What do you think?
Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon
This comprehensive and discriminating account of Tolkien's work has been revised and expanded, to take account both of recent developments in scholarship, and of the recent films directed by Peter Jackson. Tracing the development of Tolkien's creative technique over several decades, it explores the bewildering profusion of shorter works, as well as devoting an extended analysis to The Lord of the Rings . Chapters consider Tolkien's contribution to the history of ideas, and review the reception of the Lord of the Rings film adaptations and other popular adaptations of his work.
- GenresNonfiction
255 pages, Paperback
First published October 21, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 26, 2019
Enjoyable analysis, with good examples. Loved the discussion of the LotR films in the final chapter (though only the first two PJ films were out at the time of publication), as well as the analytical framework to discuss appearances of LotR in the culture: Relabelling, Assimilation, Imitation, and Adaptation.
I do have a few quibbles (e.g., I wouldn't say Middle-earth is an entirely different world from our own; it's more of an imagined pre-history of our world), but they did not detract from overall quality of the work.
I do have a few quibbles (e.g., I wouldn't say Middle-earth is an entirely different world from our own; it's more of an imagined pre-history of our world), but they did not detract from overall quality of the work.
April 4, 2026
I may have studied this more closely (including the endnotes) than some previous commentators here. I come to this critique from a perspective gradually fading, and dating me, for I read as a boy what was then most of a shorter shelf of Tolkien in the early Seventies. Rosebury wonders as he concludes this 2003 study (updated to include the first two Rings films) if the actual LotR might suffer the fate of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, where we primarily see films rather than start (if at all still bother) with the novel now over two centuries old. But he takes heart by acknowledging, I hazard correctly, that the Professor's legendarium at least in its most complete version, will continue to entice those seeking the scope, subtlety, amplitude, moral ambiguity, and psychological depth which at least for now even CGI cannot duplicate. (A blessing maybe neither Jackson's Hobbits nor Amazon's adaptations had appeared by the time this compact treatment appeared nearly twenty-five years ago.)
Rosebury's sharp on delineating the successful passages and the problematic prose both in Tolkien. He analyses the poetry too, and shorter tales, although the brevity of this overview limits any close explication beyond a few well-chosen excerpts. He admits a view I share if in the minority: that a lot of the History of Middle-earth edited by Christopher Tolkien isn't as appealing to those outside a few academics or obsessives, and similarly that the fulsome assertions of JRRT's Christian and therefore Inklings-allied solidarity aren't borne out when seriously comparing the sometimes facile or glib productions by prolific CS Lewis with an agonizingly meticulous and inevitably incomplete life's work of his friend...who by the by encouraged Tollers to keep pushing forward through with his great saga.
The cultural phenomena and Tolkien's place in the history of ideas (Hobbes, Marx, Tolstoy, naysayers to Tolkien's achievements, and modernist champions all flit past) get chapters in the second edition. I wish more space had been granted, for both of these aspects deserve more than quick summary. Yet it seems podcasts for better or worse might now surpass in devotion even formidable lit-crit scholars: this thoughtful response to the massive oeuvre already extant two decades ago attests to the need for serious (yet refreshingly snarky now and then, much appreciated in a dry British tone) investigation of the endurance of Tolkien in print, the dangers of uncritical praise of his creations, and the achievements that keep us searching out smart reflections. I'd supplement with three newer, deeper dive, takes from our own period, all reviewed recently by me: Why We Love Middle-Earth, Marchese + Sisto; The Tower + the Ruin, Michael DC Drout; Nick Groom, Tolkien + the Twenty-First Century.
Here are my notes...
Page 57
Youth LotR overall: aesthetic bliss, moral urgency, amplitude, subtlety
Page 58
Shire vs beyond= maturity \death
Page 103
"that distance (in time and space) lends enchantment is an aesthetic as well as a pacing law."
Page 104
On Fairy Stories signals determination to take H not tragic Silmarillion (1977?) as LotR prototype
Page 121
The Sea-Bell poem justifies mythopoeia
Page 140
Neo romantic earnestness, not irony or self-referential modernism: BR good on differentiation of Ts careful craft vs CSL prolific but facile output
Page 161
Tendency "endemic in twentieth-century literary criticism" to "use the licence of the critical reader ('what it means to me') to assign a crass and reductive meaning to a text, and then to hold the author responsible for having written a crass and reductive work."
Page 167
"I am not a democrat, if only because humility and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility but universal greatness and pride" n 20 P 167 (presumably from Letters?)
Page 192
Music of the Ainur~"theological anarchism" as metaphysic where power reserved for careful creating and wise use of potential which can corrupt its sub-creators as "owners"
Page 198
"Fortunately (or unfortunately) the training provided by academic literary criticism is, in part, a training in making a great deal of fleeting details, inculcating as it does from high school onwards a routine in which large assertions are supported by small quotations."
Page 218
Jackson Rings' "tendency to present the Ring almost exclusively as a brute magical force afflicting innocent victims, rather than as a insidious seducer of all-too-fallible wills." Similarly, the perhaps inevitable emphasis on action rather than rhetorical contention as in the "light saber" duel between Theoden and Gandalf, or the diminished role of the Ring as an "external" force instead of a sinister delusion. Which in turn leads to a clash of evil power and dogged goodness by not an overthrow of alluring, if myopic, appeals to dark energies but plucky good guys (and gals now and then) triumph by superiority of strength or weaponry as the virtuous heroes. In the book, everyone can be tempted by corruption, not only liable to misfortune. Cf Prancing Pony podcast by Marchese + Sisto on this big-budget, big battle, blockbuster cinematic shift, however expected, in Rings series...Groom much more forgiving on Jackson + team's capitulation to film genre tropes. Rosebury's sympathetic to the general consensus among the NZ makers to provide the most respectful approach overall for the Rings project.
Rosebury's sharp on delineating the successful passages and the problematic prose both in Tolkien. He analyses the poetry too, and shorter tales, although the brevity of this overview limits any close explication beyond a few well-chosen excerpts. He admits a view I share if in the minority: that a lot of the History of Middle-earth edited by Christopher Tolkien isn't as appealing to those outside a few academics or obsessives, and similarly that the fulsome assertions of JRRT's Christian and therefore Inklings-allied solidarity aren't borne out when seriously comparing the sometimes facile or glib productions by prolific CS Lewis with an agonizingly meticulous and inevitably incomplete life's work of his friend...who by the by encouraged Tollers to keep pushing forward through with his great saga.
The cultural phenomena and Tolkien's place in the history of ideas (Hobbes, Marx, Tolstoy, naysayers to Tolkien's achievements, and modernist champions all flit past) get chapters in the second edition. I wish more space had been granted, for both of these aspects deserve more than quick summary. Yet it seems podcasts for better or worse might now surpass in devotion even formidable lit-crit scholars: this thoughtful response to the massive oeuvre already extant two decades ago attests to the need for serious (yet refreshingly snarky now and then, much appreciated in a dry British tone) investigation of the endurance of Tolkien in print, the dangers of uncritical praise of his creations, and the achievements that keep us searching out smart reflections. I'd supplement with three newer, deeper dive, takes from our own period, all reviewed recently by me: Why We Love Middle-Earth, Marchese + Sisto; The Tower + the Ruin, Michael DC Drout; Nick Groom, Tolkien + the Twenty-First Century.
Here are my notes...
Page 57
Youth LotR overall: aesthetic bliss, moral urgency, amplitude, subtlety
Page 58
Shire vs beyond= maturity \death
Page 103
"that distance (in time and space) lends enchantment is an aesthetic as well as a pacing law."
Page 104
On Fairy Stories signals determination to take H not tragic Silmarillion (1977?) as LotR prototype
Page 121
The Sea-Bell poem justifies mythopoeia
Page 140
Neo romantic earnestness, not irony or self-referential modernism: BR good on differentiation of Ts careful craft vs CSL prolific but facile output
Page 161
Tendency "endemic in twentieth-century literary criticism" to "use the licence of the critical reader ('what it means to me') to assign a crass and reductive meaning to a text, and then to hold the author responsible for having written a crass and reductive work."
Page 167
"I am not a democrat, if only because humility and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility but universal greatness and pride" n 20 P 167 (presumably from Letters?)
Page 192
Music of the Ainur~"theological anarchism" as metaphysic where power reserved for careful creating and wise use of potential which can corrupt its sub-creators as "owners"
Page 198
"Fortunately (or unfortunately) the training provided by academic literary criticism is, in part, a training in making a great deal of fleeting details, inculcating as it does from high school onwards a routine in which large assertions are supported by small quotations."
Page 218
Jackson Rings' "tendency to present the Ring almost exclusively as a brute magical force afflicting innocent victims, rather than as a insidious seducer of all-too-fallible wills." Similarly, the perhaps inevitable emphasis on action rather than rhetorical contention as in the "light saber" duel between Theoden and Gandalf, or the diminished role of the Ring as an "external" force instead of a sinister delusion. Which in turn leads to a clash of evil power and dogged goodness by not an overthrow of alluring, if myopic, appeals to dark energies but plucky good guys (and gals now and then) triumph by superiority of strength or weaponry as the virtuous heroes. In the book, everyone can be tempted by corruption, not only liable to misfortune. Cf Prancing Pony podcast by Marchese + Sisto on this big-budget, big battle, blockbuster cinematic shift, however expected, in Rings series...Groom much more forgiving on Jackson + team's capitulation to film genre tropes. Rosebury's sympathetic to the general consensus among the NZ makers to provide the most respectful approach overall for the Rings project.
Read
July 29, 2011Most academic, but at the same time most balanced account of Tolkien's life and work.
October 10, 2011
A little too academic for my tastes, but there were a few enlightening thoughts nonetheless. For die-hards only.
Read
January 9, 2012"Read" but unfinished ... until I find my copy again! Some good insight in what I have been able to finish, albeit somewhat dated now.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews