What do you think?
Rate this book
Tolkien and the Critics: Essays on J. R. R. Tolkien's the Lord of the Rings,
The fifteen essays in this volume include previously published critiques along with several original treatments, having the single purpose of serious criticism - to render judgement on a work of art (Tolkien's Lord of the Rings).
296 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1968
3 people are currently reading
91 people want to read
About the author
Neil D. Isaacs
32 books7 followersNeil Isaacs is Emeritus Professor of English (BA, Dartmouth College; MA Brown University), University of Maryland College Park, and a retired clinical social worker (MA, University of Maryland).
Neil has written books on a range of topics including literary studies, clinical studies, sports histories, and cultural studies.
Neil has written books on a range of topics including literary studies, clinical studies, sports histories, and cultural studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 5, 2023
Includes some great early essays. An important text for any Tolkien scholar or student.
Want to read
November 14, 2019KCPL has an original copy (1968) at the Central Library branch. Requested via hold 11/14/2019
December 21, 2023
I spent half an hour writing a review of this and Good Reads crashed. So I leave you with the highlights alone.
This is well anthologized. There is a wide array of content over a myriad of topics on Tolkien and his literature.
The essays are from the early 20th century. Most of the scholars had personal relationships with Tolkien and so their opinions aren’t shaped just by his writing but by knowing him.
The most interesting thing about this work is to see how academic opinions of Tolkien have changed over time. But even more than that, how critical scholarship of literature has changed over time. These scholars are referencing Tolkien’s theology not just as an anthropologic facet of the professors life, but as being paramount to understanding his views of creation and sub-creation. It is also interesting to see these scholars treat theology as a perfectly valid form of academic pursuit.
This is well anthologized. There is a wide array of content over a myriad of topics on Tolkien and his literature.
The essays are from the early 20th century. Most of the scholars had personal relationships with Tolkien and so their opinions aren’t shaped just by his writing but by knowing him.
The most interesting thing about this work is to see how academic opinions of Tolkien have changed over time. But even more than that, how critical scholarship of literature has changed over time. These scholars are referencing Tolkien’s theology not just as an anthropologic facet of the professors life, but as being paramount to understanding his views of creation and sub-creation. It is also interesting to see these scholars treat theology as a perfectly valid form of academic pursuit.
February 6, 2018
The fact that there was one or two essays, which I though were utterly boring or nonsense, it doesn't not take away from the fact that this is a super well put together collection. It covers many themes, ancles and criticisms, which for me was very important. I know I'm going to use several of the essays for my thesis, in fact I found in this book one article/essay which I have been searching vainly for in the university databases - hooraaay!
November 19, 2016
Most of the book is composed of reviews, but the chapters of analysis were excellent.
January 28, 2025
Isaacs and Zimbardo assembled this earlier criticism of Lord of the Rings in 1968, essays gathered from 1955 - 1966, including explorations by C. S. Lewis, W. H. Auden, and Marion Zimmer Bradley. For this reason alone, the historically first looks at Tolkien are worthwhile reading: as an historical moment in what would soon become a cultural phenomenon.
That said, however, don't go looking for high insights or close examinations of the trilogy. Instead, each critic approaches his or her topic with broader strokes, offering "safer" claims that to many of today's readers and fans will feel completely unenlightening. Patricia Meyer Spacks spends too many pages explaining how the story is a quest for power with the Ring at its center (she goes on to say that the the reading is weak in its literary merit). W. H. Auden tells us that the trilogy has a large Quest pattern similar to many myths.
No, I was entertained by these quaint takes on the Master of Middle Earth, reading fairly quickly through the most obvious of passages. More, though, I was satisfied to have visited an era where criticism still struggled to make sense of a work fairly new to literature, a fantasy which echoes deeply.
That said, however, don't go looking for high insights or close examinations of the trilogy. Instead, each critic approaches his or her topic with broader strokes, offering "safer" claims that to many of today's readers and fans will feel completely unenlightening. Patricia Meyer Spacks spends too many pages explaining how the story is a quest for power with the Ring at its center (she goes on to say that the the reading is weak in its literary merit). W. H. Auden tells us that the trilogy has a large Quest pattern similar to many myths.
No, I was entertained by these quaint takes on the Master of Middle Earth, reading fairly quickly through the most obvious of passages. More, though, I was satisfied to have visited an era where criticism still struggled to make sense of a work fairly new to literature, a fantasy which echoes deeply.
July 20, 2024
First published in 1962, this book consists of essays that would be considered the 'first wave' of Tolkien criticism, responding to the earliest reviews of Lord of the Rings from the mid-1950s, especially Edmund Wilson's scathing review “Ooo, Those Awful Orcs!”. That review is not reprinted but excerpted often enough that you get the tenor of it.
These reviews largely extol the virtues of Lord of the Rings (rather than The Hobbit), with some exceptions (one critic purports to show that LotR is not 'literature', and there's a harsh review of the poetry as well as a careful analysis of the brilliance of the poetry).
This is the fun part. Opinions differ. To paraphrase some points: “It's obviously a Christian allegory, Tolkien was a member of the very Christian Inklings, and Gandalf has a resurrection”. “No, it's not Christian or even religious, there's no formal worship and barely a mention of any kind of god.”
The one downside is that these are early reviews and many of the reviewers feel it necessary to brief the reader on the plot, characterization, and other elements that modern readers know so well. You can skim over these parts to get to the analysis.
These reviews largely extol the virtues of Lord of the Rings (rather than The Hobbit), with some exceptions (one critic purports to show that LotR is not 'literature', and there's a harsh review of the poetry as well as a careful analysis of the brilliance of the poetry).
This is the fun part. Opinions differ. To paraphrase some points: “It's obviously a Christian allegory, Tolkien was a member of the very Christian Inklings, and Gandalf has a resurrection”. “No, it's not Christian or even religious, there's no formal worship and barely a mention of any kind of god.”
The one downside is that these are early reviews and many of the reviewers feel it necessary to brief the reader on the plot, characterization, and other elements that modern readers know so well. You can skim over these parts to get to the analysis.
October 19, 2013
Not having been around for the original moments in which The Lord of the Rings was published, I know very little of what that was like. One of the things this book provides is a glimpse into what it was like. The response at the time ranged from the silly and cultish to learned inquiries shedding light on the intricacies of the work. This book is a collection of the best criticism written before 1968. There is, besides very good criticism, a sense of dialogue in everything I’ve read so far: from mentions and considerations of the phenomenon of fandom (the buttons, the costumes, the babbling enthusiasm), to responses to the dismissive criticism which in that day reached its peak in that orc of remarkable refinement: Edmund Wilson. Edmund Wilson had admirable powers of literary penetration and enjoyed a great reputation as a critic. It is lamentable that in criticizing The Lord of the Rings he resorted to the latter without, apparently, the aid of the former. One may say that if this collection of essays achieves one thing it is to show how wrong Wilson and the highbrow condescension were.
But of course it achieves a great deal more. Auden and Lewis chime in with insight, the tomes are evaluated for literary merit, philology is considered of course, sources and influences, and moral vision. If you have read the trilogy and know and love it, these essays will take you through it again–each one–offering considerations and insights that leave you pondering. I don’t know if these essays will help people who are not entirely positive toward The Lord of the Rings. I think they will, but any position short of positive enthusiasm for the work is so far from my own that I don’t think I am qualified to comment. I do know that what I’ve read so far has deepened the caves of my appreciation like dwarves tunneling in search of more mithril. Why Tolkien was doing what he was doing becomes clearer. The book shows how his art extended to so many levels.
Marion Zimmer Bradley has one of the best essays in the book. It treats heroic love, illuminating it in the ranking of the various kinds of creatures present in middle earth at the end of the third age. What she explains about the characters of Merry and Pippin alone is worth a coat of dwarvish mail, but she also examines Sam and Gollum in tandem, as they should be, and explains the structure of the events in which they figure so that you see why Tolkien is a writer’s hero.
If theology is faith in search of understanding, then perhaps I can say that good criticism is love in search of understanding. It is faithful criticism when the love is deserved and so the understanding is rich and deep. I’m highly of the opinion that this book is right faithful criticism, even down to the essay that argues that Tolkien is not literary in the proper sense of the term.
But of course it achieves a great deal more. Auden and Lewis chime in with insight, the tomes are evaluated for literary merit, philology is considered of course, sources and influences, and moral vision. If you have read the trilogy and know and love it, these essays will take you through it again–each one–offering considerations and insights that leave you pondering. I don’t know if these essays will help people who are not entirely positive toward The Lord of the Rings. I think they will, but any position short of positive enthusiasm for the work is so far from my own that I don’t think I am qualified to comment. I do know that what I’ve read so far has deepened the caves of my appreciation like dwarves tunneling in search of more mithril. Why Tolkien was doing what he was doing becomes clearer. The book shows how his art extended to so many levels.
Marion Zimmer Bradley has one of the best essays in the book. It treats heroic love, illuminating it in the ranking of the various kinds of creatures present in middle earth at the end of the third age. What she explains about the characters of Merry and Pippin alone is worth a coat of dwarvish mail, but she also examines Sam and Gollum in tandem, as they should be, and explains the structure of the events in which they figure so that you see why Tolkien is a writer’s hero.
If theology is faith in search of understanding, then perhaps I can say that good criticism is love in search of understanding. It is faithful criticism when the love is deserved and so the understanding is rich and deep. I’m highly of the opinion that this book is right faithful criticism, even down to the essay that argues that Tolkien is not literary in the proper sense of the term.
March 18, 2020
It's hard to review an older collection like this. First, the ubiquity of Tolkien's work in various media nowadays is something that was totally unknown to the authors of these essays, and while that of course doesn't invalidate their points, which are based solely on the LotR novels, it can't help but affect the reader's engagement with the essays. Second, the very nature of literary criticism is pretty different nowadays, more intersectional - these are definitely old school lit crit.
That said, other than the Burton Raffel essay, which I found to be complete nonsense, all of these offered some interesting insights into Tolkien and his work.
That said, other than the Burton Raffel essay, which I found to be complete nonsense, all of these offered some interesting insights into Tolkien and his work.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews