Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings

by William Bernard Ready

A CRITICAL STUDY OF TOLKIEN THAT IS PERSONAL, BRILLIANT. ; A BRIEF APPRECIATION IN DEPTH;

Genres: Fantasy, Literary Criticism, Reference

Mass Market Paperback

First published November 2, 1968

About the author

William Bernard Ready (16 September 1914-12 September 1981) was a University Librarian and Professor of Bibliography at McMaster University in Ontario, taking up the position in 1966.

Born in Cardiff, Wales, Ready studied bibliography in England and Wales, and after the Second World War he became an acquisitions librarian at Stanford University. Between 1956 to 1963 he was Director of Libraries at Marquette University.

Ready foresaw the cultural value of Tolkien's writings and, while at Marquette University, he managed to purchase a large selection of original literary manuscripts by Tolkien in 1956-57, including manuscripts of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Reviews

[Jukka Särkijärvi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tolkien is a man full of lore, a word that fits Tolkien like the skin of the hand the sinews, bones and blood of it. The word implies that it can be taught, and also counsel and learning, scholarship, erudition, guile and more—the marks of a wizard. All the attributes of lore are in Tolkien. Herbert Merritt, Professor of Philology at Stanford, used the lore word well when he used it to describe Tolkien.

Thus begins William Ready's Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. It gets worse.

The book landed on my lap at a charity auction after the person who'd donated it bought it for me, telling me that her spouse had flung it at the wall. I must admit that this coloured my reading somewhat. If a member of the Tolkien Society finds it hard going to get through a pamphlet of mere 96 pages, it must be dire indeed.

Well, it is. Reading the book is a journey of discovery, of sorts, since there is no foreword or any sort of explanation what it is trying to accomplish and how. Is it meant to be an interview, as the back cover suggests and none of the contents bear any relation to? A collection of essays or a monograph? Is it propounding an argument of some sort? We're not told and after reading, I was left uncertain.

First of all, the work could have used the hand of an editor, and by my estimation, roughly a third of the text is cruft fit to be deleted. The quotation above is representative of Ready's grasp of style, and arguments are formulated by first presenting a declarative statement and then in the way of proof, rephrasing that declaration two or three times in a tortuous, doggerel fashion. I think the idea is to obfuscate the fact that what is being presented is not in fact an argument so much as a baseless claim that the writer came up with on the spur of the moment in order to cash in on the Tolkien boom that was going on at the time of writing.

Sprinkled in the text are factual errors ("Father Giles of Ham"? Really?), logical errors, rhetorical errors, a lot of ideological chest-thumping about the set-in-their-ways English, a few inexplicable swipes at the Welsh, and such assertions as "[Tolkien] is not to be compared with the writers of the past. Tolkien is a non-pareil. He does not follow in an orderly, literary, evolutionary development." (pg. 80) or "Moreover, and this is Tolkien's great contribution to the canon of supernatural literature, no more need there be even hope of a happy ending. The decision to struggle on when defeat seems inevitable is the true glory of Man that Tolkien has brought forward again from the great Norse ideal." (pg. 57)

Throughout, Ready gives off the terrible impression that he has not actually read Tolkien's work, and if he has, he certainly fails to understand it. There's a lengthy, dismissive digression on C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams and a great deal of name-dropping of famous writers, especially Chesterton, but not much in the way of substance, though Ready does make a few accurate observations about how Tolkien's work gains a lot when read aloud.

All in all, this is a hideous waste of paper in its modest length and it is terrifying to me that my copy appears to be the fifth printing of the work. It is an unfocused mess, with argumentation so clumsy the reader is left uncertain what is even being proposed, let alone how it should be so. Its prose is artless to the point of hilarity. The corpus of Tolkien scholarship is lessened by its existence.

[Dvdlynch · Rating 2 out of 5]

I truly pity the reader that turns to this book for some insight into Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. The whole thing winds up feeling like a back-handed compliment as Ready's tone is rather smug and dismissive throughout, of the critics of Tolkien on the one hand and of the other members of the Inklings on the other (C. S. Lewis in particular). What few worthwhile insights do exist are either 1) obvious (though they were perhaps less so at the time of this book's publication) or 2)scattered about like jackstraws in the author's stream-of-consciousness ramblings. I don't know if it is possible to stress enough the strangeness of Ready's odd style which wanders from topic to topic like a faux-intellectual whirling dervish, occasionally throwing out references to other writers or literary works (even the philosophers Jacques Maritain and Hegel(!)) in a manner that seems more determined to impress the audience with his erudition than to support any particular thesis.

In sum, this might be worth reading just for the novelty of the author's idiosyncratic style but for gaining insight into the subject matter it purports to treat with it's fairly useless.

[Sistermagpie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice little book on Tolkien written while he was still alive. I appreciated it for the biographical information. The author obviously has a bias in favor of Tolkien over practically any other writer, especially the other Inklings, but that didn't bother me. I was bothered by a rather obnoxious passage about how Tolkien understood how important it was to be Man and have Man Friends to be Manly, something that people missed by the time of the book's writing because by then everybody was living in a "Mom State." Because if there's one thing you'd say about the Mad Men-era it's that women just ruled everything. It's lucky those Inklings managed to carve out hours and hours each day to hang out with each other and their male colleagues.

[Bede William · Rating 2 out of 5]

My review shall be sparing, as I see (after already having written my own) that divers other readers have already voiced their opinions, opinions wholly akin to my own. I really have attempted to be kind in my review, for after all, I do believe that Ready bore an appreciation for Tolkien's works in some degree, and therefore I wish not to rebuke him too hastily. However, I found the attempt to show kindness quite trying...

What I chiefly disliked about Ready’s book (not to mention his false "factual" claims, which is always terrifying to see in any Tolkien study) was all of the preaching and direct opinions. There was less an analysis of Tolkien’s works, more of a voice that claimed many "facts", yelling them in the reader’s face. There were many instances (in various chapters) wherein it seemed like Ready would diverge away from his initial argument, leaving me wondering what point he was even attempting to make in correlation to it. There is, in my opinion, far too many comments regarding the failures of other writers (C.S. Lewis, in particular). What’s more, I did not at all expect to find a single statement of rebuke against Tolkien himself (of which there are many), let alone some comments which left me wondering if Ready even enjoyed Tolkien's works at all. We get it Ready, you absolutely did not like Tolkien’s appendices! But wait, later on he gives the appendix praise, saying that its language "gives a sense of pleasure in the very sound". So, does he approve, or does he not...? Lastly, Ready even dared to claim that Tolkien was lying when he said that his Lord of The Rings is not allegory. True, art is objective, but Tolkien made it quite clear, on many occasions, how and why The Lord of The Rings is not allegory. I just find it puzzling that he would choose to make this comment at all.

However, in his defence, he does write a lot of praise for the achievements which Tolkien’s writings produced. He makes mention of the dangers of a mechanized world (a significant, and unavoidable, analysis found in Tolkien’s writings), which was relieving to espy amongst the many daunting pages. I must also voice my opinion about some of his, as I have mentioned above, "preaching", which is that I did find some of his philosophical comments of relevance (and that is, however, my personal opinion; not necessarily agreeable to other readers), but I only wish that he would have stuck to these points, expanded, and strengthened his argument in favour of Tolkien's writings.

That is all I have to say. Now, I shall take my leave, for I feel a deep yearning to flee to Humphrey Carpenter for salvation.

[Katlyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I will preface this review by saying this has been one of the hardest books for me to finish. I hate DNFing books but I really considered it with this one. And it is a measly 139 pages…

Ready felt the need to put down so many authors in this book. A book which claims to be a mass interview of Tolkien and was in no way that. It was horrible. He called writers such as C.S Lewis terrible and not good. Someone who created Narnia and retold Greek Myth and someone who was a close friend of J.R.R.

The review snippets on the back made it seem like this would be a read for the ages, but when I actually started the book I honestly felt like these reviewers had actually never read more than perhaps the first and last sentences.

The author was so repetitive and just downright rude that I couldn’t imagine how this book was called stimulating and remarkable.

So many mistakes were found in this edition and it was a reprint after almost 10 years. Why? It was obvious that there was never an editor or the editor could not even make it through, much like me, and just gave the okay. Hopefully reluctantly.

He goes on to talk about Belladonna Took, a familiar if not very popular character, but calls her Bilbo’s wife. I don’t know what kind of Oedipal complex he had but Belladonna was Bilbo’s mother. Which any Tolkien fan would know. Minor or major.

He says that there was never any women in Tolkien’s work which I can agree there isn’t a heavy female presence in Lord of the Rings, but Eowyn is a pivotal character and does not deserve to be glanced over like this author so blatantly did.

So many things could be said about this book but I don’t think that it deserves any more of the time that I have so mistakenly allotted it. All I can hope is this review will help people avoid this and read a book on their TBR that is actually worth it.

[Steve Chisnell · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot wrong with a book like this, as many reviewers discuss. Ready is pompous, self-assured, factually wrong, in need of an editor (is an introduction or conclusion requisite?), and so overarching in his praise of Tolkien and dismissal of contemporaries and predecessors that one wonders on what his arguments are based. Has he read Tolkien? It's anyone's guess.

Still. . . . Still, we might find in Ready's rhetoric the traditional British erudite littérateur, waxing in the parlor one evening, about the power of this work of fantasy. In such a venue, he hardly need do more than expound, has few demands accept to mesmerize through words. And he does. This is not the plain-spoken backgrounder on Tolkien of Carter, Kocher, or Chance, but one who presumes a certain aesthetic sensibility about our beloved fantasy epic.

Both reveling and highly speculative late in his career, yes, Ready is off-putting to Tolkien fans who seek to learn author or trilogy facts. I'm largely with them. On the other hand, a sometimes poetic and broadening take on a subject that is too often pedantic trivia skirmishes.

[Nerd_Pilgrim · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love Middle-Earth and Tolkien's work so I thought that I would try and read this to add to my knowledge.

In the age of the internet - this book did little to add to my ideas on Tolkien and offered few insights not already gleaned. I found the book to be somewhat difficult to read - not due to odd word choice but rather the tendency to waffle on and use painful allegory.

I'm no writer myself, but I found the constant repetition of his statement on the depiction of Man in Middle-Earth hard to endure mentally and it was with great effort that I managed to remain focused for paragraphs at a time.

The only saving grace is that the man is a source from the life of Tolkien who wrote when he lived and thus paints a picture of a man (albeit one he idolises) rather than when you read of him today and he's this godly-grandfather figure. Skip it and do the research yourself.

[David Burkam · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the 1960s, The Lord of the Rings was the obsession of many American college students with their "Frodo Lives" buttons.

At the time—before the appearance of The Silmarillion, before the book-length biographies and critical discussions that flourished in later decades, before Christopher Tolkien's edited twelve volumes of The History of Middle Earth, before the internet and before wikipedia—there was little critical or academic discussion of Tolkien's popular writings. And even less known (especially in the U.S.) about the man behind the books.

This slim volume appeared in 1968, neither a complete biography nor a thorough exploration of Tolkien's themes, but a brief overview of both. So much has been written in the last 50 years to make this book little more than an early curiosity in Tolkienian literature.

[Luis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very wordy and scholarly book that in my case did little to give me a deeper understanding of The Lord of the Rings. Some interesting insights but that's about it. That Tolkien was a Christian, we know. He imbedded these beliefs into his work, we know. But the language here is so florid, even abstract, that it becomes tiresome. Thankfully the book is short so it's a somewhat quick read.

[Michael Joosten · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important more for its early place in Tolkien studies (written in his lifetime) than for any of its actual content.

[Darth Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars.

[Maarten · Rating 1 out of 5]

At least it was short.

[Dominick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Apparently, the critic for the Chicago News thought it "unlikely that anyone will beat Mr. Ready's understanding of The Lord of the Rings." I think this may be the first book that was written about Tolkien--at least, the first monograph to be published by a major publisher, so I suppose a reviewer might be forgiven for being impressed. However, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone who had actually read Tolkien--even in the 1960s--could possibly believe that this book on Tolkien would be unbeatable. Frankly, it's a mess. It is part superficial biography, part largely unsupported opinion, part polemic. No book of only 96 pages could conceivably offer a proper analysis of the Lord of the Rings, but, despite the title, this book barely even tries. It rarely even addresses the text directly (I think it might be quoted perhaps half a dozen times), opting instead for vague opinions about Man nd his place in the universe. Especially grating is Ready's belief that praising Tolkien somehow requires criticizing the other Inklings, notably C. S. Lewis, of whom Ready clearly had a very low opinion. Ironically, Ready more than once comments on what he sees as the stylistic demerits of the Inklings, Lewis especially (but also including Tolkien), critiquing what he saw as the Boys School book infelicities of their writing--while himself writing in a florid, convoluted, pretentious style that does not hold a candle to anything produced by those he criticizes. Lewis could write rings around this guy--and also say something while doing so (whether one disagreed with what he was saying or not). Ready, by contrast, writes a very long short book--96 pages that often go on at tedious length without saying anything to the point. I doubt anyone who has read Tolkien with any attention or seriousness will find much of value here.

[Robert Beveridge · Rating 2 out of 5]

William Ready, The Tolkien Relation (Warner, 1968)
[originally posted 16May2000]

"Remarkable insight," says the Chicago Star-Tribune, but I'm hard-pressed to find it. I'd be more forgiving of the many shortcomings of Ready's critical look at Tokien (published in America as Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, a misnomer if ever there was one); collections of essays, since the essays were written at different times, for different audiences, in different frames of mind, usually have a center of gravity somewhat removed from full-length critical studies. And the former is what this feels like, though it purports to be the latter. Ready mixes snatches of biography, criticism, and personal insight into something that wants to be a critical (overly?) look at The Lord of the Rings. While "a critical look at the Lord of the Rings" is far too large a scope for a volume this slim (ninety-six pages) in the first place, the tangents upon which Ready embarks, everything from Tolkien's abduction by a family servant as a child in South Africa to minor discourses on "Father Giles of Ham" (I always thought that was "Farmer Giles"?) and "Leaf and Niggle," make me wonder if this wasn't a five-hundred-page dissertation that got boiled down into something Warner was hoping would hold the attention span of the average well-baked college student in 1968. If so, it's a miserable failure on all fronts there as well, because Ready's language is that of the critic, and it's hard enough to read when you're sober and paying attention.

Insight? No. Worthwhile? Not really; other, longer, separate works cover biography, criticism, and personal insight much better than this. Worth going out of your way to find? Certainly not. * ½

[Dave/Maggie Bean · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the main, I loathe books that presume to "explain" great authors and the literary phenomena they unleash. This title is the exception to the rule. Neither panegyric nor polemic (a rarity in the field of literary criticism), Ready's assessment of Tolkien and his influence is both honest and insightful. Although verbose, overly abstract, and positively labyrinthine at times (it occasionally seems that he's fighting a desperate battle to keep his fingers apace with his thoughts), Ready's own prose is simply beautiful when he's in "the zone":

"Saruman was the scholar-scientist gone wrong, beguiled into evil for his desire to control Man; first it was to be for Man's own good, then as creatures of his will, for he knew better than they: that is the final stage of blasphemy." (p. 76);

"…Hobbit lower classes are forelock-tugging yokels as divorced from their own dreams and agony as the Irish creatures of Somerville and Ross, the grinning, bowing, house-servant slaves of the Old South, the quaint little 'tween-maids of the Victorian ménage, the cottagers who hedged and thatched and plowed for the gentry while their children went into domestic service in the Big House --all, all are in a Hell that their masters designed for them, and yet most of them believe that that is good for them, or that is all they are good for." (p. 67)

[Chris Fellows · Rating 3 out of 5]

The question I kept asking myself was, who is this William Bernard Ready fellow? This curious little book is as much about him as about Tolkien, and goes in for a lot of damning with faint praise.

In saying that Tolkien's primary stated justification for the Lord of the Rings is false - that is, by denying that Middle Earth was begun as a home for the elvish tongues - Ready reveals that he doesn't understand Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings at all. The Lord of the Rings is not Tolkien's magnum opus. It is an incidental fragment of a much greater whole. It looms disproportionately large because of its accessibility to readers with a 20th preconception that the novel was the only natural form for long fiction. W. B. Ready disses the appendices, and says it would be better if they were not there. I read the appendices first, and to me they will always be the heart and soul of the Lord of the Rings. If they were not there, it would be a far more conventional and much less interesting work.

Also, Ready disses Tolkien's prose (dialogue especially) as unduly influenced by the 'Boy's Own Adventure' school; but it seems far more natural and readable to me than Ready's own prose. I have noticed this before... writing from the 30s and 40s usually seems far less alien than writing from the 60s and 70s. But that's probably just me.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

The back of the book reads, "Now a distinguished scholar who spent hours interviewing Tolkien has written a readable, understandable introduction to the man and his work," though after finishing this book I would call it anything but understandable. Perhaps this was just an issue of a 40+ year gap between its publication and my reading, but I found Ready's writing to be dense, esoteric and overly confident. Instead of coming away with an actual understanding of Tolkien's style as I had hoped, I found myself reading quickly through this book and grasping only a few themes, e.g. references to the place of "fairy stories" in literature and some generalizations about men who grew up in England. If you are searching for a brief history of the Inklings, a few vaguely informative facts about Tolkien's life, and otherwise masturbatory commentary about the life of Oxford dons, this book is for you.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Picked up this obscure essay about Tolkien and his work at a wonderful used book shop in Rochester, MI, where I recently spent my Christmas break.

http://www.biblio.com/bookstore/downt...

It was a pocked sized 97 page page turner that kept me entertained through two flights on my flights back to Los Angles. There is a lot of bang for your buck but the writers personal examinations and pronouncements became more about his opinion at times rather than a strictly informative piece.

A special shout out goes to the full color Kent cigarette ad placed right in the middle of the book. For all the right reasons. Kent.

[gazoo · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a struggle to get through this baby. I didn't get a sense of any real linear progression or cohesiveness. Thoughts are as scattered as Gollum. But I did find the odd precious gem in here. A lot of obvious grasping at straws for insights on Tolkien which turn into personal extrapolations as to their relation to the writing of the Rings. It's quite evident Tolkien kept his thoughts hidden except for a couple of available lectures. I took on this book because I was hoping to have some light shed on Tolkien(who I actually think is Gandalf) but I am still left in the dark like Saruman.

[Haley · Rating 1 out of 5]

I give up on finishing this. It was boooring and it's been on my currently reading shelf for far too long to be realistic anymore. If you want to learn about Tolkien and/or background for the LOTR series, I recommend one of the books by his son. NOT THIS. It seems like an easy read since its very short but it's not the length that counts. te heh.

[Maura · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not certain why i bothered to finish it -- perhaps because it was so bad it was comical. Many many sentences of the form "[sweeping generalization], however [contradiction to sweeping generalization]". Thank goodness it was less than 100 pages.