Deborah Rogers (3)

At least the "Critical" part is right.

"Critical," as in "Critically short of content."

I have to think that this book came out of one of the many "Tolkien Booms" over the last sixty years. Because it is not a biography, and it's pretty weak as criticism, too.

It does have a brief biographical chapter at the beginning. But it is less than a dozen pages long -- too short to understand the influences that shaped Tolkien (his Catholicism, his early loss of his parents, his inability to settle down anywhere, his experience as an officer in World War I, his lack of familiarity with women, his fascination with language). The rest is the "critical" part. And there is criticism of Tolkien's works; occasionally the book brings out a useful point about Tolkien's use of language. But, mostly, it's a rehash of his writings. Surely anyone would agree that it's more interesting to read The Lord of the Rings than to read a plot summary of The Lord of the Rings. Especially when the occasional critical insights are so few and so far between.

To make the book even harder to use, the book has many endnotes, but they aren't source notes; they are mostly extensions of the arguments in the text. In other words, they should either be footnotes, so you can see them at once, or they should be worked into the text.

Possibly this book can be justified if it is the only book of Tolkien criticism you will ever own. It isn't actually bad; it's just short. But if you want a biography, either Humphrey Carpenter's or the book by his children will serve you better; and if you want criticism, Tom Shippey's books are far, far more interesting and more insightful.… (mere)