The Battle for Middle-earth: Tolkien's Divine Design in The Lord of the Rings

by Fleming Rutledge

J. R. R. Tolkien's  Lord of the Rings  has long been acknowledged as the gold standard for fantasy fiction, and the recent Oscar-winning movie trilogy has brought forth a whole new generation of fans. Many Tolkien enthusiasts, however, are not aware of the profoundly religious dimension of the great Ring saga.

In  The Battle for Middle-earth  Fleming Rutledge employs a distinctive technique to uncover the theological currents that lie just under the surface of Tolkien's epic tale. Rutledge believes that the best way to understand this powerful "deep narrative" is to examine the story as it unfolds, preserving some of its original dramatic tension. This deep narrative has not previously been sufficiently analyzed or celebrated. Writing as an enthusiastic but careful reader, Rutledge draws on Tolkien's extensive correspondence to show how biblical and liturgical motifs shape the action. At the heart of the plot lies a rare glimpse of what human freedom really means within the Divine Plan of God.  The Battle for Middle-earth  surely will, as Rutledge hopes, "give pleasure to those who may already have detected the presence of the sub-narrative, and insight to those who may have missed it on first reading."

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, Religion, Literary Criticism, Christian, Spirituality, Literature

381 pages, Paperback

First published January 15, 2004

Reviews

[Ian Caveny · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me a while to figure out precisely why I found myself so drawn to the Rev. Fleming Rutledge's prose time and again. By all rights, both this book and her The Crucifixion should not have been as thoroughly delightful and engaging as they were, simply by their content. That's not to say, of course, that a book about The Lord of the Rings or a book about atonement theories can't be interesting; it's just an observation that, typically speaking, literary criticism and theological reflection do not often make for enjoyable books, in and of themselves. I have found a few in my life that were delightful (e.g. Schmemann's For the Life of the World); but even the one's I laud are often... slogs (see: Charles Taylor's A Secular Age...!).

What makes Rutledge so different from her peers, however, is that she is first and foremost a preacher. And gosh-darn good one. There is little distinction between the fervency, focus, and apocalyptic transvision of her homilies (and one can sample many of them on YouTube) and her same voice writing on the topics contained in her written works. In this sense, maybe all of her books - and not just her sermon collections - are "preaching" books.

Of course, one of the chief critiques people make regarding "preaching" books or collections of sermons is that they often lack for content. Is Rutledge really good in both her style and her thought?

The answer is, as it was for The Crucifixion: absolutely.

I wasn't always sure, reading The Battle for Middle-earth, whether I was reading literary analysis of J.R.R. Tolkien or reading a devotional on apocalyptic Christianity by Rutledge; this book is a beautiful mixture of both, and all the moreso as Rutledge herself has been so shaped by the thought of Tolkien and Lewis. Her literary analysis, for a non-expert in that field, is superb; her handling of the characters and depth of Tolkien's narrative exquisite, and her ability to avoid the tell-tale minefields of typical Tolkien criticism is uncannily good. She can see all the typical (and poorly-contrived) interpretations as they rise up, and she hammers them back down with a righteous hammer of common sense, sound judgment, and keen mastery of Tolkien's written material (including his letters).

Even better, this book opened for me some angles for emotionally engaging with The Lord of the Rings I had never previously considered: the realities of moral ambiguity in a black-and-white universe, the dangers of power, the nature of temptation, the necessity of humility. Her section discussing Frodo's "failure" at Mount Doom is perhaps one of the most eye-opening takes on LotR that I have ever read, and her consistency in deriding Peter Jackson's films where they needed to be derided are amusing (and welcome).

Altogether, this companion will greatly aid all lovers of Tolkien, as well as open up avenues for fresh Christian reflection on a novel that is often pigeonholed in unfortunate ways. Rather than oversimplifying LotR, Rutledge brings out all the treasures that Tolkien had hidden along the way, allowing readers to delight (and be challenged) in the classic quest at a new depth (complete with apocalyptic transvision!).

[Julie Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reread this as a devotional in the mornings. Original review below.

===========
The last of the major LOTR commentaries that I hadn't read. Somehow Lent during the time of Covid, social division, and angst seemed the right time for this and, indeed, it did prove to be very inspirational.

Instead of zeroing in on themes and then pulling examples from throughout the text, Rutledge takes the unusual tactic of working her way through the book from beginning to end, commenting along the way on the links between the book and Christian themes. It is very effective because we can see the themes develop and grow as the story itself grows in complexity. There are many good insights that open up the book even further for the attentive reader.

As others have commented, it isn't a perfect work. There are some points that are often repeated many times, often unnecessarily since the sort of person reading this book is already steeped in LOTR. (Also, what difference does it make that Tolkien didn't like Shakespeare? And why do we have to be told that three times?) I also didn't agree with all of the author's conclusions, though admittedly there weren't a lot of points I took umbrage with. Just enough to annoy me every so often.

None of that takes away from the fact that this is a really good commentary and I wholeheartedly recommend it.

[Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was just fantastic. So good. Thanks for the gift Mark and Trace!

If you love The Lord of the Rings and are a Christian, then there’s a great chance you will love this book. Or if you love LOR and have heard that it is a deeply Christian story, but just don’t understand how—after all, Jesus and Christianity is nowhere to be found in the books, and the very idea of God is referenced only obliquely a handful of times—this illuminating exposition will make it all clear.

Rather than organizing the book topically like most LOR commentaries, Rutledge works though the story’s plotline expounding on its themes along the way. This is a great feature since it allows the reader to enjoy the unfolding drama all over again.


So how exactly is Tolkien able to create a story that is not explicitly Christian, yet somehow still deeply and implicitly Christian? Here are some particular emphases that Rutledge discusses that stood out for me:

-The idea of free choice is always downplayed. Tolkien understands the paradox of choice and providence (fate). Often the choices and actions are described in the passive voice, as if influenced by outside forces—both good and evil. (eg “He takes Frodo on his back, and because some gift of final strength was given to him…”)

-Only these outside forces are described as evil. The characters themselves are not good or evil. They are sometimes faithful, and sometimes not. Even those on the team of “good guys” are liable to fail, or become unfaithful, or even commit treason.

-The faithful characters exhibit humility

-Multiple variations on Joseph’s theme: “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” Again, God’s providence.

-The forces of good eventually triumph over the forces of evil (at least for now, but victory will never be final until the end of the age) through acts of self-sacrifice and self-denial. The power of the ring cannot be wielded to achieve good ends—it is too strong and would corrupt any who would try to use it, including Gandalf and Galadriel. It must therefore be destroyed. Strength is therefore achieved through weakness.

-Important and recurrent theme of mercy (“pity” in Tolkien’s parlance).

-Frodo is not a hero who wins through his own personal strength or resolve. Ultimately, the ring breaks him too, and it is only through Providence that the mission is successful, and because mercy had repeatedly been shown to Gollum.

-Frodo has Sam to help him. Genesis says, “it is not good for man to be alone.” In the Christian story there is only one solitary hero, but Frodo is not Jesus. Neither is Gandalf or any other character, although some may display certain Christlike features at times.


Please forgive me, but I’m going to save some quotes here too:

Tolkien demonstrates an “ability to invest a natural phenomenon with metaphysical significance without romanticizing it.“


Re “apocalyptic affliction”:
This is suffering that is voluntarily undertaken for the sake of a higher cause. The entire Ring saga could be described as a tale of apocalyptic affliction endured so that the united kingdom of Arnor and Gondor can be restored to its rightful ruler. This endurance is called hupomone, and it is one of the central marks of the Christian life. Hupomone can also be translated "perseverance," "steadfastness," "fortitude," or "patience." It is not a glamorous virtue like courage or valor. It sends off no fireworks. Yet it is required of all who would fight the good fight, and there is no one, however lowly, who cannot serve in this way. Bilbo, the rather comical little peace-loving hobbit, is given two or three really heroic moments, but 98 percent of his journey "there and back again" is just putting one foot in front of the other, week after weary week. We will emphasize this much more when we come to Frodo and Sam in Mordor.
Patient endurance (hupomone) of apocalyptic suffering (thlipsis) is made possible through the power of transcendent promises.”
[p 41]


Re providence despite moral ambiguity:
“Here is a good place to point out the ambiguity in Tolkien's use of the terms "good" and "evil." Not until the very end, when all has been played out, will we be able to say which it was that was showing Frodo the way—and even then, some ambiguity will remain. So it is also in the Bible, where heroes of faith such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Peter make a very mixed showing. Purity is not possible, and clarity is rare; murkiness is the more common condition. The characteristic thing about Providence is that it works in, through, and around this ambiguity. Once again the verse from the Joseph story is apt: "You meant evil against me; but God. meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive" (Genesis 50:20).”
[p 196]


Re the inability of evil to conceive of selflessness:
No one —neither Sauron nor the Captains—knows where Frodo is, or even if he is still alive. Yet there is one chance and that is to make themselves the bait for Sauron. The significance of this is that Sauron knows that only one person at a time can wield the ring and that its malign power will cause that person to rise up in arrogance and lust for domination. Evil cannot imagine anything but itself; we have noted before that this is one of Tolkien's most striking insights—Sauron cannot conceive of selflessness or renunciation.”
[p 315]


Re “eucatastrophe”:
“Never in my wildest imagination did I conceive, or could I have imagined, the "catastrophe" that Tolkien has wrought for us. And yet it is so brilliantly, so profoundly, so astoundingly right that it produced, for this reader at least, the same effect that the ending of classic tragedy produces: a sense of exaltation in the midst of pity and terror. Tolkien's word for this effect, based on the Greek meaning, was "eucatastrophe" (Greek eu meaning well or good) — "the sudden happy turn in a story which pierces you with a joy that brings tears... because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love." Now obviously this is not a definition of a tragic "catastrophe”, because tragedy does not have a "happy" dénouement. But then—and this is close to the heart of the matter—neither does The Lord of the Rings have a "happy" ending. That is part of its greatness; Tolkien will not give us what we want, but what he gives us is both worse and better than what we wanted, and we are the better for it.”
[p 335]


Re how we can relate to Frodo:
“Here is the key: the reader rejoices at Tolkien's astonishing dénouement precisely because he sees himself or herself as one of those who would have failed also— and therefore, strangely but wonderfully, as one who can still participate, free from the burden of guilt, in the great overall plan of redemption being carried forward by the Writer of the Story.”
[p 339]

[Ashley Marie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Context: My husband works at a church. The church's library contains this volume, which I picked up on a whim over the weekend.

I was mildly interested in the conclusions Rutledge drew, but the inaccuracies killed this for me. Mind you, I only read the chapter on the Hobbit and a few pages into the Fellowship chapter. May pick it up just to skim next time I'm in the church with nothing else to do, but a little research would certainly have helped this. I was amused that Rutledge seemed to like the films and yet her footnotes had several ridiculous errors:

1. It's "Sir Ian McKellen", not "Ian McKellan". I can forgive the lack of a title, but at least spell the man's name properly.
2. Orlando Bloom is not Canadian.

Those are just my favorites. Also, complaining that Hugo Weaving doesn't have the "presence" for Elrond? I know this is Rutledge's book so she can spout whatever opinions she likes, but this is supposed to be a commentary on the religious aspect of Tolkien's work and that has NOTHING to do with any of it.

Furthermore, Rutledge doesn't seem to grasp the fact that The Hobbit was written FOR CHILDREN. She goes on about the "quantum leap" in the shift of writing style between The Hobbit and LOTR, and like... never remembers to mention that the former was written as a children's story. I've concluded that she's unaware of this fact.

[Alain Verheij]

Ik stelde het uitlezen van dit boek uit, zoals ik dat vijfentwintig jaar geleden misschien ook wel deed met 'In de ban van de ring', omdat ik het universum van de schrijver eigenlijk nog niet wilde verlaten. Wilde blijven wonen in die woorden en verhalen.

Dit was voor mij een veertigdagentijdboek. Elke dag tien bladzijden. Na een paar dagen gaf ik het idee op dat dit een 'goed boek' zou moeten zijn. Want je weet van tevoren wat er op de loer ligt als je een 'De theologie van Tolkien' gaat lezen of schrijven. Dan is kitsch nooit ver weg. En inderdaad, met enige regelmaat word je getrakteerd op een 'Wat Aragorn hier zegt staat ook in Efeziërs 6.' Dat hoeft voor mij niet.

Toen ik dat voor lief ging nemen, stond ik mezelf toe om onkritisch te gaan genieten van de teksten van Fleming Rutledge. Ze is als een theologische Rembrandt die het donker zo goed durft te illustreren dat het licht er ook beter door naar voren komt. Dat doet ze in haar magnum opus Crucifixion, in haar prekenbundel over advent en hier ook. Het maakt haar misschien wel mijn favoriete theoloog.

Rutledge heeft haar eigenaardigheden. Zo noemt ze herhaaldelijk volkomen uit het niets dat Tolkien weinig met Shakespeare had. En geeft ze haar mening over de films van Peter Jackson, soms op het niveau van opmerkingen dat de acteur die Elrond speelt geen goede uitstraling heeft. Rutledge is een prediker die de New York Times al decennia naast haar bijbel heeft liggen en haar mens- en wereldbeeld laat informeren. Dat zijn dingen waaraan je je kunt storen, zo lees ik hier van andere recensenten. Ik kan er allemaal wel van genieten. Dat ze af en toe repetitief is, vergeef ik haar graag.

De auteur koos ervoor om Tolkiens narratieve volgorde aan te houden. Je gaat dus van de hobbit naar de thuiskomst van Sam bij z'n gezin. En weer moest ik huilen om dat laatste. Net als toen ik het voor het eerst van Tolkien zelf las, net als stiekem elke keer dat ik de films zie, nu ook weer via de hervertelling van dr. Fleming.

In de afgelopen jaren is dit de theoloog geweest met de meeste invloed op en inspiratie voor mijn werk. Aan Tolkien ben ik al veel langer verknocht. Voor mij is het uiteindelijk dus smullen geweest - en ik heb geen idee of dat voor jou ook zou gelden, dus ik geef geen sterren.

[Nemo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yeats, once propounded the notion that art is inherently autobiographical. While Tolkien disavowed any allegorical intent in his portrayal of little people engaged in the quest to obliterate a magical ring, discerning observers perceive the various levels beneath the narrative's surface. Fleming Rutledge, a theologian of the Episcopal cloth, illuminates this in her treatise The Battle for Middle-earth: Tolkien's Divine Design in The Lord of the Rings, with Sauron epitomizing the infernal, and the coveted ring symbolizing the seductive allure of authority, a power that can corrode the very soul of its pursuers. Even the Gandalf, portrayed as an amalgam of angelic and Christ-like attributes, is not immune to its allure. Victory over Sauron hinges not upon martial might, but upon the moral resolve to reject the ring, but the well-meaning is not enough. No character remains untainted by imperfections. Frodo, akin to a Christ-like figure, bears the burden of the ring to Mount Doom, akin to Christ's journey to Golgotha, and the appearance of Gollum is no mere fortuity. Luck, as Tolkien postulates, serves as a surrogate for divine providence, evoking the belief that higher powers guide the destinies of mortals, reflecting Tolkien's conviction that the human condition perpetually collides with the divine. Humanity, in his view, is locked in eternal discord with the divine, yet the benevolence of the divine, as an eternal and gratuitous endowment, eclipses the frailty of human endeavour, transcending the realm of human merit.

[Jon Anderson]

Amazing. Makes me want to read the books again.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“I am a Tolkien amateur, in both the highest and lowest senses of that word. That is to say, I am a lover (ama-teur) ofTolkien's story, but I am not a Tolkien scholar or expert. I made a deliberate decision not to read much of the secondary literature or spend hours on the websites. In areas of fine expertise, pertise, therefore, I defer to others. Nonetheless, because I have come to the work almost entirely without expectations, I am presumptuous enough to believe that my delayed, untaught encounter with the Ring saga-combined bined with my knowledge of Scripture, theology, and the Church-has afforded forded an opportune glimpse into Tolkien's deepest intimations.”

This made me laugh. “To all of you Tolkien nerds who are spitting mad at the mere existence of this book: You can be the “experts”, but I know more about the Bible, so I’m gonna go ahead and do my thing.”

Keeping this approach in mind helps one not to judge this against other commentaries. She does her thing, and does it better than almost anyone out there.

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rutledge has written an extraordinary commentary on Tolkien's theology in The Lord of the Rings. Having read the trilogy at least 5 times, I have long been aware of the Christian undertone in Tolkien's writing; but having it so exhaustively laid out was almost more than I wanted to hear. Like C.S. Lewis, Tolkien wanted his Christian faith and ideas to be underlying, not particularly evident. Also like Lewis, Tolkien believed that the story was tantamount. Yet, saying all this, this book helped me to understand why I love The Lord of the Rings and always return to it. The last time I read it I was hospitalized; a nurse me asked me why I chose these books. I said they gave me comfort and hope. They still do. I will read them again.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated the theological insights of the deeper narrative pointed out by the author, and I'm sure when I finally re-read "The Lord of the Rings" it will be that much more moving to me with these points floating in my mind. Of nearly as much value was the synopsis of the story that I didn't have inclination to re-read as I read this book.
My primary differences with the author are in our understandings of free will and predestination. My primary complaints about her writing are that she repeated herself too often, at length, and many times almost verbatim. Restating her major arguments in their entirety every time she found an example of them was not necessary - I wish she had more faith in the reader to remember her main points.

[Kate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Americans don't make absolutely everything about them challenge: impossible.

Anyway, besides that truly universal truth, and the jarring incessant references to 9/11, I found he analysis mostly fairly shallow and unconvincing. And I didn't think I was coming into the premise needing a lot of convincing.

Also at this point I'm perhaps just tetchy from being ill, but I don't care about the movies and I wish people wouldn't mention them.

[Peter McNamee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved reading Fleming's insights into the deeper meaning at play in LOTR. A must-read for any fan seeking deeper unearthing and awareness of what Tolkien has beautifully planted throughout the narrative.

[Sarah Abbey · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a delight to read this alongside The Hobbit and LOTR. Fleming helps you see the "deeper narrative" that Tolkien always had in mind.

[Kendrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really great commentary on the Lord of the Rings books Theres a lot of great info and connections of themes of the books to biblical references. I had never seen Gandalf as Moses figure and this really brought that to light. Same with things like, the idea that Sauron has no creativity so he could not consider alternative methods ie Frodo taking the ring to Mt Doom.

Rutledge really hated the movies, and while she kept those comments to the footnotes it kind of colored my opinion of the book. Her complaints are valid, but she also seemed to miss the fact that the movies are a different medium entirely and are an attempt to convey differences than the books. The movies are in no way perfect, but it seems unnecessary to point out plot changes made to streamline and condense the very think source material.

[Jeanenne McCloskey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. The author writes in the introduction that analyzing the subtext of The Lord of the Rings was a form of worship for her. I would add that reading her interpretation of The Lord of the Rings has been a form of worship for me.

[Karen Floyd · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a Christmas present, and one I had requested, so I hate giving it only 2 stars. Years ago I read and enjoyed "The Gospel According to Tolkien" by Ralph C. Wood, so I thought I might like this book, by Episcopal priest Fleming Rutledge. Not exactly, it turned out. I had a very hard time with this book, as you might guess from how long it took me to read it. I argued with the author every step of the way, and kept putting it down in frustration. The author's premise is that there is a deep theological understory in "The Lord of the Rings," whether Tolkien meant it to be there or not. Tolkien himself said that he was writing a story, and that there was no attempt on his part to do anything else, though, of course the devout Catholic Christianity wich imbued his life could not help but color his way of seeing the world and his writing. But to deliberately try to incorporate his religion into his stories would be to betray them, ruin them. The Lord of the Rings takes place in a very ancient pre-Christian world, so vastly ancient that the continents have not yet moved into the configurations they are in now. Rutledge acknowledges this. But, he says. But, as he was reading the story, which he says he came to with no preconceived ideas or information about, he was struck over and over by how Christian and Biblical they are. I am willing to grant this, but.....But he then takes us through the narrative as it happened trying to prove his point. For almost every scene and episode he drags in Bible verse after Bible verse to prove his point. He belabors his point, bludgeons us with it, beats it to death. He makes it feel as though Tolkien sat at his desk with a Bible in one hand and a pen in the other. And in doing that it seemed to me he was ruining Tolkien's story, going contrary to Tolkien's aim to tell a good story. His point could have been made in an essay. He also has moments of condescending to Tolkien's story, that are completely unnecessary, and also untrue.
"The first thirty-odd pages of 'The Lord of the Rings,' it is generally agreed, are somewhat tiresome. Hobbits in and of themselves are no more interesting than the provincial English country-dwellers on whom they are patterned." Excuse me?! Who generally agrees? What snobbery! What condescension! (I am reminded of the Bingley sisters in 'Pride and Prejudice.' Wouldn't Jane Austen have a field day with such a sentiment as Rutledge expresses?)
Other opinions of Rutledge's that I found frustrating are his belief in predestination, and in an active and intelligent force for evil that constantly tries to corrupt humanity, in other words the Devil, or Satan, and he hammers away at both of these views over and over. It was a relief when the rector of my church said recently that the amount of evil in the world can make it seem like there is an actual force for evil operating in the world. Seem like. Whew!
I wanted to like this book, and Rutledge does have many valuable things to say, but they are overshadowed by his tone and presentation and his belaboring of his point.

ofthymeandviolets.blogspot.com or ofthymeandviolets.wordpress.com

[Tori Samar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had such high hopes for this book after reading the Introduction. Alas, there was much disappointment after that.

Does Lord of the Rings have a theological "deep narrative" that Tolkien kept hidden for the sake of reaching more readers and for the sake of maintaining integrity to his Beowulf-like, pre-Christian world? Is LOTR at its core meant to be about the relationship between free will and predestination? I would have to reread Tolkien's letters myself to be sure either way, but I didn't see enough evidence supplied by Rutledge to confirm that this was Tolkien's intention. Are there Christian ideas/elements and biblical language in LOTR? Most definitely. Rutledge and I can agree on that much. Tolkien's Catholicism was a fundamental part of his identity, and I have always believed that fiction/storytelling is a worldview in action. So I do want to credit Rutledge for pointing out some things that I had either missed or forgotten.

Nevertheless, this book mostly fell flat for two reasons:

1) I believe that Rutledge, in detecting several legitimate Christian principles and ideas in LOTR, started seeing them everywhere, to the point of ridiculousness in my opinion. Just as some examples that really made my eyebrows raise: She likened Galadriel's mirror of water to baptism and the gifts that Galadriel gave to the Fellowship when they left Lothlorien to the spiritual gifts. Again, I return to my earlier theme of author intention. Rutledge sees a lot of things in LOTR that I don't necessarily think Tolkien put there.

2) I disagree with much of Rutledge's theology. Most notably, she speaks of things like Sin and Flesh as Powers external to human beings, Powers that override man's supposed "free" will. Therefore, the "battle for Middle-Earth" is the battle for man's soul, with God fighting on one side and Sin, Death, Flesh, etc., fighting on the other (interestingly, Satan is relegated to a symbolic manifestation of these Powers). The whole premise of Rutledge's book is based on this belief. If her theology is correct (which I don't think it is), then how can man possibly be held responsible for wrongdoing? He can just point back to one of these evil Powers and say it overruled his will, and he was helpless to stop it. Rutledge seems to have missed the core teachings of Scripture on the wickedness of man's heart, the depravity of man in his inner being, man's willful suppression of the truth, etc.

The optimist in me believes that someone has written a good book or essay on the Christianity present in LOTR. Sadly, I didn't find it by choosing this book.

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Hufflepuff Kitten at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... has some complaints about this one. They're on the mark as far as they go--except I don't buy her objection to Rutledge's noting the quantum leap between The Hobbit, or There and Back Again and this one. What's wrong with The Hobbit really is wrong with it, and being published for kids is no excuse.

I'll even add a few nitpicks of my own. I don't know any good reason for Rutledge to hold Graham Greene an unreachable step higher than Tolkien; that he didn't write fantasy certainly isn't one! William Shakespeare, maybe, but not Greene.

It would have been nice if she could have quoted from the Tridentine Missal that Tolkien would have known rather than her own The Book of Common Prayer, but that would have involved translation--and after all, the Episcopalian Book is based on the old Sarum Use of my (and JRRT's) Church tradition.

And surely Rutledge could have found something insightful to say about the replanting of the One White Tree.

None of which puts me off from awarding my full 5 stars for fully hitting her target. And rather than write more here, I have Liked and fully endorse Ian Caveny's review at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show..., with the caveat that if a very High Church devotional will make you too uncomfortable to follow the lit crit, you don't want to read this.

[Sandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

I took far too many notes to be able to do a review this time of year. I may circle back on it later.

That said, although I didn't agree with all of Rutledge's conclusions, she is an amazing writer, literary - theological critic, theologian, and preacher. Her commentary, read in conjunction with a re-reading of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, made the reading experience incalculably more rich and profound than it would have otherwise been.

While acknowledging, over and over and over again that Tolkien was entirely opposed to reading LOTR as a Christian allegory (note to idiotic critics who clearly haven't read this book but then "review" it, insisting that Tolkien wasn't writing a Christian allegory, etc., etc.), and resisted making any one-t0-one comparisons ("Gandalf is an Archangel," "Saruman is Judas!"), Rutledge is able to make a very compelling argument about many details of the entire saga which line up with Christian scripture and theology. In his letters, which Rutledge quotes or cites extensively, it becomes even more clear how deeply his Christian faith and knowledge of scripture and theology informed LOTR, even, undoubtedly, sometimes when he didn't even realize it.

Finally, I'll say that there are several instances where Rutledge speaks clearly and succinctly about thorny areas for preachers -- the Wrath of God, in particular, comes to mind, but there are others -- and completely separate from her take on LOTR, she just nails it in ways that I will definitely use in the future. She is so good at explaining theological concepts and at interpreting scripture. That's why I read her sermons; and before next Holy Week I'm determined to read The Crucifixion, because I'm betting she'll make the task of Lent/Easter preaching easier and more interesting.

[James Wirrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for LOTR fans who want to really understand the spiritual underpinnings of the LOTR saga. Rutledge covers the books (including the Hobbit) in order, with chapters covering the Hobbit, and then the six books that make up the trilogy. Rutledge uses Scriptural references, excerpts from Tolkien’s letters, and Tolkien scholars to support her arguments. It has long been obvious to me that Tolkien’s faith had a foundational impact on the LOTR saga, and Rutledge helps to give flesh to this. There is so much packed into this book, but one of her major themes is how Tolkien subtly writes in the guidance and control of God in the background. Make no mistake, this book requires concentration and commitment to read. That’s not to say it is difficult to read - it actually is very well written and compelling. Rather it is a scholarly book that requires the reader to think. I would advise readers to pair this book with a timed reading of the Hobbit and LOTR. Read the Tolkien book, then follow it immediately with the relevant chapter from Rutledge’s book. Then go on to the next part of LOTR, followed by the relevant chapter from Rutledge’s book, etc. The insights in this book are deep and they are important. Well worth your time.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started this book in January and read it off and on for nine months. This is not a light book: it is an academic deep-read of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as viewed through the lens of Christian theology. The author is an Episcopal priest, and her analysis of the 'deep narrative' in Tolkien's work is thorough and excellent. While Tolkien very purposefully didn't put religion in his magnum opus, his Catholicism--in his sense of how the world is, and ought, to be ordered in the face of theodicy-- is undeniable. I did a lot of underling and note taking, which are sure signs of my intellect being engaged. This is not an easy read, but it is a worthy one for anyone who loves Tolkien and would like a deeper study of his masterpiece.

This is an excellent book that made me smarter, and gave me great insight into Tolkien's worldview.

[Timothy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Narrative Commentary

Fleming Rutledge has written a commentary on the Lord of the Rings that, instead of taking a systematic approach, takes the more reasonable narrative approach. For me that made all the difference in the world since narrative was so important to Tolkien it just made sense. She has a solid grasp of both the Lord of the Rings and The Holy Bible, not to mention the scope of Christian history and culture. If you are looking for a book that will both give you better understanding of the surface narrative in Tolkien's books and of the deep narrative, the place of spiritual and often biblical meaning you need look no further. This book is one that I believe people both Christian and non-Christian can appreciate but those who will appreciate it most are those who believe that the Scriptures are true. I recommend it to anyone who just wants to read a good analysis of a good book.

[Ron · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have found this to be a particularly inspirational book. first off, Rutledge and I apparently love the same parts of Lord of the Rings. That helps. But more than that, I've used it as a guide in counseling others, and encouraging myself, especially in the need for ordinary faithfulness, doing the small things that before us, and realizing that “against the Power of the Enemy no mortal can stand unaided”. We need not only the grace of God, but we need our friends and other people about us.

[John Coatney · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read a number of books about the Christian worldview of Tolkien/LOTR. This book is a valuable addition to that genre. Rutledge makes it clear upfront that she's a latecomer to MiddleEarth, but she does her due diligence, especially in researching Tolkien's life and his correspondence, and the theological reflections that she offers are well supported in terms of coming from Tolkien and not merely based on "reader response."

[Capn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb. Loved it. For anyone already well familiar with the story, it was like a quick re-read or skim, reminding me of the precious scenes and speeches I had forgotten, but drawing forth the same emotions from memory. Wished for a more encompassing conclusion of her observations at the end, but I was tired by the end - I can only imagine she must have been, too. Will be glad to have this as a reference to hand for my next rereading of The Lord of the Rings.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A breathtaking, chronological survey of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth saga, explained through the prism of Christian narrative and biblical imagery. Rutledge finds astonishing depth here, and any Christian who loves Tolkien will find their appreciation magnified by this thoughtful commentary. I quibble with Rutledge’s dismissal of The Hobbit— though she does give it a full chapter and finds reason to appreciate it— but beyond that this is marvelous.

[Ivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the format is helpful, since it goes section by section of the book, I wish it had been a more concise book. But for the Tolkien fan, this is great addition. Fleming Rutledge is an Episcopal priest and a renowned theologian (check our her well-received and massive tome on the crucifixion), so I was surprised when she told me, “My Tolkien book is still my favorite of all my books.”

[Ed Green · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rutledge does a good job following the narrative and providing theological commentary. There are a few places where I think she was stretching to make her point, but by and large, it caused me to think deeply about the sub narrative and reflect on Tolkien's Christian worldview and how it shaped the story.

[Timothy Romine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was such an enjoyable book to read. It is obvious that Rutledge is very familiar with all things “Middle Earth” and this book thoroughly enriches the Lord of the Rings experience. I am excited to read the Trilogy again with her commentary in mind. And I’m excited to read her other works as well! Thank you Fleming Rutledge for this gem!

[James Korsmo · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really enjoyable and insightful look at Tolkien's masterwork. Rutledge essentially goes through the story in order, making both narrative and theological connections, as well as connections to Tolkien's own life and letters, that have only deepened my appreciation for The Lord of the Rings (and for Rutledge as a writer).