to good. Grant points out that this concept resonates in Tolkein's work. Jung saw man's quest as individuation, the realization of the whole man. Jung also realized that great darkness could arise from the psyche and that numinous, impressive, dangerous archetypes rise from the unconscious. Thus archtypical characters of good have a corresponding archetypal character of darkness; an example being the fellowship of the ring balanced by the Ringwraiths; or Gandalf by Saruman. Tom Shippey is the final essay with a wonderful defense of the film trilogy with which I agree 100%. Some themes flowed throughout the essays. These included the quest of the hero, the moral universe, and linking Lord of the Rings to historic facts and forces. Whereas all the authors related that Tolkein hated allegory, there were certainly linkages bwteeen Mordor and the blight of the industrial revolution as well as Tolkein's experiences in World War I and the gloom of Nazism and Communism. Several essayist quoted the wonderful timeless lines when Frodo says: I wish it need not have happened in my time, to which Gandalf says "So do I...and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide." Very well written and clear, these essays offered comprehensive interpretations of Tolkein's great work.

Good reprint:
This book reprints several of the best essays from the editors' 1968 collection *Tolkien and the Critics,* combining them with several new essays by some of the best Tolkien scholars writing today. Together, they make a strong case for the strength of Tolkien's masterpiece on solid literary grounds (rebutting the main early critiques). It is very useful for my Philosophy and Fantasy course, and the papers are all accessible and interesting for the general reader. I can strongly recommend this book to all fans and literary critics alike.

Critical contempt for "the average Tolkien reader":
If you don't have a Ph.D. in Literature, you might not have the capacity to understand any of this book's essays--at least according to the editors. If you think that critics hostile to Tolkien are contemptuous of his fans, then read the introductory chapter written by editor Neil Isaacs. Pages 1-2: "In that introduction to our first collection of critical essays I was lamenting that these factors, (faddism and fannism, cultism and clubbism), particularly 'the feverish activity of the fanzines,' were counterproductive to the development of a climate for serious critical attention to Tolkien's masterpiece." Page 3: "(T)he cultism and clubbism were irrelevant to--indeed barriers to--considerations of literature, that is, serious criticism. In such a climate, Rose Zimbardo and I designed TOLKIEN AND THE CRITICS as a small contribution toward a major project, saving what we believed was a great novel from the 'faddists and buttom makers' whose enthusiasm contributed to clouding some critical judgment." Page 5: "(D)evotees used THE SILMARILLION to range far beyond THE LORD OF THE RINGS in their enthusiasm for Tolkien's created world, thereby deflecting attention from, and appreciation for, a major work of fiction, in precisely the ways that we feared. Of the provision of new scripts for video games to come I will not speak here." Huh. Well. I guess that we who do not hold Ph.D's in Literature or write professionally for a living cannot possibly appreciate Tolkien's books in the same way or to the same profound depths that Neil Isaacs and Rose Zimbardo do. We who gather with other fans in conferences and club meetings and fan sites are just "faddists, fannists, cultists, clubbists, and button makers." We're just silly, ignorant, and contemptible fans. Tolkien "critics and scholars" have worked SO hard for SO long to "save a great novel" from the enthusiasm of 50 million readers. I considered shredding my copy of the book after reading Isaacs' introductory chapter, but instead I read on. The book does have a few interesting essays, but most of it is puerile crap or incomprehensible, academic babble. In fact, the previous sentence sums up my opinion of Tolkien "criticism and scholarship": it's either interesting and insightful, puerile and silly, or academic onanism. Yuck!

Just a little thought...:
I acknowledge the point made by one reviewer, that this person objects to the idea allegedly introduced in this book that "fannism" and "clubbism" are barriers to proper scholastic appreciation and critiquing of The Lord of the Rings. However, I disagree with the reviewer's interpretation of this statement. I don't think Isaacs necessarily meant that fans who drub up all kinds of commercial interest in The Lord of the Rings are incapable of properly understanding and analyzing it. I think he meant that turning the books into a fantasy phenomenon has had the unfortunate side-effect of portraying The Lord of the Rings as run-of-the-mill fantasy fare and therefore not a serious work of classic fiction comparable to the works of any of our great writers, making anyone who attempts a serious critique look silly for seemingly over-analyzing it. And this is true. Since the movies came out (and apparently even before that), The Lord of the Rings has looked like a fad for infatuated fans rather than a classic work of literature born from the knowledge and imagination of one of the most intelligent and creative men who ever lived. It should be entitled to the respect afforded to any work born of such incredible historical and cultural knowledge and scholarship. That said, I'm sure Isaacs would agree with the fact that the movies and the fans have brought The Lord of the Rings more readers than ever (myself among them) and cannot be discarded as simply an unfortunate commercialization of this great story.