J.R.R. Tolkien (Bloom's Modern Critical Views) (ISBN 0791056600)

An edition of old (and largely oudated) criticism:
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.

Idiotic critic:
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.

A compilation of old (and somewhat outdated) criticism:
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.

Run away! Run away!:
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.

In-depth analysis for students:
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.