The Lord of the Rings: The Mythology of Power

Twayne's Masterwork Studies #99

by Jane Chance Nitzsche

Examines themes, such as power, language, and politics, from volumes of "The Lord of the Rings" and interprets how they relate to the twentieth century

130 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 1992

Reviews

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. It wasn't a terrible read. But while it added some to my understanding of Lord of the Rings, it didn't add much. I think the main issue is that Chance is trying to push LotR into some Marxist/political paradigm when that really isn't the paradigm most natural to LotR. Yes, you can draw some parallels there, and Chance does that decently. But drawing parallels does not mean you've captured the essence of the story, and on that front, Chance overall failed. The best part of the book was the epilogue where Chance drew out all the repetition and parallels built into the work. I liked that a fair bit. But that was the only real useful part here.

Rating: 1.5-2 Stars (Poor).

[Dan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Who could imagine it's possible to write a chapter titled "'Queer' Hobbits" without even broaching the topic of homosexuality, esp. in a book that abundantly cites Foucault? Even for Tolkien scholarship, this is pretty bad.

[Steve Chisnell · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I understood Chance to be a lifelong writer and teacher on Tolkien and one who based her studies on the works of Michel Foucault, I admit I slathered at the mouth a bit. But who knew how quickly that excitement might run dry?

"Dry" is the first word I might offer to describe Chance's approach. For the better part of this work (which feels much longer than it is), she ploddingly assembles her points around the role of "power" in Middle-Earth. She rightly places it mostly in the realms of language and difference, of epistemology and politics--and I would not therefore oppose her approach or even most conclusions--but the results of her inquiry largely fall into territories obvious to lay-readers without the Foucault background: Bombadil's joyous language to banish the lifeless barrow wights, the illusory power of "sight" with the One Ring, etc. Chance has the language, but too often her jargon only obscures what must be otherwise apparent.

For me, what truly bothered me about her scholarship was the limited reading of power as she approaches LotR: for Foucault there is an ever-dynamic flow of power which itself is not inherently destructive. We cannot/must not fool ourselves to naming a condition as static but recognize that it is the arresting or creative energy to power which alters conditions, which moves us to change inside its workings. For Chance, little is made of this and we are left to see particular characters and incidents as ever-wicked or heroic. What of Bilbo across the epic? What of the biography of Galadriel? Yes, duplicity is a destructive strategy, but does Gandalf never use it?

Certainly much might have been made from Chance's approach; but she treated her analysis as yeoman's work rather than an opening for usefulness.

[Angelica · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book considerably more than A Tolkien Compass as an exploration of Tolkien’s work. Although Jane Chance focuses on one specific topic (power), it felt like she was able explore LOTR much deeper and more expansively than any collection of miscellaneous essays possibly could.

The chapters on language as power are particularly interesting. Chance demonstrates how Tolkien’s characters use language to gain power, that the people who create language have the most power in Middle Earth (Elves, mainly, although the Common Speech rising in prevalence indicates the rise of Men), and how the powerless are often indicated through their poor speech (Gollum). I was inspired by the notion that language itself holds the power to create knowledge, inspire others, or destroy them. I also love how the author demonstrates Tolkien’s uplifting of the marginalized. Children (as Hobbits), the elderly, women, and nature—all, although some more significantly than others, are given power through language throughout the story. Ex: as Sméagol becomes more articulate, he becomes more humanized (Hobbitized?).

There is so much to say about the subject of power in LOTR, and I think Jane Chance covers it quite well. Definitely recommend it if anybody feels like getting way too academic about their favorite books.

[David Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book to be a fun excursion through the basic plot of The Lord of the Rings, as well as some interesting commentary on thematic aspects of the story that I hadn't deeply considered before. Call that a positive! It is a little on the academic side (much is said about the Self and the Other, with capitalization as such), and it's a little repetitive in its prose, so it might not be the most enthralling thing you've ever read on the subject. But if you are interested in the implications of the political and social aspects of the novel, especially as they relate to relations across class, gender, and racial lines, you should find something of interest.

[Max Baskind · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a book about JRR Token and how he wrote the Lord of the rings and Hobbit sagas. I am a fan of the Lord of the rings and the Hobbit, because of it I enjoyed this book because it talks about the author and how he came up with the ideas for the world of middle earth.

[Anthony · Rating 1 out of 5]

As an avid LOtR fan, I was disappointed with this book. To its credit, it was carefully and thoroughly written and I learned a lot about Tolkien himself. However, this was a dense and dull read to get through as I counted down pages until the end.

[Jess · Rating 2 out of 5]

A really struggled to finish this book. It is slow, dull and meandering. It has good points, but can't back it up and quickly moves on. It also has trouble connecting everything to the main point.

[Christine · Rating 2 out of 5]

My problem with this book is that while Chance has some very good points (like power structure), she tends to leave out details that can undermine her points (for instance, in her description of Biblo's birthday). I also do not understand how she reaches some of her conclusions. She writes how Boromir is racially aganist the Hobbits, but her only support is when Boromir yells at Frodo, a scene where you can say he was influenced by the Ring.