Rating: 
Summary: Pretty Good Analysis
Review: Though the best analysis of THE LORD OF THE RINGS is still Paul Kocher's MASTER OF MIDDLE EARTH (and next, TOLKIEN: MAN AND MYTH by Joseph Pearce), this book can sit unashamedly beside them on the shelf of any Tolkienphile. After a superb introduction, the first chapter is a bumpy ride for readers not of a philological bent, as he examines particular words Tolkien may have mined from ancient Anglo-Saxon and Nordic sources and how these words were employed. Occasionally, Shippey makes statements that are too bold: although it's likely Tolkien did read and was familiar with the texts Shippey cites, Shippey fails to always give citations from Tolkien's primary sources to prove it -- or as evidence that Tolkien meant to use individual words in the way Shippey suggests. Additionally, Shippy occasionally suggests that he could read Tolkien's mind, by telling us what Tolkien must've been thinking at a given moment. While interesting speculation, it isn't labeled as such. Too, Shippy's stile and sentence structure is baffling in several places, leaving one to read a sentence several times to figure out the subject. Overall, though, his analysis of Tolkien's works isn't derogatory or negative, as is the case with critics of more stunted imagination or whose templates THE LORD OF THE RINGS refuses to fit. Shippey identifies himself as other than a believing Christian and his examination in those areas is cursory, but nevertheless valid. He also tackles a few of Tolkien's lesser-known works such as the wonderful short story "Leaf by Niggle", which should be more often anthologized. So, if you've re-read your Kocher until the cover's dangling, and you thought the critical survey in Pearce's biography was flawed only in being altogether too brief, this is a solid, positive, and highly informative critical edition and a must for citizens of Middle Earth.
Rating:
Summary: Top top work by Shippey.
Review: Tom Shippey is the first Tolkien critic that actually understands where Tolkien was coming from when he wrote his masterful works. His book goes in depth to explain where Tolkien got his names, ideas, and what it was he was really trying to accomplish. Lord of the Rings fans will love the info, and true Tolkien lovers will gain insight and depth to their understanding of this genius of a man. Tolkien is aptly called the "author of the century" for more than one reason. This is a great book!
Rating:
Summary: The best book I've read on Tolkien!
Review: Tom Shippey is the first Tolkien critic that actually understands where Tolkien was coming from when he wrote his masterful works. His book goes in depth to explain where Tolkien got his names, ideas, and what it was he was really trying to accomplish. Lord of the Rings fans will love the info, and true Tolkien lovers will gain insight and depth to their understanding of this genius of a man. Tolkien is aptly called the "author of the century" for more than one reason. This is a great book!
Rating: 
Summary: Very uneven, but still quite insightful
Review: Tom Shippey's first book on Tolkien, _The Road to Middle-Earth_, was a profoundly insightful work. His philologically informed background provided keen insight into the linguistic backdrop (both real and imaginative) of Tolkien's fiction, showing the complex verbal play taking place within the story. It still stands, in my opinion, as the single-best scholarly book yet published about Tolkien.By comparison, _J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century_ is a disappointment. Why? Several reasons, the first of which is the fact that many of the points Shippey makes here have previously been made in his first book. Much of the material here is a rehash of _Road to Middle-Earth_; this is true both in the general nature of Shippey's approach (i.e. emphasizing Tolkien's philological inspiration, and in particular his Anglo-Saxonist bent) as well as many specific and detailed philological points. Even more disappointing is the fact that the writing in parts of this book has a scattered quality. The introduction, the "Re-Inventing Middle-Earth" chapter (about the Hobbit), and the greater part of the first chapter on Lord of the Rings ("Mapping Out a Plot") are solid and well-organized, but after that, one can't help but get the feeling that Shippey got a bit rushed and just started throwing things together in an increasingly slapdash way in order to get the book out before the first of the Lord of the Rings movies appeared. The end of "Mapping out a Plot" starts to lose focus, and while the second Lord of the Rings chapter (on evil) still holds together reasonably well, the third Lord of the Rings chapter (on Tolkien's mythology) is particularly disorganized, with little sense of any intellectual or methodological focus whatsoever. The Silmarillion chapter and the chapter on Tolkien's minor works are pretty much pointless, while the two appendices (one on Tolkien's critics, and one on Tolkien's literary decscendants, like Donaldson), seem like hastily tacked-on additions that aren't fully developed. In spite of all that, there still is a lot of merit in this book. Though much of it is rehashed, the fact remains that Shippey's philological observations are still as insightful here as in _The Road to Middle-Earth_, and anyone who has not read that book, will still learn much from this one. Also, there are a few moments of specific analysis that are quite solid examples of thorough scholarship. Shippey's account of Tolkien's writing process in "Mapping Out the Plot" is solid and critically thoughtful, while his close analysis of speakers and language in the "Council of Elrond" chapter is nothing short of brilliant. Shippey's attempt to redefine the literary context of Tolkien is also suggestive. Too often, it has been the convention to lump Tolkien in with his friends C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams-- or more broadly with a larger romance/fantasy tradition. In the chapter on Evil, Shippey suggests (quite rightly, I think), that Tolkien ought more properly be compared with other 20th century writers (like Orwell, Golding, Vonnegut, and even T.H. White) who have been distressed by the seemingly unlimited human capacity for *evil* that modernity has enabled us to unleash and found that this question could not be meaningfully approached except through the creation of 'fantastic' worlds and scenarios. (I'm not entirely sure that I agree with Golding and Orwell being called 'fantastic' here, but I think the basic point holds well enough). Unfortunately, this idea requires greater development and complexity than Shippey gives it here-- but it still is a very suggestive beginning. IMHO, Shippey should have devoted all the time he spent rehashing material from _Road to Middle-Earth_ to developing *this* idea further, making it the central argument of the book. All in all, I have to say that _J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century_, in spite of its many flaws, is a worthwhile and insightful book-- and it's still better than most of the fluff that passes as 'Tolkien scholarship'. Still, it's no _Road to Middle-Earth_, and anyone expecting this book to rival that one should prepare to be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Robustly polemical and highly entertaining
Review: We hear a lot from Tolkien fans about how this book isn't much of a patch on the same author's earlier "The Road to Middle-Earth". (...) this book is an acute, well-argued, loving and intelligent study of one of the century's most maligned authors. Yes, I said "maligned". Those, like me, who are not great fans of fantasy fiction as such, tend to find it a bit difficult to take Tolkien seriously. My own trajectory as a Tolkien reader has gone from utter worship (aetat 11 or so) via contempt and ridicule (aetat 24) to enjoyment and respect (aetat 31), and Shippey's book is partly to thank for this. One of his sharper insights is that a taste for Tolkien seems to be something that people have to be "educated out of" - i.e., that exposure to a modern literary studies curriculum is almost guaranteed to eradicate those more primitive parts of the imagination that respond to the kind of populist yarn-spinning that Tolkien was, almost despite himself, supremely good at. (This certainly accords with my experience.) I say "almost despite himself" because one of the things I learned from this book was that Tolkien worked far harder on developing the mythological background to "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" than he spent on actually writing those books; indeed, that long after he'd published "The Hobbit" and was at work on its august sequel, he had to go back and revise it so as to make it fit in with the overall plan. I have a certain polite interest in "The Silmarillion" and the voluminous posthumous books of early drafts, but for me, by far the best of Tolkien is to be found in his two most famous books. Shippey makes out a pretty good case for why these books deserve to be regarded as classics, especially "The Lord of the Rings", which he clearly regards as being on a par with Orwell's "Animal Farm" and Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow". These are two books that I hold in the highest esteem, albeit for very different reasons, and for a Lit boy like me it's been a sweet, but sobering process to admit "The Lord of the Rings" into their sombre company. Shippey can make you read the book in a new way - it no longer seems like a daft and slightly overlong romp for eternal teenagers, but like a grim, adult and rather downbeat modern novel in a fantastic mode. Hell, he's even got me reading "Beowulf". That can't be bad, despite Woody Allen's crack about it in "Annie Hall". I think it's a bit sad for Tolkien that the two books he wrote as more-or-less spinoffs from the great work of his imagination are the ones he is most remembered for, but it's just, nonetheless, as they are by far his best books. I'll keep on reading "Lord of the Rings" for pleasure and profit. "The Silmarillion" and its kindred...well, to be frank, they'll be lucky if I pick 'em up now and again to check a reference. Shippey's skill, sardonic wit, commitment to popular taste and respect for the intelligence of his reader make this a better critical study than many others I can think of, about far more "literary" writers. Author of the Century? I'm not so sure - I'm too much of a Joyce fan. But it's time a lot of readers admitted that there's a lot of empty guff out there masquerading as "serious" literature (Saul Bellow, step to the front of the class) while books as good as Tolkien's (and Philip K. Dick's, and Ursula Le Guin's) are ignominiously written off as "genre" fiction. (...)
Rating:
Summary: The Elf's review
Review: When I bought this book at Border's book store, I was told that it was a biography of Tolkien. Unfortunately, when my expectations were not realized I became rather disappointend. I had a hard time appreciating the book because I had been led to believe that it was something it was not. That aside, it was an excellent book. Shippey has obviously gone to a lot of trouble in writing this book. He had done his research and he knows his field; this is evident throughout the book. The book is in essence an analyzation of The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Silmarillion. Though I did not always agree with Shippey, I think that his points were well argued and that he is an excellent writer. I would definintely recomend this book to anyone wishing to know more about Tolkien's work. But if you are looking for a biography of him, try looking somewhere else.
Rating: 
Summary: The Road to Middle-earth was better
Review: When Tom Shippey's publisher suggested he update his Road To Middle-earth in anticipation of the upcoming Peter Jackson movies, he is reported to have said, "I cannot possibly think of anything more to say." Well, he managed to squeeze out a new book nonetheless. Much of the material will seem very familiar to anyone who has read The Road To Middle-earth. Shippey doesn't cover any new theoretical ground. He still hammers away at the Anglo-Saxonist point-of-view, either disregarding Tolkien's non-Anglo-Saxon influences (such as the Bible, Homer, and some of the Greek dramas) or downplaying their significance. On the other hand, no one seems better qualified to explore the world of Tolkien's Anglo-Saxon and Medieval influences than Tom Shippey. If you didn't get enough of the Old English and northern European roots in the first book, he brings out the tweezers and really digs for miniscule and obscure references in this work. But there is an imbalance, in my opinion. For all their genius, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are really just stories that Tolkien set out to tell as amusements. There are complexities to be found in The Lord of the Rings which are lacking in The Hobbit. And yet, The Silmarillion is "the work of [Tolkien's] heart", as Shippey himself puts it. Even so, Shippey barely examines The Silmarillion. Perhaps that is because The Silmarillion doesn't offer as much to mine in the Anglo-Saxon arena as The Lord of the Rings. Whereas Tolkien borrowed many English place-names for Third Age Middle-earth, Beleriand depends upon a mostly Sindarin nomenclature. At best, Shippey only strikes out to "drive some shafts" into The Silmarillion, and he focuses on the other two books. Unfortunately, the haste with which Shippey turned out the analysis is revealed in a number of erroneous references. Many first-year Tolkien students would easily pick out the gaffes. Coming from one of the world's leading Tolkien scholars, they are a bit embarrassing. The book, though longer than The Road to Middle-earth, therefore looks almost as unfinished as Tolkien's mythology. There are still far worse books out there, but Shippey has done better. Perhaps he is getting a little burned out and really didn't have much more to say after all.
Rating:
Summary: The Road to Middle-earth was better
Review: When Tom Shippey's publisher suggested he update his Road To Middle-earth in anticipation of the upcoming Peter Jackson movies, he is reported to have said, "I cannot possibly think of anything more to say." Well, he managed to squeeze out a new book nonetheless. Much of the material will seem very familiar to anyone who has read The Road To Middle-earth. Shippey doesn't cover any new theoretical ground. He still hammers away at the Anglo-Saxonist point-of-view, either disregarding Tolkien's non-Anglo-Saxon influences (such as the Bible, Homer, and some of the Greek dramas) or downplaying their significance. On the other hand, no one seems better qualified to explore the world of Tolkien's Anglo-Saxon and Medieval influences than Tom Shippey. If you didn't get enough of the Old English and northern European roots in the first book, he brings out the tweezers and really digs for miniscule and obscure references in this work. But there is an imbalance, in my opinion. For all their genius, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are really just stories that Tolkien set out to tell as amusements. There are complexities to be found in The Lord of the Rings which are lacking in The Hobbit. And yet, The Silmarillion is "the work of [Tolkien's] heart", as Shippey himself puts it. Even so, Shippey barely examines The Silmarillion. Perhaps that is because The Silmarillion doesn't offer as much to mine in the Anglo-Saxon arena as The Lord of the Rings. Whereas Tolkien borrowed many English place-names for Third Age Middle-earth, Beleriand depends upon a mostly Sindarin nomenclature. At best, Shippey only strikes out to "drive some shafts" into The Silmarillion, and he focuses on the other two books. Unfortunately, the haste with which Shippey turned out the analysis is revealed in a number of erroneous references. Many first-year Tolkien students would easily pick out the gaffes. Coming from one of the world's leading Tolkien scholars, they are a bit embarrassing. The book, though longer than The Road to Middle-earth, therefore looks almost as unfinished as Tolkien's mythology. There are still far worse books out there, but Shippey has done better. Perhaps he is getting a little burned out and really didn't have much more to say after all.
Rating:
Summary: JRR Tolkien: Author of ANY Century!!
Review: With the movie version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" opening in only a few weeks, and also as the first year of the 21st century winds down, there is no better time than right now to look back on one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) authors of the 20th century - JRR Tolkien. And Tom Shippey, like Tolkien a professor of Old English and medieval literature, is well qualified to guide us in our examination of Tolkien and his work. In "Author of the Century," Tom Shippey strongly (and correctly, in my opinion) defends "The Lord of the Rings" as a modern masterpiece, filled with great wisdom on such topics as: good vs. evil; Boethianism vs. Manichaeanism (read the book if you're curious what these concepts are all about!); right vs. wrong; free will vs. determinism; "chance" vs. "fate;" traditionalism/traditional values vs. modernity/modernism;"reality" vs. "fantasy;" "truth" vs. "myth;" nature vs. industrial society; the past vs. the future; and much more. What comes out of all this is that Tolkien was at heart a strong traditionalist, anti-modern (and anti-modernism), even a "reactionary" in some ways (i.e., his love for the monarchy). And yet his books appealed to the 60s counterculture...go figure! On the other hand, maybe it's not so surprising that Tolkien appealed to the counterculture, which, like Tolkien, yearned for a lost sense of mystery, where things were not all leveled out (i.e., suburbia, fast food), dumbed down (i.e., TV, most popular literature), and just plain dull (i.e., most jobs). So, although "The Lord of the Rings" is overwhelmingly tragic and deeply sad, there's purpose, meaning, and beauty in Tolkien... and poetry...and magic! In other words, much that is missing from modern life. Besides pushing Tolkien as the "Author of the Century" (and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" as one of the greatest books ever written) and explaining Tolkien's major themes, Tom Shippey's book also strongly defends the dying academic field of philology (Tolkien's specialty), which looks at the roots, structure, and real meaning of language. Along these lines, Shippey provides numerous examples of Tolkien's extensive research into (and knowledge of) ancient languages, words, and stories. Shippey provides voluminous evidence that Tolkien was an extremely talented philologist. For instance, Tolkien was capable of inventing - and actually DID invent -- whole new languages (i.e., Quenya and Sindarin, based loosely on Finnish and Welsh). On top of this, Shippey points out that Tolkien also was a great storyteller and a fine writer, without which "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" would not have achieved such popular success. In sum, I suppose it's POSSIBLE that Tolkien might only rank as the second or third greatest author of the century. Nah! I agree wholeheartedly with Tom Shippey -- Tolkien ranks #1 in the 20th, or any, century!
|
