What do you think?
Rate this book
J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century
Recent polls have consistently declared that J.R.R. Tolkien is "the most influential author of the century," and The Lord of the Rings is "the book of the century." In support of these claims, the prominent medievalist and scholar of fantasy Professor Tom Shippey now presents us with a fascinating companion to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, focusing in particular on The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion.
The core of the book examines The Lord of the Rings as a linguistic and cultural map and as a response to the meaning of myth. It presents a unique argument to explain the nature of evil and also gives the reader a compelling insight into the unparalleled level of skill necessary to construct such a rich and complex story. Shippey also examines The Hobbit, explaining the hobbits' anachronistic relationship to the heroic world of Middle-earth, and shows the fundamental importance of The Silmarillion to the canon of Tolkien's work. He offers as well an illuminating look at other, lesser-known works in their connection to Tolkien's life.
The core of the book examines The Lord of the Rings as a linguistic and cultural map and as a response to the meaning of myth. It presents a unique argument to explain the nature of evil and also gives the reader a compelling insight into the unparalleled level of skill necessary to construct such a rich and complex story. Shippey also examines The Hobbit, explaining the hobbits' anachronistic relationship to the heroic world of Middle-earth, and shows the fundamental importance of The Silmarillion to the canon of Tolkien's work. He offers as well an illuminating look at other, lesser-known works in their connection to Tolkien's life.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
About the author
Tom Shippey
60 books150 followersTom Shippey is Professor Emeritus of English at Saint Louis University.
Publishes as T.A. Shippey and Tom Shippey.
Publishes as T.A. Shippey and Tom Shippey.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 196 reviews
May 21, 2016
If you are ever interested in re-reading The Lord of the Rings, this book will add to your enjoyment. I say "re-read" because if you haven't read Tolkien, it is better to just dive into The Hobbit and then move on to his masterpiece. But re-reading a book you love is a different type of reading - a slower reading imbued with leisure where you can stop and smell the words, as it were. Tolkien was a philologist, a lover and a scholar of words and this book will show you how Tolkien took an Old English word like "wodwas" from the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and used it to create "woses", wild men of the woods. What I liked the most about this book is the behind-the-curtain look at the creation of one of the most enduring and complex imaginary worlds ever created - a world with its own languages even. Here you see that this creation was not "ex nihilo" but was rather the hard, hard work of combining existing elements into new forms. When you finish reading this book and you re-read Tolkien again you'll feel like a little scholar with a mini Ph.D in Tolkienism. Trust me when I tell you that this small expertise will not take away from your heart's joy. Finally, I admit that the grandiose title put me off a little but by the end of the book I didn't mind it so much. I've read Tolkien's works (and re-read them) with something like awe that a human being could invent as intricately and expansively as Tolkien did. This book diminished that awe in a good way. Yes, the man had an extraordinary talent, but he was also an ordinary man possessed with a powerful sense of purpose and great capacity for dedicated work. And in that, he's like you and I can be.
September 22, 2015
The title of this book is not as overblown as it sounds; Shippey is making the case for Tolkien as "an author of the century, the twentieth century, responding to the issues and the anxieties of that century." He puts Tolkien in a group of influential "traumatized authors" who tended to write fantasy and fable because they were convinced that this was the only way to address their experiences. Shippey also discusses Tolkien's ancient sources. I'm familiar with a few of them (Beowulf, some other Anglo-Saxon poems, parts of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight) and there are some I'm interested in but haven't read yet (especially the Icelandic sagas).
The first section, on The Hobbit, is mostly an analysis of Tolkien's style and his sources. Several of the riddles from Bilbo and Gollum's riddle-contest can be traced to Old English and Old Norse. This section also examines the clash of of heroic and modern styles of language and ideals. Shippey points out that at the end, Bilbo and the dwarves say the same thing in completely different language:
"If ever you visit us again, when our hals are made fair once more, then the feast shall indeed be splendid!'"
"If ever you are passing my way," said Bilbo, "don't wait to knock! Tea is at four; but any of you are welcome at any time!"
The Hobbit is also where Tolkien introduced his ideas about courage. Bilbo's courage "is not aggressive or hot-blooded. It is internalized, solitary, dutiful - and distinctively modern, for there is nothing like it in Beowulf or the Eddic poems or Norse saga. Just the same, it is courage of a sort, and even heroes and warriors ought to come to respect it (28).
The Lord of the Rings section is divided into three chapters. The first, "Mapping out a plot," discusses Tolkien's writing process when he wrote LotR and some aspects of his writing style. Shippey looks at Tolkien's use of different modes of speech to suggest cultural variation between the different speakers at the Council of Elrond. He points out that Saruman talks like a politician: "There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means." Shippey writes: "When people say things like 'no real change' the mean there is going to be a major change, but they would like you to pretend it is minor; and too often we do. Saruman is the most contemporary figure in Middle-earth, both politically and linguistically" (76).
This chapter also discusses the culture of the Rohirrim. There's an interesting bit of etymology: Tolkien worked out what the natives of Mercia (a Latinized name) would have called their kingdom, and came up with 'Marc,' pronounced 'the Mark.' The Rohirrim "do not have the rigid codes of obedience of a modern army, or a modern bureaucracy. . . they are freer to make their own minds up, and regard this as a duty. They surrender less of their independence to their superiors than we do; and Tolkien makes us realize that even if they are relatively 'uncivilized,' indeed still at a barbarian stage of development, this is not all bad."
The second chapter on The Lord of the Rings is called "Concepts of Evil." Shippey points out that premodern societies did not have the skepticism of power present in Tolkien's work and that of his contemporaries: "people probably thought that evil possessors of power were evil by nature, and from the beginning" (115). This chapter also discusses the two views of evil that are in tension in Tolkien's work. The Boethian view holds that there is no such thing as evil. What seems to be evil is only the absence of good. The Manichean view holds that "the world is a battlefield between the powers of Good and Evil, equal and opposite -- so that, one might say, there is no real difference between them, and it is a matter of chance which side one happens to choose" (134). Of course, LotR would be simplified if this conflict were resolved; if the Ring were merely an absence of good, then it could only work on internal evil, and could simply be put aside. If it were only an external force, then anyone could have destroyed the Ring.
The "theory of courage" that Tolkien discussed in his 1936 Beowulf lecture. In Norse myth (and Tolkien believed something similar must have existed in Old English) it was believed that the world would end in a final confrontation between good and evil, as in the traditional Christian myth. The difference was that the Norse end of the world - called Ragnarok, the destruction of the gods - the forces of evil won.
Shippey asks: "If the gods and their allies are going to lose, and this is known to everyone, what in the world would make anyone want to join that side?" (150). The answer - what Tollkien called "the potent but terrible solution" of Norse myth - was that "victory or defeat have nothing to do with right and wrong" (150). In this way Northern mythology sets a higher standard than Christianity. Tolkien "wanted his characters to live up to the same high standard, and was careful therefore to remove easy hope from them" (150). Tolkien's hobbits have a cheerful attitude "which far from speculating about its chances on Doomsday refuses ever to look into the future at all." This is not optimism, since it keeps them going even when they have no real hope.
The third chapter on The Lord of the Rings is called "The Mythic Dimension." Shippey discusses some historical parallels to the events in The Lord of the Rings, but he also shows that it doesn't have anything like one-to-one historical parallels with WWI or WWII. He does point out the parallel between the status of Vichy France and what Sauron offers to Gondor and its allies if they surrender. Shippey also discusses the Scouring of the Shire episode as a critique of the drive for efficiency which is "not only soulless but also inefficient" (168).
This chapter also connects Denethor's resistance to change to contemporary fears of nuclear war. Denethor cannot tolerate the idea of things being different than they have been all his life, and if he cannot have what he wants he will 'have naught.' Shippey: "By the time The Lord of the Rings was published, of course, it was the first time possible for political leaders to say they would 'have naught' and make it come true" (173). He points out that Denethor represents "the major late twentieth century fear, leaders with a death wish who have given up on conventional weapons" (174).
The Silmarillion section starts by explaining how Tolkien found inspiration in some of the ambiguous details of Northern European mythology. Tolkien took the distinction between 'Light Elves' and 'Dark Elves' from Norse mythology and created Quenya as the language of the former and Sindarin as the language of the latter. The conflicts between different divisions of Elves recall the family feuds in Icelandic sagas. Shippey also discusses the story of Turin and the tension between his responsibility for his decisions vs the influence of fate. I've read The Silmarillion, so I knew this already, but Shippey provides a good introduction for those who haven't read it. (Verlyn Flieger's Splintered Light is on my TBR because I'd like to read a more in-depth examination of The Silmarilion sometime.)
Shippey writes that The Silmarillion's focus on the sins of possessiveness and power make it "less a mythology for England and more one for its own time, for the twentieth century: a myth re-told, with proper respect for what in myth is unchanging, because myths always need retelling." Ever since I first read The Silmarillion, I've felt that The Lord of the Rings is not quite complete without it. LotR has a (qualified) happy ending, and uses this as an argument for the belief that there is a grand plan in which everything works out, in the end. The Silmarillion also makes this argument, but without the happy ending; Tolkien holds nothing back here, even when it would make his position easier to accept.
There's also a chapter on Tolkien's shorter works, most of which I'm not really interested in. (Except Farmer Giles of Ham, which is hilarious, and makes a point about the value of old stories.) Some of these are the kind of allegorical stories that Tolkien usually avoided.
The Afterword, "The followers and the critics" discusses some criticisms of Tolkien and his influence on modern fantasy. Shippey points out that Tolkien uses several devices that are accepted as modernist, but his motives are different from other writers "because they are on principle *not literary.* He used mythical method not because it was an interesting method but because he believed that the myths were true. He showed his characters wandering in the wilderness and entirely mistaken in their guesses not because he wanted to shatter the 'realist illusion' of fiction but because he believed everyone is in a way wandering in a bewilderment, lost in the star-occluded forest of Middle-earth. He experimented with language not to see what interesting effects could be produced but because he thought all forms of human language were already an experiment."
The discussion of Tolkien's "followers" is sort of depressing; it confirms my suspicion that a lot of writers of epic fantasy are too close to Tolkien even when they claim to be doing something different. It's why I mostly read other kinds of fantasy. Some of the writers he mentions sound interesting though. I haven't read most of them, except Ursula Le Guin and a little bit of Jack Vance.
September 30, 2017
When Harold Bloom is forced to address the title of your book when writing a literary critique of The Lord of the Rings, regardless of the entire content of your book, you have truly accomplished something.
I've recently started digging into the discourse which surrounds J.R.R. Tolkien as I slowly plow through The Lord of the Rings for the second time in my life. I picked this book up along with a small mountain of books at my local library and began reading this one. It was a bit of a slog at first, but after a while I found I could read long passages without pausing or needing a break. Tom Shipley's work is important for Tolkien studies, because it contextualizes the entire body of Tolkien's work, while also understanding how the book operate and where they come from.
Shippey explores Tolkien's fascination with languages and ancient texts, showing how the man constantly derived inspiration from such works. Looking into the man's approach to writing, the names of his characters, the origins of the various monsters and creatures he borrowed or crafted on his own, and of course tackling the epic monster that is The Silmarillion Shippey finds not only the relevance of Tolkien's book, he manages to find the art. The final chapter in facts places The Lord of the Rings alongside works such as Ulysses and The Waste Land in order to assess the first claim of the book, namely, that Tolkien is the Author of the 20th century.
This is obviously a difficult argument especially when one remembers the great body of writers that existed during that century, who contributed their voices and prose. That list includes authors such as Allen Ginsberg, Sylvia Plath, George Orwell, T.S. Eliot, Vladimir Nabokov, William Faulkner, and Ernest Hemingway just to name a few. I can't say for myself whether I would argue that Tolkien is the "Author of the century," however I do feel comfortable enough arguing for the fact that Tolkien established a universe that has been borrowed from, stolen from, parodied, and marveled at since it's publication in the 1950s.
Middle Earth has persisted in the face of critics, in spite of them, and the makers of the new technologies and innovations that have made this new age all owe a debt to Tolkien in some form or capacity. The "Old Professor" impacted the zeitgeist and we're still feeling it. So in the end Shippey does at least prove to his reader this.
I've recently started digging into the discourse which surrounds J.R.R. Tolkien as I slowly plow through The Lord of the Rings for the second time in my life. I picked this book up along with a small mountain of books at my local library and began reading this one. It was a bit of a slog at first, but after a while I found I could read long passages without pausing or needing a break. Tom Shipley's work is important for Tolkien studies, because it contextualizes the entire body of Tolkien's work, while also understanding how the book operate and where they come from.
Shippey explores Tolkien's fascination with languages and ancient texts, showing how the man constantly derived inspiration from such works. Looking into the man's approach to writing, the names of his characters, the origins of the various monsters and creatures he borrowed or crafted on his own, and of course tackling the epic monster that is The Silmarillion Shippey finds not only the relevance of Tolkien's book, he manages to find the art. The final chapter in facts places The Lord of the Rings alongside works such as Ulysses and The Waste Land in order to assess the first claim of the book, namely, that Tolkien is the Author of the 20th century.
This is obviously a difficult argument especially when one remembers the great body of writers that existed during that century, who contributed their voices and prose. That list includes authors such as Allen Ginsberg, Sylvia Plath, George Orwell, T.S. Eliot, Vladimir Nabokov, William Faulkner, and Ernest Hemingway just to name a few. I can't say for myself whether I would argue that Tolkien is the "Author of the century," however I do feel comfortable enough arguing for the fact that Tolkien established a universe that has been borrowed from, stolen from, parodied, and marveled at since it's publication in the 1950s.
Middle Earth has persisted in the face of critics, in spite of them, and the makers of the new technologies and innovations that have made this new age all owe a debt to Tolkien in some form or capacity. The "Old Professor" impacted the zeitgeist and we're still feeling it. So in the end Shippey does at least prove to his reader this.
January 31, 2022
作者和托老同为古典语言学家，从语言学的角度解析的地方很精彩，就像在破解托老藏在地名、人名还有特殊语言风格背后的暗码一样，但是在语言学之外其他领域就略显乏力了，在涉及形上学的部分尤其明显，不过毕竟术业有专攻。
里面有些论断我不同意，但我还是认为这本书应该作为托迷的必读书，要充分感受托老的作品，philology视角的解析是必不可少的，现在好像中译本正在翻译中了。
我读过的托老的作品至今仍然局限在中土世界这个体系内，但是看到里面剖析铁匠那一篇��Shippey用学术界的纷争来解读，然而根据Shippey转述的托老自己称故事里面的Great Hall隐喻Church，再结合这篇写作和出版时间，1965年，很难不让人联想到辣个大会2333。
里面有些论断我不同意，但我还是认为这本书应该作为托迷的必读书，要充分感受托老的作品，philology视角的解析是必不可少的，现在好像中译本正在翻译中了。
我读过的托老的作品至今仍然局限在中土世界这个体系内，但是看到里面剖析铁匠那一篇��Shippey用学术界的纷争来解读，然而根据Shippey转述的托老自己称故事里面的Great Hall隐喻Church，再结合这篇写作和出版时间，1965年，很难不让人联想到辣个大会2333。
March 5, 2013
Fantastic analysis of how Tolkien constructed the language, world, and characters of Lord of the Rings, with particular attention to word origins and connotations. Easy to read and fascinating.
Excerpt:
Tolkien also thought - and this takes us back to the roots of his invention - that philology could take you back even beyond the ancient texts it studied. He believed that it was possible sometimes to feel one's way back from words as they survived in later periods to concepts which had long since vanished, but which had surely existed, or else the word would not exist. This process was made much more plausible if it was done comparatively (philology only became a science when it became comparative philology). The word 'dwarf' exists in modern English, for instance, but it was originally the same word as modern German Zwerg, and philology can explain exactly how they came to differ, and how they relate to Old Norse dvergr. But if the three different languages have the same word, and if in all of them some fragments survive of belief in a similar race of creatures, is it not legitimate first to 'reconstruct' the word from which all the later ones must derive - it would have been something like *dvairgs - and then the concept that had fitted it? [The asterisk before *dvairgs is the conventional way of indicating that a word has never been recorded, but must (surely) have existed, and there is of course enormous room for error in creating *-words, and *-things.] Still, that is the way Tolkien's mind worked, and many more detailed examples are given later on in this book. But the main point is this. However fanciful Tolkien s creation of Middle-earth was, he did not think that he was entirely making it up. He was 'reconstructing', he was harmonizing contradictions in his source-texts, sometimes he was supplying entirely new concepts (like hobbits), but he was also reaching back to an imaginative world which he believed had once really existed, at least in a collective imagination: and for this he had a very great deal of admittedly scattered evidence.
Would anyone like to suggest further reading on the subject? I'd especially like to read something that delves into Tolkien and Lewis's war service and how that might have influenced their fiction.
Excerpt:
Tolkien also thought - and this takes us back to the roots of his invention - that philology could take you back even beyond the ancient texts it studied. He believed that it was possible sometimes to feel one's way back from words as they survived in later periods to concepts which had long since vanished, but which had surely existed, or else the word would not exist. This process was made much more plausible if it was done comparatively (philology only became a science when it became comparative philology). The word 'dwarf' exists in modern English, for instance, but it was originally the same word as modern German Zwerg, and philology can explain exactly how they came to differ, and how they relate to Old Norse dvergr. But if the three different languages have the same word, and if in all of them some fragments survive of belief in a similar race of creatures, is it not legitimate first to 'reconstruct' the word from which all the later ones must derive - it would have been something like *dvairgs - and then the concept that had fitted it? [The asterisk before *dvairgs is the conventional way of indicating that a word has never been recorded, but must (surely) have existed, and there is of course enormous room for error in creating *-words, and *-things.] Still, that is the way Tolkien's mind worked, and many more detailed examples are given later on in this book. But the main point is this. However fanciful Tolkien s creation of Middle-earth was, he did not think that he was entirely making it up. He was 'reconstructing', he was harmonizing contradictions in his source-texts, sometimes he was supplying entirely new concepts (like hobbits), but he was also reaching back to an imaginative world which he believed had once really existed, at least in a collective imagination: and for this he had a very great deal of admittedly scattered evidence.
Would anyone like to suggest further reading on the subject? I'd especially like to read something that delves into Tolkien and Lewis's war service and how that might have influenced their fiction.
April 2, 2023
ожидаемо прекрасный любовно-задротский опыт прочтения толкиеновского наследия с нескольких точек зрения (очевидных, но интересных) и в противовес одной установке (мягко говоря, неактуальной). очень внимательный и доброжелательный взгляд коллеги и любящего читателя. поэтичный язык местами: "Фангорна в нашем мире нет, но Саруманы здесь повсюду".
не читать нараспев, конечно, но запастись закладочками и вернуться не раз
не читать нараспев, конечно, но запастись закладочками и вернуться не раз
June 3, 2018
Review originally published November 2012 at Falling Letters.
I found much of the book to have a fresh perspective, particularly as I haven’t read too much analysis of Tolkien’s work (primarily just The History of the Hobbit ). For example, the passage about Baggins as bourgeois and the comparison between that word and burglar, and the description of the ‘modern business’ aspects of Bilbo and the dwarves’ deal, provided a perspective on those aspects of the stories I never really considered before. I also enjoyed the afterwards of the book, in which Shippey considers Tolkien’s imitators but also considers what they don’t imitate, such as language-building and the interlacing storylines. it’s easy to pick out what gets most often imitated (such as races) but I had never thought about imitators in terms of what they don’t imitate, and I think that’s a great thing to think about because it goes to show just how unique and skilled Tolkien was.
I did find the segment ‘The Ironies of Interlace’ about LotR very interesting. Because I had seen the movies before the books, I was familiar with the general plot and wasn’t too surprised my any of the major events while reading the books. However, Shippey examines how the different threads of the story are carefully interlaced and presented to the reader, so that, for example, the reader does not know if Frodo and Sam are alright when reading about Aragorn and co. approaching Mordor. There are even more subtle examples of this careful intertwining, where the characters do not know something but the reader does or one timeline is five days behind another timeline. I’m not doing a very good job at describing this, but Shippey does a great job at explaining this and how there is likely no author today who could pull off such grand scheming. I thought it interesting to consider – what would it have been like to read the books and not know how the plot went? It’s unfortunate that I missed that opportunity, but they still make for a great read! 😛
All in all, a good little read, especially for someone like me, who has enjoyed Tolkien’s works and wants to learn more.
I found much of the book to have a fresh perspective, particularly as I haven’t read too much analysis of Tolkien’s work (primarily just The History of the Hobbit ). For example, the passage about Baggins as bourgeois and the comparison between that word and burglar, and the description of the ‘modern business’ aspects of Bilbo and the dwarves’ deal, provided a perspective on those aspects of the stories I never really considered before. I also enjoyed the afterwards of the book, in which Shippey considers Tolkien’s imitators but also considers what they don’t imitate, such as language-building and the interlacing storylines. it’s easy to pick out what gets most often imitated (such as races) but I had never thought about imitators in terms of what they don’t imitate, and I think that’s a great thing to think about because it goes to show just how unique and skilled Tolkien was.
I did find the segment ‘The Ironies of Interlace’ about LotR very interesting. Because I had seen the movies before the books, I was familiar with the general plot and wasn’t too surprised my any of the major events while reading the books. However, Shippey examines how the different threads of the story are carefully interlaced and presented to the reader, so that, for example, the reader does not know if Frodo and Sam are alright when reading about Aragorn and co. approaching Mordor. There are even more subtle examples of this careful intertwining, where the characters do not know something but the reader does or one timeline is five days behind another timeline. I’m not doing a very good job at describing this, but Shippey does a great job at explaining this and how there is likely no author today who could pull off such grand scheming. I thought it interesting to consider – what would it have been like to read the books and not know how the plot went? It’s unfortunate that I missed that opportunity, but they still make for a great read! 😛
All in all, a good little read, especially for someone like me, who has enjoyed Tolkien’s works and wants to learn more.
January 24, 2019
Shippey makes a powerful argument for the serious literary study of Tolkien, and he places Tolkien in the company of other recognized great authors of the 20th century. If you want a deeper understanding of Tolkien's work from a literary perspective, this is the book for you.
November 6, 2022
{more 3.5 stars}
This read started with an assertive response of JRR Tolkien being the author of the (twentieth) century. This was in its Foreword but the Afterword left me less convinced.
Nevertheless, I am still left with a better understanding of JRR Tolkien’s phenomenal imagination. And throughout, Tom Shippey did not let me forget that JRR Tolkien was a philologist first and a novelist second. Tom Shippey continuously gave examples with explanations of the root words of the vocabulary (ranging from character to place names) that makes JRR Tolkien’s Middle Earth adventures.
There were a few times I got lost in these detailed explanations, I think this would not have been so if I had a much better understanding than I do of Tolkien's works (the kind that is gained with many rereads or study). However, with what I knew of Tolkien's work, some mythology, including Norse, and was familiar with the range of writers Tom Shippey referenced, I could just about keep up with this.
The most interesting thing I found about this read is to gain a realisation of how much influence Tolkien has had on future writers, this includes Stephen A Donaldson and his Lord Foul Bane series. It was also an eye opener to see how underrated (and heavily criticised) Tolkien's work was when it first came out.
Without doubt The Hobbit is a light entertaining read compared to Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, where Shippey mentions several times that The Silmarillion is definitely not an easy read and highlights how the story structure of Lord of the Rings remains unique.
This wasn't an easy read but luckily I like reads that leave me with a better understanding of the subject it covers, so next time I can see myself giving this a higher score than 3.5 stars (as I won’t become as lost in the very very very intricate details of this read).
This read started with an assertive response of JRR Tolkien being the author of the (twentieth) century. This was in its Foreword but the Afterword left me less convinced.
Nevertheless, I am still left with a better understanding of JRR Tolkien’s phenomenal imagination. And throughout, Tom Shippey did not let me forget that JRR Tolkien was a philologist first and a novelist second. Tom Shippey continuously gave examples with explanations of the root words of the vocabulary (ranging from character to place names) that makes JRR Tolkien’s Middle Earth adventures.
There were a few times I got lost in these detailed explanations, I think this would not have been so if I had a much better understanding than I do of Tolkien's works (the kind that is gained with many rereads or study). However, with what I knew of Tolkien's work, some mythology, including Norse, and was familiar with the range of writers Tom Shippey referenced, I could just about keep up with this.
The most interesting thing I found about this read is to gain a realisation of how much influence Tolkien has had on future writers, this includes Stephen A Donaldson and his Lord Foul Bane series. It was also an eye opener to see how underrated (and heavily criticised) Tolkien's work was when it first came out.
Without doubt The Hobbit is a light entertaining read compared to Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, where Shippey mentions several times that The Silmarillion is definitely not an easy read and highlights how the story structure of Lord of the Rings remains unique.
This wasn't an easy read but luckily I like reads that leave me with a better understanding of the subject it covers, so next time I can see myself giving this a higher score than 3.5 stars (as I won’t become as lost in the very very very intricate details of this read).
April 26, 2024
An excellent dive into the North-European literature that gave birth to Tolkien’s life-work. Lots of philology, some philosophy, and some neat history! This book expertly reveals the amazing knowledge and learnedness of the well beloved author, Tolkien, and all the meaning in his work.
July 14, 2022
Tom Shippey is one of the world's foremost experts on Tolkien. This accessible and winsome book is essential reading for providing a foundational understanding of all of Tolkien's work. Outstanding!
March 2, 2020
One can't help but feel that a philologist is precisely the person to write a critical study of Tolkien.
This book examines the importance of Tolkien's academic background in philology on his fiction, as well as his attempts to reconcile or balance his Catholicism with the paganism of the world which inspired Middle-Earth. It is also something of a Tolkien apologia, in which the author insists that Tolkien belongs in the canon, and that it is merely the self-interestedness and snobbery of modern English-department literati which has seen him excluded.
I found the sections detailing how characters and plot-points evolved out of philological conundrums quite fascinating. For example, Tolkien concluded that the name 'Gandálfr,' sourced from the Poetic Edda, probably meant 'staff elf', an obvious name for a wizard. Yet if so, what was it doing nestled between the Bifurs and Bömburs of Dvergatal? Tolkien's guess was that this wizard must have been somehow mixed up with the dwarves.
And on the subject of dwarves and elves, Shippey points out that before Tolkien the accepted spelling was dwarfs and elfs. Why? Because only words of greater antiquity adopted the 'v' in plural cases, while words of more recent origin, e.g. 'tiffs', retain the 'f'. Now, Tolkien felt certain that dwarves and elves were old words, but that they had fallen out of use at some point and were only re-adopted in the 19th century revival of folklore collections. Hence he decided to set back the clock and restore to these terms their due venerability.
Also interesting is the discussion of the nature of evil in Middle-Earth and its Christian implications. Is evil, in a Boethian sense, merely the absence of good, an inner weakness? Or is it an external force? The latter Manichean view is of course, heresy. Yet it certainly seems as though the one Ring exerts a will of its own. Tolkien often speaks of it choosing to do things, as though it were animate. Yet why then does it have more effect on some than others?
These were the things that I most enjoyed. The apologia aspect I thought slightly underdone. Shippey never really gives the other side of the argument (asserting simple snobbery or claiming that the other side themselves never make an arguable case). As it happens, in this case I am on Tolkien's side, but many of the withering remarks attributed here to his detractors I would quite happily seen applied to other pop culture mainstays like Star Wars or comic book films, not to mention the vast majority of Tolkien's successors.
One final point. Shippey cites a critic calling Tolkien-fans 'anorak-clad' as being obviously class-motivated. Surely, though, the reference to anoraks is meant to signal the obsessed geekishness of the fantasy cohort - pointlessly fascinated, like trainspotters (whose preference for the anorak is the inspiration for the word's use in this respect) by mundanity. A strange lapse for a philologist!
This book examines the importance of Tolkien's academic background in philology on his fiction, as well as his attempts to reconcile or balance his Catholicism with the paganism of the world which inspired Middle-Earth. It is also something of a Tolkien apologia, in which the author insists that Tolkien belongs in the canon, and that it is merely the self-interestedness and snobbery of modern English-department literati which has seen him excluded.
I found the sections detailing how characters and plot-points evolved out of philological conundrums quite fascinating. For example, Tolkien concluded that the name 'Gandálfr,' sourced from the Poetic Edda, probably meant 'staff elf', an obvious name for a wizard. Yet if so, what was it doing nestled between the Bifurs and Bömburs of Dvergatal? Tolkien's guess was that this wizard must have been somehow mixed up with the dwarves.
And on the subject of dwarves and elves, Shippey points out that before Tolkien the accepted spelling was dwarfs and elfs. Why? Because only words of greater antiquity adopted the 'v' in plural cases, while words of more recent origin, e.g. 'tiffs', retain the 'f'. Now, Tolkien felt certain that dwarves and elves were old words, but that they had fallen out of use at some point and were only re-adopted in the 19th century revival of folklore collections. Hence he decided to set back the clock and restore to these terms their due venerability.
Also interesting is the discussion of the nature of evil in Middle-Earth and its Christian implications. Is evil, in a Boethian sense, merely the absence of good, an inner weakness? Or is it an external force? The latter Manichean view is of course, heresy. Yet it certainly seems as though the one Ring exerts a will of its own. Tolkien often speaks of it choosing to do things, as though it were animate. Yet why then does it have more effect on some than others?
These were the things that I most enjoyed. The apologia aspect I thought slightly underdone. Shippey never really gives the other side of the argument (asserting simple snobbery or claiming that the other side themselves never make an arguable case). As it happens, in this case I am on Tolkien's side, but many of the withering remarks attributed here to his detractors I would quite happily seen applied to other pop culture mainstays like Star Wars or comic book films, not to mention the vast majority of Tolkien's successors.
One final point. Shippey cites a critic calling Tolkien-fans 'anorak-clad' as being obviously class-motivated. Surely, though, the reference to anoraks is meant to signal the obsessed geekishness of the fantasy cohort - pointlessly fascinated, like trainspotters (whose preference for the anorak is the inspiration for the word's use in this respect) by mundanity. A strange lapse for a philologist!
February 6, 2017
This is a fantastic book and really the place to start for non-biographical secondary sources on Tolkien. My only major gripe is the stuff about Boethian vs. Manichaean views of evil in Tolkien. What Shippey sees as a Manichaean presentation of evil in Tolkien is only superficially so, and I think if he had a better understanding of Christian theology he wouldn't have gone so far down this line of thought. For Christians, even when speaking of a "totally evil" being such as Satan, there is an understanding that his fundamental nature and the fact of his existence is good. Evil is still understood as negation, not as something with positive existence. We may have an experience of evil as something that "exists" in the same way as we experience darkness, the absence of light. I can't think of a single example of a truly Manichaean presentation of evil in Tolkien except for the orcs (which, strangely, Shippey takes as the opposite). The orcs are beings, seemingly with intellects and free will, which nonetheless are presented as entirely evil and without any choice of being otherwise. Still, even the orcs as an entire species are a corruption and negation of something good, though the problem of their will still exists. This is something Tolkien regretted as a flaw in his work. The only other possible example I can really think of is the Ring, but that depends on whether you think of it as a being in itself or a manifestation of the evil will of Sauron.
July 18, 2013
Well worth reading. Any fan of LOTR or the Hobbit will likely enjoy it. Shippey's unravelling of the distinct speech patterns and linguistic elements in the council of Elrond is fascinating and illustrates how much thought Tolkien put into what are the largely unseen (or unnoticed) details of his epic in order to make it as authentic as possible. Shippey's treatment of the mythic images of the eternal stars seen through the tree-tangled canopy of middle earth is interesting as well. His answers to Tolkien's critics are amusing. I thought his analysis of the problem of evil was a bit lacking in that it was oversimplified. It read like an unbeliever looking in at the world of religious belief, trying respectfully to understand it, but not getting past the surface, while to truly understand where Tolkien was coming from with his vision of morality as presented in the books, I think you have to know something in depth of religious experience and religious faith. I particularly enjoyed Shippey's analysis of the relationship that the language and images of the books have to the land, not just in a archetypical sense, but on the regional and even local level, the way old Mercia and Warwickshire in particular are woven into the books. All in all, having read this exposition, re-reading the books will be even more enjoyable.
December 13, 2007
Tom Shippey is a Professor of Philology at Oxford, specialising in Old English and Old Norse. So he was well placed to explain what made J.R.R. Tolkien, himself a Professor of Philology at Oxford, tick. By analysing the texts Tolkien himself read and translated, Shippey introduces the reader to Tolkien's literary and linguistic sources of inspiration, many of which can be traced in
The Lord of the Rings
and other Tolkien works. Other chapters focus on historical, political, ethical and religious influences, as well as Tolkien's influence on later authors, all with an eye to proving that far from being an overrated writer of fairy tales, Tolkien was in fact a master of his craft. The result is a highly insightful, erudite and interesting book, which is remarkably accessible, given the nature of some of the subject matter. Highly recommended to anyone who wishes to deepen his/her appreciation of Tolkien's works.
July 23, 2015
Book 13 in #15in2015
It's deeply pleasing to read about the language Tolkien uses in his work. Not the one he created, which this book barely touches on, but the old words, names, and place names that he drew on when he wrote.
Having studied in the same field at Professor Tolkien, the author is well-placed to talk about the complexities, structure, and foundation of Tolkien's work. It's clear he's irritated at the literary critics who dismiss Lord of the Rings as having no value at all, but in his effort to prove them so completely wrong that they've missed the greatest work of the 20th Century, he presents an excellent argument for the artistic merit in Tolkien's work.
Is Tolkien the "Author of the Century"? Well, no. Is his work powerful, complex, and of literary value? Absolutely. If you can bear to read through Shippey's gripes about the literati and can skim through some tedious analysis of the professor's lesser works, this book is a source of sublime pleasure.
It's deeply pleasing to read about the language Tolkien uses in his work. Not the one he created, which this book barely touches on, but the old words, names, and place names that he drew on when he wrote.
Having studied in the same field at Professor Tolkien, the author is well-placed to talk about the complexities, structure, and foundation of Tolkien's work. It's clear he's irritated at the literary critics who dismiss Lord of the Rings as having no value at all, but in his effort to prove them so completely wrong that they've missed the greatest work of the 20th Century, he presents an excellent argument for the artistic merit in Tolkien's work.
Is Tolkien the "Author of the Century"? Well, no. Is his work powerful, complex, and of literary value? Absolutely. If you can bear to read through Shippey's gripes about the literati and can skim through some tedious analysis of the professor's lesser works, this book is a source of sublime pleasure.
December 29, 2021
I decided to not read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the first time in 10 years! (Not sure this was a good idea; I missed it!) I wanted to read something Tolkien-related though. This was a great choice. It was incredibly interesting and incredibly dense. It took a long while to get through, piece by piece, but was worth it.
I particularly enjoyed the exploration of Tolkien’s apparent views on evil. Fascinating, relevant, and inspiring.
The author knows so much about the topics; he’s a clear expert without having to say he is. He is also clearly in love with everything Middle-earth. It made the reading enjoyable even when I couldn’t follow it exactly.
I particularly enjoyed the exploration of Tolkien’s apparent views on evil. Fascinating, relevant, and inspiring.
The author knows so much about the topics; he’s a clear expert without having to say he is. He is also clearly in love with everything Middle-earth. It made the reading enjoyable even when I couldn’t follow it exactly.
October 25, 2014
This is a fascinating book, but a little too serious for light reading in bed. I gave it up a quarter of the way through. I thought it was a biography, but it is an examination of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, showing how Tolkien developed the plots and where he got the names from. It looks at folklore and literature from Anglo-Saxon, Old English and Old Norse sources in particular. I am interested in words and their history, and this is a very readable book, but just too much for the moment.
December 21, 2012
This book is finished only in that I went through and read the parts of interest to me, such as Shippey's commentary about Tolkien's representations of evil in the book, etc. I read some of everything but wound up skimming parts because it would delve into scholarly levels that were beyond my interest. An excellent book, but a bit deeper than I wanted ... for the moment anyway.
August 26, 2020
This is not a biography of Tolkien in any real sense as much as it is an attempt to understand the truly phenomenal success of LOTR and The Hobbit. It essentially reads as 6 essays on different aspects of the works, and I would definitely recommend for anyone who is a Tolkien fan, although I can't imagine there is much in here that would interest someone who hasn't read the books several times.
It felt to me that the main point of this book was to prove the Tolkien's literary critics, of whom there are many, that they are wrong to dismiss it, and are guilty of high-minded literary snobbishness, which certainly seems plausible to me. I would say the most interesting sections are the analyses of the different speech patterns of characters, and the truly impressive plot management created by Tolkien.
I don't agree with everything in this book, mainly because I don't think Tolkien is flawless, which the author seems to. For me, in any book or series where the 'bad guy' is just pure evil who wants to take over the world, the inevitability of the good guys winning is a flaw, and the way Tolkien portrays certain characters as perfect and one-dimensional is a flaw, which I didn't find the explanations of particularly compelling.
That being said, it was an interesting read, and something I would recommend for anyone who wants to learn more about Tolkien and Middle Earth.
3.5/5
It felt to me that the main point of this book was to prove the Tolkien's literary critics, of whom there are many, that they are wrong to dismiss it, and are guilty of high-minded literary snobbishness, which certainly seems plausible to me. I would say the most interesting sections are the analyses of the different speech patterns of characters, and the truly impressive plot management created by Tolkien.
I don't agree with everything in this book, mainly because I don't think Tolkien is flawless, which the author seems to. For me, in any book or series where the 'bad guy' is just pure evil who wants to take over the world, the inevitability of the good guys winning is a flaw, and the way Tolkien portrays certain characters as perfect and one-dimensional is a flaw, which I didn't find the explanations of particularly compelling.
That being said, it was an interesting read, and something I would recommend for anyone who wants to learn more about Tolkien and Middle Earth.
3.5/5
April 24, 2024
If you have read 'The Hobbit'/'The Lord of the Rings' and want an accessible next step to learn more, this is a very good book.
Despite the title, it's only the Forward and Afterword that discuss Tolkien in the context of twentieth century culture. The main body is an informed and enjoyable commentary on each of his books. The most space is given to 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit', probably because those are the ones that the most people will know. But it does give decent attention to 'The Silmarillion' and Tolkien's shorter, less-known books like 'Smith of Wootton Major' and ' Leaf by Niggle'.
It's in-depth enough to be rewarding but stays easily digestible. I particularly liked the focus all the way through on etymology which revealed a new layer of meaning to me.
Despite the title, it's only the Forward and Afterword that discuss Tolkien in the context of twentieth century culture. The main body is an informed and enjoyable commentary on each of his books. The most space is given to 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit', probably because those are the ones that the most people will know. But it does give decent attention to 'The Silmarillion' and Tolkien's shorter, less-known books like 'Smith of Wootton Major' and ' Leaf by Niggle'.
It's in-depth enough to be rewarding but stays easily digestible. I particularly liked the focus all the way through on etymology which revealed a new layer of meaning to me.
November 25, 2017
An excellent book for fans of Tolkien's works.
Shippey explores many aspects of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings & The Silmarillion- such as language, themes & inspiration from religion & other old English tales.
Unlike a lot of literary criticisms, this book was actually easy to read & understand (except for a few bits that dragged - like passages on the Silmarillion).
This book certainly made me appreciate even more the skill Tolkien showed in creating such complex & brilliant books.
No wonder many (including myself) wish they could imitate his genius.
Shippey explores many aspects of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings & The Silmarillion- such as language, themes & inspiration from religion & other old English tales.
Unlike a lot of literary criticisms, this book was actually easy to read & understand (except for a few bits that dragged - like passages on the Silmarillion).
This book certainly made me appreciate even more the skill Tolkien showed in creating such complex & brilliant books.
No wonder many (including myself) wish they could imitate his genius.
September 19, 2021
An excellent and indepth analysis of Tolkien's fiction and poetry, making a case that he should indeed be considered the "author of the century." Shippey traces Tolkien's inspirations for world-building in ancient languages such as Old English and the surviving literary works in those languages--primarily Beowulf. He points out Tolkien's skill in interweaving different plot threads together in Lord of the Ring, keeping everything in line with a complex chronology and how he used different styles of speech to help give characters depth and personality. (Such as Elrond's archaic word choices/syntax to show how long-lived he is or Sam's prosaic diction to represent his background and social class). This book helps you to appreciate Tolkien and the depth of his world-building all the more.
April 24, 2017
This book was a lot more academic than I expected based on the description. Probably not for the average reader and not really a biography. I expected a lot more comparative analysis between the work and person with other candidates for Author of the Century and more analysis of Tolkien criticism. While there was some of the latter there was little to nothing addressing the former.
May 10, 2024
Outstanding. Magisterial. Encyclopaedic. Shippey is essential for reading and understanding (but do I?) Tolkien. I agree with others: TLOTR deals thematically with the nature of evil and Shippey brilliantly expounds Tolkien’s bifocal insight.
April 14, 2023
The best defense against the literati’s hatred of Tolkien. Toynbee, Edmond Wilson, Virgina Wolfe, etc. will all be forgone in another generation, while Middle-earth will live on as long as Homer
September 10, 2023
Excellent. I can read Tolkien and books about Tolkien all day. Tom Shippey is just great.
June 8, 2020
This book is written by, with Christopher Tolkien's passing, the leading scholar of Tolkien's works, Tom Shippey.
Despite the hyperbolic sounding title, Shippey does not argue that Tolkien is the greatest author of the 20th Century (though I would be tempted to agree). He means that Tolkien's writing, though fantastic in style, is firmly rooted in 20th Century ideals and issues. His major contemplation is the nature of evil. Tolkien fought in World War I and saw his sons off into World War II and whereas his contemporaries went down the trajectory of cynicism (Orwell, Vonnegut, and Golding), Tolkien dared to consider an optimistic, if tenuous, appraisal of humankind.
In the most compelling chapter of the book for me, Shippey discusses at length the constrasting views of evil - Boethian and Manichaean. The Boethian view is that there is no such thing as evil, per se, but that the perception of evil is really the absence of good. Evil arose out of the exercise of free will where people chose not to follow the intentions of God. According to Boethius, evil is caused by internal human sin. The Manichaean view considers the world as a battleground between the powers of good and evil.
Tolkien uses both these views in his Lord of the Rings. For example, in the Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf asks Frodo to hand him the ring for a moment, Tolkien writes that Frodo "handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it." The internal and external views of evil appear here, early in the tale. Shippey's analysis here is fascinating.
One of Tolkien's inspirations for creating his world was that there was no known mythology for the people of his home country - specifically the West Midland people (known as Mercia centuries ago). Whereas the Grimm Brothers were able to compile folk tales of their own Germanic heritage, Elias Lönnrot could compile Finnish tales into the Kalevala, and the Welsh have King Arthur, no such sources existed for the West Midland people.
Tolkien employed philology, the study of the history and structure on languages, to develop as a type of archaeology. In one aspect, he used this approach to bring historical authenticity to his created world. Middle-earth is not a world that lived on a distant planet, it is a supposed pre-history of our Earth. So whereas he used the world 'goblin' in The Hobbit, he recognized the term is out of place since it first appeared around the 16th Century and is likely derived from the Latin cobalus. Tolkien knew from Old English texts that the compound word orc-neas in Beowulf meant 'demon-corpses'. Thus the term orc was born.
A second aspect of Tolkien's archaeological use of philology is to sometimes correct ancient Anglo-Saxon manuscripts. Shippey gets a little technical here, but I appreciate that. It gives a better glimpse into the incredible skill of this master philologist that no longer exists today. There is a line in the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that uses the word wodwos, which is translated as 'wood-trolls' by some people. This word should be plural since all the other creatures mentioned in this verse are plural as well. However, the speculated singular, *wodwo does not fit Old English etymology. Tolkien suspected the poem's copyist should have written wod-wosen but had wrongly assumed the -s ending was already the plural.
Now here is the really cool part. Tolkien would walk to work at the University of Leeds and regularly go by streets called Woodhouse Lane, Woodhouse Ridge, and Woodhouse Moor. It is easy to imagine Tolkien wondering the origin of this frequently used word. It could of course mean simply 'a house of wood.' However, it could also have come from the Old English since wood-wose would be pronounced the same as 'woodhouse.' So the modern day spelling could be a mistake like the Gawain copyist. So these street names could preserve the name of some creature from the ancient world. This gave birth to the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods that are first mentioned in The Return of the King.
This is just a taste of the insights Shippey brings to Tolkien's works - from the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings to his other writings. If you found any of this interesting, I strongly suggest you pick up this book!
Despite the hyperbolic sounding title, Shippey does not argue that Tolkien is the greatest author of the 20th Century (though I would be tempted to agree). He means that Tolkien's writing, though fantastic in style, is firmly rooted in 20th Century ideals and issues. His major contemplation is the nature of evil. Tolkien fought in World War I and saw his sons off into World War II and whereas his contemporaries went down the trajectory of cynicism (Orwell, Vonnegut, and Golding), Tolkien dared to consider an optimistic, if tenuous, appraisal of humankind.
In the most compelling chapter of the book for me, Shippey discusses at length the constrasting views of evil - Boethian and Manichaean. The Boethian view is that there is no such thing as evil, per se, but that the perception of evil is really the absence of good. Evil arose out of the exercise of free will where people chose not to follow the intentions of God. According to Boethius, evil is caused by internal human sin. The Manichaean view considers the world as a battleground between the powers of good and evil.
Tolkien uses both these views in his Lord of the Rings. For example, in the Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf asks Frodo to hand him the ring for a moment, Tolkien writes that Frodo "handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it." The internal and external views of evil appear here, early in the tale. Shippey's analysis here is fascinating.
One of Tolkien's inspirations for creating his world was that there was no known mythology for the people of his home country - specifically the West Midland people (known as Mercia centuries ago). Whereas the Grimm Brothers were able to compile folk tales of their own Germanic heritage, Elias Lönnrot could compile Finnish tales into the Kalevala, and the Welsh have King Arthur, no such sources existed for the West Midland people.
Tolkien employed philology, the study of the history and structure on languages, to develop as a type of archaeology. In one aspect, he used this approach to bring historical authenticity to his created world. Middle-earth is not a world that lived on a distant planet, it is a supposed pre-history of our Earth. So whereas he used the world 'goblin' in The Hobbit, he recognized the term is out of place since it first appeared around the 16th Century and is likely derived from the Latin cobalus. Tolkien knew from Old English texts that the compound word orc-neas in Beowulf meant 'demon-corpses'. Thus the term orc was born.
A second aspect of Tolkien's archaeological use of philology is to sometimes correct ancient Anglo-Saxon manuscripts. Shippey gets a little technical here, but I appreciate that. It gives a better glimpse into the incredible skill of this master philologist that no longer exists today. There is a line in the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that uses the word wodwos, which is translated as 'wood-trolls' by some people. This word should be plural since all the other creatures mentioned in this verse are plural as well. However, the speculated singular, *wodwo does not fit Old English etymology. Tolkien suspected the poem's copyist should have written wod-wosen but had wrongly assumed the -s ending was already the plural.
Now here is the really cool part. Tolkien would walk to work at the University of Leeds and regularly go by streets called Woodhouse Lane, Woodhouse Ridge, and Woodhouse Moor. It is easy to imagine Tolkien wondering the origin of this frequently used word. It could of course mean simply 'a house of wood.' However, it could also have come from the Old English since wood-wose would be pronounced the same as 'woodhouse.' So the modern day spelling could be a mistake like the Gawain copyist. So these street names could preserve the name of some creature from the ancient world. This gave birth to the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods that are first mentioned in The Return of the King.
This is just a taste of the insights Shippey brings to Tolkien's works - from the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings to his other writings. If you found any of this interesting, I strongly suggest you pick up this book!
August 10, 2010
I found Shippey's core argument in this book convincing and successful; that although Tolkien rejected many of the conclusions drawn by his contemporaries in modernist literature, he was very much of the modernist movement. He argues this effectively with clear examples and themes from Tolkien's texts and compares these with other works of the same period which are more readily labeled "modernist". This is not any small feat, considering how easy it is to separate Tolkien from his contemporaries if one only looks at certain superficial aspects of his work.
Shippey sets himself up as struggling against a wall of critics who dismiss Tolkien's legendarium as merely an escapist fable of little consequence and with a tenuous grip on "reality". Of course, as an avid fan and admirer of Tolkien's work, I did not need to be persuaded that these criticisms are nonsense, usually proffered by people who have not read Tolkien carefully or, as Shippey suggests, at all.
In this argument I can't help but sense a chip on Shippey's shoulder, perhaps from a long career fighting to justify studying Tolkien on the same academic level as Joyce, Orwell, T.H. White, and other modernist authors whose works do not seem to cause such blind antipathy in literary critics. While I agree that many people do take a startlingly aggressive stance against Tolkien, I felt that at these points Shippey was not giving me new information or convincing me of anything I didn't already believe. In this way I think this is the least successful part of his argument.
In the end I found the most valuable part of this work to be the close analysis of his work in comparison with other modernist authors, but also looking at his inspiration for names and locations from his academic career and his surroundings in the Oxfordshire countryside. I loved learning the etymological origins of "Bag End", "Wootton Major", the "Withywindle", "Frodo", "Saruman", etc.
It is a very valuable book to Tolkien scholarship, taking a new angle, as far as I'm aware, in its approach to Tolkien as a modernist author, but always coming back to what I love about Tolkien, the firm rooting in language and words.
Shippey sets himself up as struggling against a wall of critics who dismiss Tolkien's legendarium as merely an escapist fable of little consequence and with a tenuous grip on "reality". Of course, as an avid fan and admirer of Tolkien's work, I did not need to be persuaded that these criticisms are nonsense, usually proffered by people who have not read Tolkien carefully or, as Shippey suggests, at all.
In this argument I can't help but sense a chip on Shippey's shoulder, perhaps from a long career fighting to justify studying Tolkien on the same academic level as Joyce, Orwell, T.H. White, and other modernist authors whose works do not seem to cause such blind antipathy in literary critics. While I agree that many people do take a startlingly aggressive stance against Tolkien, I felt that at these points Shippey was not giving me new information or convincing me of anything I didn't already believe. In this way I think this is the least successful part of his argument.
In the end I found the most valuable part of this work to be the close analysis of his work in comparison with other modernist authors, but also looking at his inspiration for names and locations from his academic career and his surroundings in the Oxfordshire countryside. I loved learning the etymological origins of "Bag End", "Wootton Major", the "Withywindle", "Frodo", "Saruman", etc.
It is a very valuable book to Tolkien scholarship, taking a new angle, as far as I'm aware, in its approach to Tolkien as a modernist author, but always coming back to what I love about Tolkien, the firm rooting in language and words.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 2, 2016
I've read Tolkien's standards and they have always appealed to me and in some ways it was more a feeling than an actual understanding of why. I moved on to HoME and many of Tolkien's translations, such as Beowulf, Sigurd, and the Fall of Arthur with more to come, such as Kullervo and Sir Gawain.
I recently read Shippey's "The Road to Middle-Earth" and followed it up with "Author of the Century".
These books helped me better understand in some ways that feeling.
I always understood that there was a depth to his work. There was a history, languages in translations, maps, some crossover between stories, but this book helped shed light on much I didn't pick up on directly.
While we may or may not know these stories, I think we inherently know them for they are age old and retold in other forms with other characters.
Then a person like Tolkien comes along and can blend these altogether and leverage his knowledge of word origin and meaning with story, history, chronology, and without understanding why, the story becomes compelling on a level not often experienced.
As Shippey notes, he does so with the origin of evil at its core.
I've been aware of my fascination with this concept for many years. Why is there evil? Where did it come from? I truly believe these are universal questions, but I can't say I associated it with my love of Tolkien's works, until reading this book (though in hindsight it seems obvious).
In Author of the Century, Shippey makes this case, and does so very well.
I'd recommend for anyone who has read and greatly enjoyed: the Hobbit, LOTR, Silmarillion, and Tales From the Perilous Realm (or the works comprising it).
I recently read Shippey's "The Road to Middle-Earth" and followed it up with "Author of the Century".
These books helped me better understand in some ways that feeling.
I always understood that there was a depth to his work. There was a history, languages in translations, maps, some crossover between stories, but this book helped shed light on much I didn't pick up on directly.
While we may or may not know these stories, I think we inherently know them for they are age old and retold in other forms with other characters.
Then a person like Tolkien comes along and can blend these altogether and leverage his knowledge of word origin and meaning with story, history, chronology, and without understanding why, the story becomes compelling on a level not often experienced.
As Shippey notes, he does so with the origin of evil at its core.
I've been aware of my fascination with this concept for many years. Why is there evil? Where did it come from? I truly believe these are universal questions, but I can't say I associated it with my love of Tolkien's works, until reading this book (though in hindsight it seems obvious).
In Author of the Century, Shippey makes this case, and does so very well.
I'd recommend for anyone who has read and greatly enjoyed: the Hobbit, LOTR, Silmarillion, and Tales From the Perilous Realm (or the works comprising it).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 196 reviews