Reading "The Lord of the Rings": New Writings on Tolkien's Classic (review)

My first impression of this book evoked uncomfortable memories of an earlier effort: J.R.R. Tolkien: This Far Land (1984), edited by Robert Giddings. This deeply eccentric if pioneering collection included papers which verged on parody, evoking images of earnest young academics, mostly in polytechnics, for whom Tolkien functioned mostly as grist for new critical mills. It is clear from the present volume, however, that things have moved on. Compared with two decades ago, there have been two signal improvements: Eaglestone and his contributors evince much greater theoretical sophistication, and they take Tolkien's work more seriously. In short, Reading "The Lord of the Rings" realizes its goal—"to reintegrate The Lord of the Rings into the broad sweep of current literary critical and theoretical interests" (2) —with impressive success.

Eaglestone's introduction offers a useful supplement to Shippey's analysis of The Lord of the Rings as a quintessentially twentieth-century work, including new insights into Tolkien's rhetoric. His own chapter, "Invisibility," draws on Emmanuel Levinas and Alasdair MacIntyre to reveal the integral connection between evil and invisibility. This point is ably contextualized in terms of the modernist and especially Cartesian valorization and project of instituting a freedom which is radically non-participative—and, as such, ontologically inauthentic if not impossible.

Michael Drout's offering, "Towards a Better Tolkien Criticism," offers some valuable pointers in that regard although, being confined to chapter-length, it is unavoidably more programmatic than substantive. Even so, it is highly refreshing to encounter Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault and Stanley Fish, all skilfully handled, in the context of Tolkien studies. And one can only agree that "Tolkien Studies" (by scholars) and "Middle-earth Studies" (by fans), instead of indulging in mutual hostility, should be mutually enriching.

Drout also criticizes some scholars as "over-invested in the truth of [Tolkien's] Letters" as "a transparent, unambiguous guide to the 'real meaning' of Tolkien's literature" (20). That would indeed be a mistake; however, is such a use of the Letters really that common? And surely it is defensible to use them as a guide to Tolkien's own conscious intentions, beliefs and values, and how those affected what he wrote. That, at any rate, is my practice (which, in addition, does not extend to equally naïve assertions of "real meaning" of The Lord of the Rings).

Certainly Barry Langford, in the following chapter on "Time," has no hesitation in drawing on the Letters in order to break down the "narrative extension" of The Lord of the Rings into its linguistic, geographical and temporal components. He then uses this analysis to identify Jackson's films as "relentlessly present-tense and ruthlessly goal-oriented," the effect of which is to close down the possibility "for critical reflection or ethical engagement" that is such a distinctive mark of the book (43, 46). Again, it is hard to disagree. One bad academic habit is in evidence here, however, if not egregiously so: if specialist jargon such as "lisible" and "scriptable" is going to be used—neither of which appear in the Shorter OED—then it should also be explained. (True, one could infer the meaning; but with technical terms that is not always reliable.)

Sue Zlosnik's "Gothic Echoes" is one of the weaker papers in this collection. In distinctively modernist manner, she refers to "those who find solace in Tolkien's fake mythology" (58; a phrase repeated from page 50). Not only is this the sort of dismissively patronizing attitude we know too well from Germaine Greer and Auberon Waugh et al., it also betrays a curiously positivist attitude. What is "real" mythology, from which the contrast must draw its force? Even Homer and Herodotus were interpreters of myth. But in that case, what is "fake"? And her remark that The Lord of the...