A Hobbit Journey: Discovering the Enchantment of J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth

by Matthew Dickerson

An expert on The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy shows how a Christian worldview and themes undergird Tolkien's classic works.

Genres: Nonfiction, Audiobook, Literary Criticism, Classics, Theology, Literature, Religion

272 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2012

About the author

Matthew Dickerson (PhD, Cornell University) is a professor at Middlebury College in Vermont, a writer, the former director of the New England Young Writers’ Conference at Bread Loaf and the current co-director of the Northern Pen Young Writers' Conference. His previous works include fantasy novels The Gifted and The Betrayed; works about fantasy including From Homer to Harry Potter along with Narnia and the Fields of Arbol: The Environmental Vision of C. S. Lewis, A Hobbit Journey, and Ents, Elves, and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J. R .R. Tolkien; some medieval historic romance including The Rood and the Torc; and even philosophy of mind and computation The Mind and the Machine: What it Means to be Human and Why it Matters.

Reviews

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listening to this book probably impacted my perception of it more than anything else, because the reader was immaculate. Though it became a bit of a pain when Matthew Dickerson's endless use of semicolons and multi-part sentences made it impossible to just turn off my car so I could go inside to my job.

A Hobbit Journey was a beautiful exploration of Tolkien and his work. While at first I expected just a personal journey of The Hobbit, I was delighted to discover the book was in fact a larger, and fun fact, depthful exploration of the entirety of Tolkien's aesthetic, writing style, and personal philosophy. whether it was exploring military vs. moral victories, the use of pagan theology in the purpose of presenting Christian mythos, or else simply exploring the inconsistencies of Tolkien's writing that reveal how he discovered his books in context to his larger body of work, this book possessed endless depth. While at times this exploration could be a bit of s slog, it was still enjoyable to dig into Tolkien's writing and see the tremendous complexity, as well as the honest humanity. Tolkien becomes a man discovering his work, while at the same time crafting the entirety of it to fit his personal vision.

Fans of Tolkien need to read Dickerson's book because he crafts many compelling arguments about interring these novels and mythologies. Casual readers of Tolkien are unlikely to find anything of real significance to them personally in this book, because at times the writing can be incredibly academic. Dickerson's prose is one of argument which is sure to send some readers fleeing to other books, but even at his most solidly academic, Dickerson's prose is approachable and worth the reader's time.

This is a book for dedicated Tolkienists. It's for readers like me who want to dig into and understand Tolkien's entire vision, and by the end the reader is left with a greater appreciation for Middle Earth, for the novels that make up this universe, and for the "Old Professor" who had such incredible vision for a mythos for his home country.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is there any spiritual significance in The Lord of the Rings? A Hobbit Journey: Discovering the Enchantment of J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth, by Matthew T. Dickerson, is a wonderful book to help you better see the truth in Tolkien's stories. Reading like a series of connected essays, this book is a masterwork of analyzing and understanding the world of Middle-Earth.

The Writing of Tolkien
What I appreciated most was how Dickerson is able to showcase how Tolkien writes. For instance, Tolkien shifts the perspective of the story in order to underly his worldview, and guide his readers into understanding. In scenes of battles and war, Tolkien moves to different viewpoints, often of the Hobbits, in order to personalize the fights but also give them some gravity. Indeed, Dickerson notes that Tolkien does not glorify violence.

Dickerson is also able to point out how Tolkien’s personal life influenced his work. Tolkien served in the British Army during World War I, but he did not rush to enlist. And throughout the book, the reader is impressed to see the Lord of the Rings not as some fantastic journey (though it may be) -- but as a story of war. This brings up questions on topics such as torture, and Dickerson addresses them with wisdom.

Rewarding and Encouraging
Although I read the original books, I am more familiar with the films. Dickerson does an excellent job of explaining some key differences and why these creative choices impact the meaning of the story. For instance, the films leave many acts up to chance or circumstances, whereas Tolkien originally wrote for his characters to make choices -- true acts of heroism. Where does Gandalf’s wisdom come from? What is it about the particular power of the ring that makes it evil and corrupting? These are some of the hard questions that Dickerson does not shy away from.

Dickerson tackles one of my favorite themes in The Lord of the Rings with his chapter on moral responsibility and stewardship. He compares Gandalf to Denethor as being the true and better steward. I saw that objective morality is the basis for judgment, and therefore see moral decisions as important. Dickerson also writes about the difficult themes of the seen and the unseen, especially in how they relate to salvation and social justice. This is a rich, rewarding, and encouraging book.

Seeing Spiritual Significance
More than just enhancing my understanding of Middle-Earth, this book increased my enjoyment of Tolkien's work and world. There is truth to be told about God, man, the world, and salvation. Epic in scope and courageous in its undertaking, this book is a wonderful guide to deeper appreciation for and seeing the spiritual significance of Middle-Earth.

I received a media copy of A Hobbit Journey and this is my honest review.

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I came late to the Lord of The Rings fandom. While I missed out on quite a few things, I'm now grateful I missed out on the LOTR movies (the Peter Jackson ones). At least, that's the impression I have after reading A Hobbit Journey.

A Hobbit Journey is an analysis of the LOTR books, including the prequel (The Hobbit) and the "sequels"/canon. The book discusses issues like the ethics of war (including the question, is torture ever justified?), freewill, and the role/portrayal of religion in the book.

While reading this book, I keep thinking that it would be perfect for Evangeline (my classmate, who based her EE on LOTR). The book is entertaining (although to be honest, any book about LOTR is going to be entertaining to me), well written and thought provoking.

Unlike Narnia, which is more obviously influenced by Christianity, LOTR is much more subtle. Still, the author does an excellent job of showing and convincing the reader of the messages hidden inside the book. He also talks a lot of the difference between the movie and the book, which made me realise that Hollywood had hidden significant parts of the book in an attempt to change the messages and make it more palatable to the general public. This may or may not have been unintentional, but what's the point of producing a movie that doesn't stay true to the essence of the book? You may have to cut parts of the plot out, but you shouldn't mess with the message.

I must admit I haven't read that much of Tolkien. Unlike for C.S. Lewis (I've read almost everything by him), I've only read "On Fairy Tales" and I'm still making my way through the LOTR canon (Anyone wants to donate a copy of The Hobbit? (; ). But this book is, in it's way, inspirational. It made me want to go back and spend a few months reading and analysing all the LOTR books. There is still so much more that could be said about the books (the author himself briefly mentions a few topics he did not discuss).

If you're a fan of the Hobbits (this book, like the title suggest, centers around Hobbits), you'll want to read this book. If you're an Elf/Dwarf/Troll/Other fan, there's still lots to love, but you might want to consider writing your own book about LOTR featuring your favourite species.

Disclaimer: I got a free copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review

First posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile

[Karen! · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those remarkable texts that, when discussing the contents with friends, truly solidifies your nerd status. Without a question, I loved this book. It will remain for me a reference and an inspiration in my understanding not only of Tolkien's world, but also of my own.

Dickerson moves at a fluid pace, neither striding ahead in leaps and bounds nor dragging the reader forward against their will. I found the approach to be logical, well-documented, and rooted in the heart of the Tolkien writings. What is more, he explores not only The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but also the Silmarillion and the Children of Hurin.

Some of my favorite chapters dealt with the treatment of prisoners and the attitudes of Tolkien concerning war. While battle and war play such an undeniable role in the telling of Tolkien's meta-narrative, it is important to note that battle is never glorified, and is often given rather minimal detail, especially when considering the corpus compared to the films.

This is a fantastic read for any Tolkien fan interested in exploring the morality and ethics of Middle Earth.

[Ettelwen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chtěla jsem pět ódy, dokud se informace a autorovi úvahy nezačaly až nepříjemně často opakovat, a dokud mi s přílišnou pravidelností nezačal servírovat názory autorů z jiných knih v rámci podtržení svých úvah. Kromě toho, hodně z rozebíraných věcí vám Tolkien servíruje na přímo a tady se pouze opakují.

Nicméně, pokud jste ve Středozemi jednou nohou, může pro vás tahle kniha být nesmírně obohacující. Je v ní plno myšlenek, které si během čtení Pána Prstenů či Hobita třeba neuvědomíte. Maličkostí, které nemusí mít váhu, ale mají a vy se třeba úplně nekoukáte za roh. Pokud nevíte, kde začíná Středozem a končíte vy, asi vám to kromě opáčka moc nedá. Ale opakování je matka moudrosti, ne?

O Éowyn a její roli, o Faramirovi, o morálním kompasu uprostřed války. O jedné jediné větě, která může změnit pohled na postavu a dává vám možnost se na to podívat z jiného úhlu pohledu. O alegoriích a aplikovatelnosti.

[Tim Littleford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun little deep dive into the theology and philosophy that sits behind Tolkien's Middle Earth.

[Timothy Darling · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was an extreme fun read. It has something for everyone, the theologian, the literary critic, the historian. To follow the "Hobbicentric" stories along with the deep background JRRT put into his work is a real delight.

I can't recommend this book for everyone. You've got to be willing to ply through some pretty dry material. However, the payoff is brilliant. The connections between LOTR and Beowulf are interesting to sift. Also, Dickerson highlighted some ideas I had come up with awhile back connecting a number of Characters to Christ. Many, though, will find the arguments against direct religious references leading to an explicitly Christian work unconvincing. No matter, they are very interesting to contemplate, and have some good logic to them, in spite of their anti-intuitive basis.

Read it if you like LOTR on a deep level with a tolerance for analysis. Otherwise, you might check into the older, briefer version of the book, Following Gandalf.

[R. Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is as insightful a book on Tolkien's fiction that one will find out there. Very well done. Insightful. And it definitely demonstrates the relevance of Tolkien's work for present times. Having read tons of works about Tolkien and his literary corpus, I would say this is certainly one of the better ones.

[Ashwise · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed the author's look at the hobbit and was surprised at finding some of the themes of the The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, such as the themes of torture and warfare. Would read it again.

[Leaflet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on really understanding Tolkien.

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dickerson really, really loves the Lord of the Rings. Like. Really.

In this book, he basically examines Tolkien's fiction--the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, and the Hobbit--as well as nonfiction (including recently released essays) for the philosophical and moral underpinnings and what lessons they can bring to the reader.

Dickerson believes that you should be able to enjoy a story for a story and also play with the ideas and examine them for real-life applications, despite what Tolkien himself said of his writing (he wrote it solely to amuse, excite, and entertain his audience and himself, without thinking about the moral lessons or incidental allegory).

Dickerson delves into the moral ideas brought up in the book (such as appropriate treatment of prisoners) and what lessons they can offer the modern world--for, as Dickerson points out, Tolkien's world is our world. Ultimately, he seems to think Tolkien's moral philosophy is heavily Kantian-influenced: you can't do terrible things, like torture your prisoners (even Smeagol), even if you would gain information that could save countless lives from great evil (like Sauron).

A decent look at Tolkien's writing, but nothing revolutionary here.

[Norbert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an upgraded vesion of his previous "Following Gandalf: Epic Battles and Moral Victory in The Lord of the Rings", with a couople of chapter more.

It is well written and well documented and it is the source for many reflection on Tolkien's works.
I do not agree with all the thesis, but it is a book I recomand

[Brenten Gilbert · Rating 3 out of 5]

RATING 2.75

Dickerson may have gone far beyond the deep end in his explorations of the text. Shrouded in academics and literary criticism, A HOBBIT JOURNEY seeks to excavate meaning from The Hobbit with thorough analysis and complete immersion in the text. The problem with this book is that it takes things more seriously than many people might find healthy. It’s a more difficult read, as Dickerson tosses around ten-dollar words and makes this more akin to a collegiate dissertation than a casual discussion.

This book tackles heavy issues, such as wartime ethics, deep theological aspects of military accomplishments, moral responsibility, and social justice, among others. Now, I’m not saying that these issues aren’t addressed, or at least illustrated, in the pages of The Hobbit, but the added weight of over-analysis usurps the whimsy and joy of the text. There is a time and place (and audience) for this book - and it’s intricately researched well written - but my instincts lead me to believe that Dickerson would rather invest his time in proverbial lofty towers (or a comfortable Hobbit hole in the Shire) trading philosophies than implementing these lessons in a practical sense. And it’s precisely this irony that makes it hard for me to enjoy this book.

- from TRudATmusic[dot]com[slash]raw 1/8/13

[C · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thought-provoking exploration of spiritual and philosophical themes in Tolkien's Middle-Earth. It shows that Tolkien's fantasy works express that the battle is spiritual as well as physical, and the eternal is important as well as the temporal. The book is somewhat long-winded, and it seems at times that Dickerson is reaching too far, drawing unnecessary inferences.

This book discusses The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings (LotR), and The Silmarillion. It focuses on LotR because that work is deeper and more profound than The Hobbit, but, unlike Silmarillion, is told from the more human-like perspective of Hobbits.

This is an expanded and updated version of the author's book Following Gandalf: Epic Battles and Moral Victory in the Lord of the Rings.

Notes
Military Victory or Moral Victory?
Moral victories are more important to Tolkien's most noble characters than are military victories.

Human Freedom and Creativity
Where Tolkien's heroes make heroic choices, Jackson's versions of the characters must be tricked, or forced, or involuntary stumble into courses of action that seem to make them heroes.

In debate between predestination and free will, "Tolkien seems to come down solidly on the side of both."

The Gift of Ilúvatar and the Power of the Ring
If greatest gift to race of Men is freedom, and with it creativity, then greatest evil (of Melkor, Sauron, and the One Ring) is the taking away of freedom.

Moral Responsibility and Stewardship
Tolkien declares moral absolutes; that good and evil are same across cultures, time, and locations. Aragorn says, "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear … It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." Mandos says, "And this deed was unlawful, whether in Aman or not in Aman."

When Tolkien has characters withhold judgmental action (such as of Gollum), it's not because there are no moral absolutes, or that they don't deserve to be judged. When Gandalf speaks of Gollum, he doesn't say to never judge, or even to never kill in judgment; he just tells Frodo not to be quick to deal out death in judgment for Gollum at that time, because no one in Middle-Earth at that time has the authority to do so.

Tolerance of a certain type in certain circumstances may be virtuous, but tolerance of evil isn't a virtue.

The Seen and the Unseen: Salvation and Social Justice
Tolkien didn't like Arthurian legends because they contain too much explicit religion.

Tolkien said religious elements should not be "in the known form of the primarily 'real' world." Religious content in Tolkien's fantasy doesn't use the same language, terminology, or external practices as our primary world.

More noble characters desire to help other characters find their "cure" (salvation). Mercy is so important because it leaves open door to salvation.

That Gollum and Denethor die in flames brings up images of Hell. Gandalf tells Lord of Nazgul to go back to abyss and fall into nothingness, language of damnation.

A Shift in Tone: Free Will and the Hand of Ilúvatar
Tolkien said, "I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story." The Silmarillion is a large and cosmogonic myth; LotR is an epic romance; The Hobbit is a lighthearted fairy tale.

In the Hobbit, after meeting with Elrond, narrative tone changes gradually from low and comic to high and heroic, because by bringing Elrond into story Tolkien "discovered" that the story was in the Middle-Earth of his other legends.

Ilúvatar's Theme and the Real War
References to God are vague and veiled in LotR not because it's not Christian, but because it's so thoroughly Christian. Tolkien didn't want readers distracted by the "trappings" of religion. Visible elements of modern religious practices would cause readers to read it as allegory.

Middle-Earth mythology isn't un-Christian or pagan, but it's not thoroughly Christian. It's a Christian understanding of a pre-Christian time. It's a work coming from a fully Christian mind, but it doesn't describe a fully Christian world.

Gandalf understands spiritual nature of the war. He almost never takes up arms against a physical foe, but reserves his power for fighting spiritual beings (e.g., Balrog, Saruman, Nazgul). This is also why he's so concerned about "cure" (repentance) of characters (Gollum, Saruman, Wormtongue, Bilbo, Frodo).

Other books mentioned
• The Ring and the Cross: Christianity and the Lord of the Rings by Paul E. Kerry
• Light Beyond All Shadow: Religious Experience in Tolkien's Work by Paul E. Kerry
• Secret Fire: The Spiritual Vision of J.R.R. Tolkien by Stratford Caldecott

[Dale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two themes predominate in Dickerson's book: free will and the nature of morality. In his exploration of Tolkien's views on these subjects it is fairly evident that Dickerson enthusiastically endorses those views, so in what follows I will make no effort to separate Dickerson's treatment of those themes from Tolkien's views on the matter.

Dickerson goes to lengths to show that the 'good' characters in the ring trilogy have and exercise free will, as opposed to the 'bad' characters who are essentially automatons. So Gandalf, Frodo, Elrond, Boromir, Aragorn and so on make choices; orcs and the ring wraiths are slaves, either literally or owing to being controlled by their rings.

Free will, in turn, is essential to an understanding of moral behavior. One can act morally, or be justly accused of not acting morally, only if one has the free will to choose how to act.

In discussing views of morality, Dickerson presents three alternatives: ethical relativism, materialistic determinism, and objective morality. The latter is to be understood as morality that is independent of any human control. That is, it exists outside of any particular cultural or temporal context. Dickerson somewhat sneeringly refers to the 'popularity' of ethical relativism and basically dismisses that view without further comment. He describes materialistic determinism at somewhat greater length by quoting and paraphrasing some observations by Bertrand Russell. The synopsis given by Dickerson is that materialist determinists believe that nothing exists outside the physical world, so the notion of 'free will' as something that is not part of the physical world is meaningless. Therefore, Dickerson goes on, in that view it makes no sense to apply moral condemnation to bad acts - such acts arise from some combination of genetics, brain chemistry, environment, or other physical factors, and so deserve no more moral praise or condemnation than a common chemistry experiment. Dickerson seems to take it as evident that such a view is ridiculous and worthy of no more discussion. In any case, both Tolkien and Dickerson seem to believe in the 'objective morality' thesis, specifically a morality handed down by a deity, so it's reasonable enough that he spends no more time discussing alternative views, and understandable that he doesn't raise any of the many problems with the idea of objective morality (or the problems with positing a deity, for that matter).

But for anyone reading this book I think it's important to understand that there actually are fundamental problems with the idea of an objective morality and free will, and that the arguments for either ethical relativism or materialist view of ethics are not quite so easily dismissed.

Let's start with ethical relativism. The basic motivation is that if we look at what has been regarded as ethical at different times and places, there is a pretty broad range of mutually exclusive moral imperatives. Some things don't really change: nearly every society has a stricture against theft and murder within the society - though many cultures reward or even insist on the rightness of committing theft and murder on outsiders. Slavery has been historically regarded as either a positive good or simply outside the domain of morality. And no matter how far such distant or ancient beliefs might differ from our own, each society has been mostly convinced that its own moral codes were correct and, indeed, obvious. That being the case, how is one to argue against the idea that morality is culturally determined? For most of us, our own set of moral beliefs seems so obvious and true that we might be tempted to say that of course! we have evolved socially so that now we are in a position to understand what is true morality. We might even be tempted to treat that understanding as a kind of discovery - we have, through long trial and error, discovered the true morality, the objectively correct morality. But a little reflection will show how absurd such a belief is. Are we really so socially evolved? A mere 50 years ago segregation was still the norm in the southern US; lynchings continued well after. We have only more recently 'discovered' that harassing and discriminating against gays is a morally unsound thing to do. We have probably not yet fully 'discovered' that discrimination against women is just not right. Just two or three generations ago, discriminating against homosexuals was thought to be the morally correct thing to do - and we had laws that enshrined that belief. So who knows what 'discoveries' we will make in another generation and which of our currently obviously correct moral views will be overturned?

Clearly much more could be said, but do you believe that arguments of that kind should simply be dismissed in one sentence as merely 'popular'? And, by the way, I don't accept the arguments of ethical relativism; I simply think it's somewhat dishonest to dismiss such arguments out of hand.

Dickerson takes a similarly dismissive view of objections to the idea of free will. And it's easy to be dismissive and avoid much criticism for such a dismissal. After all, we all of us believe at a deep level that we have free will. I can choose to finish this paragraph, or just skip the whole thing and close my browser. I can stand up, sit down, go outside, stay where I am - these are all choices I make of my own free will. Of course when I look at the table in front of me I 'know' that it is solid, and if I look at a lump of lead I 'know' it is solid as well. But in a different way, in a scientifically verifiable way, I know that both the table and the lump of lead are mostly empty space, about as solid as the solar system. So simply 'knowing' by intuition that something is true doesn't make it so. The objection I have to the idea of free will is that it is barely an idea at all. For believers in supernatural deities, free will is associated with a 'spirit' that 'animates' a sentient being; this 'spirit' is granted to us by the deity, or is a kind of link between ourselves and that deity. The spirit, and free will itself, exist side by side with the physical world, yet are not part of that world. Yet they are able to alter the behavior of the physical world. How? I do not see how one can coherently claim that a non-physical entity, that is, something that is not subject to the normal physical laws of the universe, could possibly interact with the physical world. The mere fact of interaction implies being part of the world, and therefore subject to the laws and constraints of the (subject matter of) physics. This objection applies equally to those who believe in free will but do not inject a deity or spirit or soul into the equation. It is the concept of free will itself that is incoherent.

But what is the alternative? Does the incoherence of free will imply determinism? I don't see why it would, at least not in any practical sense. I think we can all agree that our decisions, our choices, arise out of processes in the brain. Brain function is partly inherent, based on genetics and early development, and partly influenced by environment, including the environment of our own actions over time. Synapses form and fade as we learn and forget, as we study, as we train, as we eat, drink, exercise, and so on. So to say that the negation of free will is determinism is to stretch the notion of determinism past the breaking point. Our choices are the endpoints of an inconceivably long network of events (most of them accidental in a fundamental sense) and physical structures which themselves evolve and devolve over time.

Nonetheless, Dickerson claims that for the materialist 'determinist' it makes no sense to apply moral praise or condemnation. I would answer: so what? Let's suppose we have learned that a terrible crime has been committed - the murder of a small child for example. And there is overwhelming incontrovertible evidence, proof if you will, that a certain person committed that crime. Let's see how the materialist determinist would respond. I think he might say something like the following: "This was a terrible crime, a great loss to the child's family, and an act that chills me to the marrow. The person who did this crime must be locked away for a very long time, in part to keep him away from society so he can't commit another crime, in part because we must use the power of the law to deter others from committing similar crimes (though we know that doesn't work as well as we would like) and in part because at a deep level we want to punish this person." [You might dispute whether the materialist would agree that punishment is appropriate - but materialists are themselves a product of their history and evolution, and we humans seem to have a universal taste for retribution.] Now - what would the believer in objective morality say different than any of the above? I would suggest that the believer would say the very same things, with the exception that he would then conclude by calling the criminal names - various synonyms of 'evil', 'depraved', etc. That's it, that's the sole difference: name calling.

So at an operational level there's almost nothing to distinguish objective morality from materialist determinism (a misnomer as suggested above), nor for that matter from ethical relativism, at least for acts that are regarded as wrong in an overwhelming proportion of societies.

So we are left with the question of which seems more plausible: objective morality or materialist determinism. Well, since it's by no means obvious I think the burden is on believers in objective morality to say something about what is the nature of this 'objectivity' and how one could possibly investigate its properties. Is it another one of those 'spirits' that, though not physical, somehow interacts with us, infuses us, as it were, and that we can somehow sense (though how one senses a non-physical 'thing' is a mystery)? If it is a such a spirit I would ask why we should believe in such a thing. How could one ever adduce evidence for or against such a concept? It's simply not a testable hypothesis.

I could go on, believe it or not, but you get the point: the mere fact that Dickerson sneers at or dismisses ideas that neither he nor Tolkien accept is no reason you should follow along.

[Grace Atkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This guy's writing style gave me a headache. It was like he was trying to ride the fence between a secular academic and a lay Christian audience, so the majority of the text felt like a weird, clunky explanation-for-dummies of various events in Tolkien's books. I got the sense that his ideas would have been improved by conciseness and that the 250-ish page book could've been reduced very easily to an essay without the great chunks of what read like a Lord of the Rings Detailed Summary on Litcharts.

Despite some stylistic pain points (for me at least), though, Dickerson does a pretty awesome job outlining the ethical, moral, and theological dimensions of Tolkien's work. He nails down the Professor's tricky attitude toward allegory, briefly examines the tripartite Beowulf and Christ figures in Middle-earth without getting bogged down by their presence (in the texts themselves or in other criticism) and refuses to either downplay Tolkien's pagan influences or put all his theological eggs in a Nordic basket. Well-researched, solid criticism from a guy who seems to genuinely love and respect the source material. Not sure if this book will be any good for my thesis (RIP) but I'm glad I read it anyway

[C. S. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have a very real, and possibly unfair, dislike of literary analysis. Too many hours spent dissecting "classics" in high school, probably - but I generally don't think it right or fair to go into great stories and poems with tweezers and a magnifying glass looking for microscopic "hints" about what the author meant, or what state of mind (s)he was in at the time a certain passage was created, or whatever.

But this book was much more than I expected, and I am so happy that I read it (by accident, actually). If anything, it made the Middle Earth legendarium even more beautiful and resonant to me than I had previously thought it; pointing out like a tour guide some tiny and easily overlooked areas of great beauty that I had not appreciated before.

It not only enhanced my current reading of the LOTR (I am almost done with TRotK now), but I am almost tempted to go back and start over again at The Hobbit and read through yet again with my new appreciation of those subtle beautiful bits that I missed the first several times 'round.

[Lilian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kinda heavy but comforting during this COVID19 lockdown time. Most of the content I am aware of from my own reading of Tolkien. Still it’s good to listen to author’s thoughts expressed in his own formidable way. The only part I don’t quite understand is the Christianity comparison. That’s because I know nothing about Christianity.

[Susan Fehr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of interesting stuff in it, and inspired me to go back and read the books again, but Im not sure its a keeper. Perhaps because Im not a Christian, and while I think its good for understanding Tolkein, I wonder if it isnt a bit too overt - although that is the purpose - and perhaps reductionist, focussing as it does, only on Tolkeins faith.

[Nick D · Rating 4 out of 5]

(audiobook, and I may have down marked it a little only because I found the reader a bit stodgy)
As a (nearly) lifelong Tolkien enthusiast, I found this very enjoyable and interesting. Its scope is much broader than its title suggests, and effectively uses its hobbit focus as a proxy for "everyman", exploring how Tolkien presents duty, morality and salvation.

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 A look at the imagery and theology of the J.R.R. Tolkien books-The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. A bit iffy for a chapter or two-I thought the author started in an odd way but overall, I greatly enjoyed the analysis and research into the books and into Tolkien's own commentary.

[Stèf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting enough. The book gives a well thought out analysis of the philosophy of The Hobbit. The book regularly refers back to America and it's government's terror tactics for philosophical comparison.
It is well written and sufficiently indepth.
Worth reading if you have not done any analysis of The Hobbit, or war crimes, or have nothing better to read.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

While some conclusions were rather basic (Does Tolkien glorify war? No.) others were profound.

The author teaches graduate level courses on Tolkien and his work. His audience would be die-hard Tolkien fans. As such, I may not quite qualify. Still, this ignited a desire to revisit Middle Earth.

[Andrew Spurgeon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A University level discussion of the age old What Did The Author Really Mean. Well researched and thoughtful, although a bit long. If you approach it in this way, and that is interesting to you, it's a reasonable read.

[Dustin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful book on a classic tale

[Raquel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of great information to think about. Best to have read and watched beforehand.

[Emily Tobergte · Rating 4 out of 5]

My hobbit heart is happy. It was a little repetitive in parts. But. Very edifying and drew a lot of comparisons and conclusions I hadn't considered.

[Rusty Berr · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am looking forward to re-reading the Hobbit and LOTR after reading this book.
It has enlightened me and made me more aware of the deeper themes and meanings to look for in Tolkien's stories.

[Lauren Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you love Tolkien and the LOTR and the Hobbit, read this book. It's fantastic.

My 15yo LOTR nerd son also absolutely loved it and loves Tolkien all the more for having read this book.

[Carolyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is very heavy reading. It gets really bogged down about halfway through. I don't agree with all of the author's interpretations and perspectives, but it is interesting all the same. Philosophy is not my favorite reading, but it is good to think deeply some of the time.