Revised Editions of Tolkien Scholarship

Reviews Revised Editions ofTolkien Scholarship Jane Chance. Tolkien'sArt:A Mythologyfor England. Revised Edition. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2001. 262p. Jane Chance. The Lordofthe Rings: The Mythology ofPower. Revised Edition. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2001. I62p. Verlyn Flieger. SplinteredLight: Logos andLanguage in Tolkien's World. Revised Edition. Kent: The Kent State University Press, 2002. 196p. Daniel J. Smitherman Independent Scholar Publishers and readers should ask themselves when presented with a revision ofa scholarly book: why revise this book? Why not, for instance, write an entirely new book? If the book is still relevant and valuable, why revise it at all? These questions , and others, can fairly be asked of the three books discussed here. All three are close studies ofthe work ofJ.R.R. Tolkien, were originally written in the last twenty-five years, and revised in the last two years. Jane Chance's book Tolkien's Art: A Mythobgyfor England, originally published in 1979, and published in revised form in 2001, is a "study to show how [Tolkien's] creative works reflect his interest in medieval English literature" (4). Chance narrows the focus ofher study to the theme ofkingship and its adversaries—ofthe heroes and the monsters. Both the hero and the monster appear in Tolkien's work at times disguised and at times revealed. Chance uses this overarching theme of King versus Monster to guide her through the many years ofTolkien's life and the wide variety of his writings, to make her claim that Tolkien's native English literature deeply and most significantly informed his writing. This she demonstrates well enough, with detailed discussion ofTolkien's work and the traditions and works that she could directly relate by Tolkien's own words, and through analysis ofsimilarities in the works being considered. Certainly, in 1979, this achievement was significant. But in 2003, there is simply so much more work available now regarding this connection between English literary heritage and Tolkien's work, too voluminous even to mention representative works. Further, much of this work is based on much more ofTolkien's own work than Chance had available to her. Also, it is not the sheer volume ofthe more SPRING 2003 * ROCKY MOUNTAIN REVIEW + 109 recent scholarship, as the volume and quality that together render the revision of Chance's book (though not at all the inherent value of the work itself) less than invaluable. Chance's writing style must share the blame. She depends far too much on a simple symbolic formula for analyzing almost all aspects ofTolkien's work. The repeated resort to and occurrences ofthe formula nearly reduces all ofTolkien's work to allegory, and her own study to a tedious exercise in symbolic analysis. In fact, the ubiquity ofthe comparisons and analogies and symbolisms that Chance suggests end up detracting from her aim, which is to demonstrate the intimate role that English heroic literature played in Tolkien's creative work, because the reader begins to suspect that Chance found too many connections, and too many that were too simple and merely speculative rather than grounded in direct reference by Tolkien himself, or by philological reference. Ifthe value ofa revision of Tolkien'sArt is debatable, that ofChance's book The Lordofthe Rings: TheMythology ofPoweris not debatable: there is no merit in this revision. The Mythology ofPower is the more recent of the two books, but is the more irrelevant now. Chance reads TheLordoftheRings in terms ofpolitical power and cultural diversity, which are relevant enough categories, but her use ofthem is too simplistic and tedious. She never directly and satisfactorily defines "political " or "the other," and her illustrations ofthese are almost always simply the telling ofsome specifics ofthe plot of the story. Other revisions are equally unquestionable, because unquestionably worthwhile . Verlyn Flieger's Splintered Light: Logos and Language in Tolkien's World, is such a revision. Published originally in 1983, Flieger's work is as illuminating and enjoyable to read as it was the first time around. Her writing is clear, her chapters are short and to the point, and her subject matter is not only interesting but must still very much be a matter ofconsidered speculation rather than simple proof. Flieger focuses...