What do you think?
Rate this book
Deconstructing Tolkien: A Fundamental Analysis of the Lord of the Rings
"DECONSTRUCTING TOLKIEN has something to offer just about everyone, no matter where your particular passions may lie. In this collection of essays, stories, discourses, and tributes, Ed McFadden has gathered together a wide range of topics, perspectives, and outlooks on some of the most intriguing factors concerning THE LORD OF THE RINGS. LORD OF THE RINGS is a masterpiece that can be examined and re-examined through the course of one's life. The complex narrative, written with nonlinear gambits, plot-twists, stratagems, and a fusion of secondary stories, offer themselves up to continual review and analysis." -from the introduction by Tom Piccirilli, author of Mean Sheep, The Night Class and Grave Men
- GenresNonfiction
179 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
5 people are currently reading
103 people want to read
About the author
Edward J. McFadden III
66 books63 followersEd cut his teeth reading John Christopher, Tolkien, Poe, Brooks and Zelazny, and graduated to Joe Haldeman, Allen Steele, Arthur C. Clark and Jack Vance. For the last twenty years he’s done a deep dive on apocalyptic fiction, and he really enjoyed learning at the feet of Elmore Leonard, Philip K. Dick, Lawrence Block, Ray Bradbury, Carl Hiaasen, Stephen King, Joe Lansdale, and F. Paul Wilson. His recent publications include Hell Creek, Too Much Grit, The Cryptid Club, Keepers of the Flame, Quick Sands, Sandbagged, Dogs Get Ten Lives, Barracuda Swarm, Dinosaur Red, Drop Off, and Jurassic Ark. His sea thrillers, The Breach and Shadow of the Abyss were Amazon #1 Best Sellers and the audio version of The Breach was a #1 Hot New Release. His other novels include Throwback, Sea Tremors, Primeval Valley, AWAKE, The Black Death of Babylon, and HOAXERS. He lives on Long Island with his wife Dawn, and their daughter Samantha.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 25, 2012
no stars. Who in the world thought it was a good idea to publish this?
February 17, 2013
Deconstructing Tolkien was a good ,entertaining read.Edward J.McFadden is a definite fan of JRR Tolkien as can be evidence by the forwards and the introduction. The first chapter goes into the biographical details of his life as do most book which is all good fine and well. But then the author makes supposition that I have no way of verifying, it is all guess work. The author rotates on two concepts, authors that may have influenced JRR and writer that he has influenced. First a chapter on who influenced Tolkien and then the next chapter on someone influenced by Tolkien. Figuring out Tolkien's influences is sketchy especially in light of the the fact. That he does not reveal his sources that inform the reader about how he came up with this conclusion. Now this does not make the book terrible but it does in fact detract from the book. There is a very interesting discussion where the author debates whether Lord of the Rings is in the genre of fantasy or science fiction. The author debates both sides of the coin but then falls to Science fiction. Most of us would consider Star Wars or Star Trek science fiction. Star Wars does have elements of fantasy but by the notion of space ships, distant galaxies and light sabres we would have to call it science fiction. Tolkien's Middle Earth happened a long time ago and the characters do not use space ships but rather magic, swords and dragon.I am left wondering.
The book does have some very strong points in it's favor. The first point is an analysis of Lord of the Rings. It is very hippyish. Hobbits like to smoke pipe weed and they love festivities. The pipe weed is stronger then your common pipe tobacco yet it does not waste you like Hashish or marijuana. Rather it induces socializing and the need for conversation. It's use is therapeutic. The author also makes note of the fact that Middle Earth tends to stagnate meaning things stay the same. How can life go for millenia, age after age and remain the same? That is the one unrealistic thing in the book. Sexual relations themselves are almost left out of the picture, In fact there are no lovemaking scenes what so ever. There is some level of physical affection between Sam and Frodo when Frodo is injured. Some have read into that homo erotic love. The author makes note of this and then , much to his credit, informs the reader that critics and others have made the mistake of thinking that Tolkien is writing an allegory or getting some hidden message across. Tolkien himself clearly blasted such a notion. The author rightly agrees with him. Tolkien was writing a fantasy story plain and simple. What I liked was his analysis of Gandalf. I will not go into detail but Gandalph has five virtues that make him a great leader, courage, loyalty,patience and honesty. In this analysis Gandalph is portrayed as a wandering wizard who helps heal middle earth. He is also the leader that everyone hearkens to.
It is with Gandalph that I would like to draw in my criticism. According to the back story Gandalph was no mere human but was a Maia, a god like being who used magic. Kind of a step below that of the Varda. The author leaves out the whole surrounding mythology behind the creation of Tolkien's middle earth. He doe rightly mention that Tolkien invented language for the Middle Earth that had various levels of completion. Most were skeleton languages and could not be used to right a major treatise but at most basic communication. Most denizens of the Middle Earth use Westron the common speech.
Perhaps my main contention is that the author asserts that writer such as HG Wells, HP Loveraft, Edgar Allan Poe who are more like Horror writer had an influence on his writing. To my knowledge there is no documentation elsewhere to support this supposition. Tolkien was influenced mostly by Norse Mythology, Faery tales and Old English Lore and Catholicism. There are parallels between him and these writers to be sure. But darn it is a long shot. HG Well chapter on "The Valley of Spiders" may parallel Frodo's capture by Shelob and Edgar Allan Poe's "William Wilson" may have parallels into the nature of multiple personalities in conflict with each other. Then again so do many authors and their pieces of work.
When it comes to the works of writers who were inspired by Tolkien, McFadden brought forth three examples. The first one was an excellent piece by Jane Yolen called "Winters King" an excellent fairy story. The next two are pieces written by him. Ok what gives are you trying to promote yourself or what? He should have had more variety. His works of fantasy are not bad and are rather entertaining but when you do an analysis of another great author you do not quote yourself or rely on your own examples.
The book does finish off with a analysis of the recent movies "Lord of the Rings" and the "Hobbit". He does acccurately note that things have been left out or completely lifted and other stuff has been added in. The author is critical of the lengthy battle scenes but over all he does seem supportive. Tolkien never thought his books should be rendered to film. Then again technology has changed. I know that I myself will have to go back and reread those classics.
The book does have some very strong points in it's favor. The first point is an analysis of Lord of the Rings. It is very hippyish. Hobbits like to smoke pipe weed and they love festivities. The pipe weed is stronger then your common pipe tobacco yet it does not waste you like Hashish or marijuana. Rather it induces socializing and the need for conversation. It's use is therapeutic. The author also makes note of the fact that Middle Earth tends to stagnate meaning things stay the same. How can life go for millenia, age after age and remain the same? That is the one unrealistic thing in the book. Sexual relations themselves are almost left out of the picture, In fact there are no lovemaking scenes what so ever. There is some level of physical affection between Sam and Frodo when Frodo is injured. Some have read into that homo erotic love. The author makes note of this and then , much to his credit, informs the reader that critics and others have made the mistake of thinking that Tolkien is writing an allegory or getting some hidden message across. Tolkien himself clearly blasted such a notion. The author rightly agrees with him. Tolkien was writing a fantasy story plain and simple. What I liked was his analysis of Gandalf. I will not go into detail but Gandalph has five virtues that make him a great leader, courage, loyalty,patience and honesty. In this analysis Gandalph is portrayed as a wandering wizard who helps heal middle earth. He is also the leader that everyone hearkens to.
It is with Gandalph that I would like to draw in my criticism. According to the back story Gandalph was no mere human but was a Maia, a god like being who used magic. Kind of a step below that of the Varda. The author leaves out the whole surrounding mythology behind the creation of Tolkien's middle earth. He doe rightly mention that Tolkien invented language for the Middle Earth that had various levels of completion. Most were skeleton languages and could not be used to right a major treatise but at most basic communication. Most denizens of the Middle Earth use Westron the common speech.
Perhaps my main contention is that the author asserts that writer such as HG Wells, HP Loveraft, Edgar Allan Poe who are more like Horror writer had an influence on his writing. To my knowledge there is no documentation elsewhere to support this supposition. Tolkien was influenced mostly by Norse Mythology, Faery tales and Old English Lore and Catholicism. There are parallels between him and these writers to be sure. But darn it is a long shot. HG Well chapter on "The Valley of Spiders" may parallel Frodo's capture by Shelob and Edgar Allan Poe's "William Wilson" may have parallels into the nature of multiple personalities in conflict with each other. Then again so do many authors and their pieces of work.
When it comes to the works of writers who were inspired by Tolkien, McFadden brought forth three examples. The first one was an excellent piece by Jane Yolen called "Winters King" an excellent fairy story. The next two are pieces written by him. Ok what gives are you trying to promote yourself or what? He should have had more variety. His works of fantasy are not bad and are rather entertaining but when you do an analysis of another great author you do not quote yourself or rely on your own examples.
The book does finish off with a analysis of the recent movies "Lord of the Rings" and the "Hobbit". He does acccurately note that things have been left out or completely lifted and other stuff has been added in. The author is critical of the lengthy battle scenes but over all he does seem supportive. Tolkien never thought his books should be rendered to film. Then again technology has changed. I know that I myself will have to go back and reread those classics.
January 1, 2017
Deconstructing Tolkien: A Fundamental Analysis of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, was billed as not only as an analysis of the books, but also a gathering of stories from other authors related to the works. McFadden also has some great credentials as a “university administrator and teacher,” as well as numerous editing credits including the Fantastic Stories anthologies. When I came across the book, I was beginning (resuming, actually) my series of reviews of books by and about JRR Tolkien, and I figured it would be a good one to include.
Unfortunately, I got little more than I paid for.
To say that the author/editor has “gathered together a wide range of topics, perspectives, and outlooks” is hyperbole at best. Most of what we have is McFadden’s opinions, interspersed with some stories which supposedly influenced Tolkien or are “Tolkienesque” in nature. I was frankly bored by most of the stories, and none of them live up to Tolkien in any tangible way. Chapter 15, “The Hunter of the Dark” by H. P. Lovecraft, was enjoyable enough, but I have a hard time believing this sort of fare had much influence on Middle-earth, even though the two authors were contemporaries. (Lovecraft died at the young age of 47, so his works do predate The Lord of the Rings.)
Perhaps the biggest insult is when McFadden includes his own “first fantasy story” (Chapter 9, “The Tanist Stone”), calling it “Tolkienesque.” If he means by that term “modern fantasy in extremely broad terms,” I suppose it would apply. But this kind of writing does not deserve to evoke a term utilizing the Professor’s name. Tolkien may have “inspired” modern fantasy writers, but few—very few—deserve to be in a list of storytellers comparable to Tolkien.
I guess this is sounding rather over the top. Anyone familiar with my posts should realize I am almost never this negative about what I review. But my thoughts were so unfavorable as I read the book, I decided to do something else I rarely do: I looked online at other reviews of the book to see if I had missed anything. The vast majority agreed with the essence of what I was thinking.
Perhaps many will think at this point that there is no point in reading any further, nor any point reading the book. That is probably a good thing. (Although some may want to read it just to see if it could really be that bad.) For most readers, I don’t think the book would be of much profit. McFadden is very confusing, and his conclusions often seem (to me anyway) rather absurd. However, I must say that it is almost always possible to find redeeming value in anything, and this is probably true with Deconstructing Tolkien. So I leave you with this interesting (and much more optimistic) blurb from Nth Degree Magazine (found on the Amazon page). I don’t agree with most of it, but maybe this one person was able to see something almost every other critic I’ve read didn’t.
[DT] is one of the most approachable analyses of Tolkien that I’ve read. McFadden alternates between his own opinions on Tolkien and fiction from authors that he feels had some influence on The Lord of the Rings. I found myself disagreeing with McFadden’s points almost as often as I agreed with them but, most importantly, McFadden’s analysis always made me look deeper at a story that I thought I knew pretty well already. And isn’t that what all good analyses should do?
I suppose if the book causes you to dig deeper into Tolkien, that’s probably a good thing.
Unfortunately, I got little more than I paid for.
To say that the author/editor has “gathered together a wide range of topics, perspectives, and outlooks” is hyperbole at best. Most of what we have is McFadden’s opinions, interspersed with some stories which supposedly influenced Tolkien or are “Tolkienesque” in nature. I was frankly bored by most of the stories, and none of them live up to Tolkien in any tangible way. Chapter 15, “The Hunter of the Dark” by H. P. Lovecraft, was enjoyable enough, but I have a hard time believing this sort of fare had much influence on Middle-earth, even though the two authors were contemporaries. (Lovecraft died at the young age of 47, so his works do predate The Lord of the Rings.)
Perhaps the biggest insult is when McFadden includes his own “first fantasy story” (Chapter 9, “The Tanist Stone”), calling it “Tolkienesque.” If he means by that term “modern fantasy in extremely broad terms,” I suppose it would apply. But this kind of writing does not deserve to evoke a term utilizing the Professor’s name. Tolkien may have “inspired” modern fantasy writers, but few—very few—deserve to be in a list of storytellers comparable to Tolkien.
I guess this is sounding rather over the top. Anyone familiar with my posts should realize I am almost never this negative about what I review. But my thoughts were so unfavorable as I read the book, I decided to do something else I rarely do: I looked online at other reviews of the book to see if I had missed anything. The vast majority agreed with the essence of what I was thinking.
Perhaps many will think at this point that there is no point in reading any further, nor any point reading the book. That is probably a good thing. (Although some may want to read it just to see if it could really be that bad.) For most readers, I don’t think the book would be of much profit. McFadden is very confusing, and his conclusions often seem (to me anyway) rather absurd. However, I must say that it is almost always possible to find redeeming value in anything, and this is probably true with Deconstructing Tolkien. So I leave you with this interesting (and much more optimistic) blurb from Nth Degree Magazine (found on the Amazon page). I don’t agree with most of it, but maybe this one person was able to see something almost every other critic I’ve read didn’t.
[DT] is one of the most approachable analyses of Tolkien that I’ve read. McFadden alternates between his own opinions on Tolkien and fiction from authors that he feels had some influence on The Lord of the Rings. I found myself disagreeing with McFadden’s points almost as often as I agreed with them but, most importantly, McFadden’s analysis always made me look deeper at a story that I thought I knew pretty well already. And isn’t that what all good analyses should do?
I suppose if the book causes you to dig deeper into Tolkien, that’s probably a good thing.
March 13, 2013
You have to come to this book with an appreciation for what it really is.
It intertwines three things: classic fiction that influenced (or may have influenced) Tolkien--from Chaucer to Grimm to Lovecraft--two of the author's original Tolkien-inspired stories, and a fairly informal and opinionated discussion and analysis of LoTR and to a lesser extent, The Hobbit. It's a little like having a beer with that writer friend of yours who knows way more about Tolkien than you do.
It intertwines three things: classic fiction that influenced (or may have influenced) Tolkien--from Chaucer to Grimm to Lovecraft--two of the author's original Tolkien-inspired stories, and a fairly informal and opinionated discussion and analysis of LoTR and to a lesser extent, The Hobbit. It's a little like having a beer with that writer friend of yours who knows way more about Tolkien than you do.
November 26, 2012
If laughter is therapeutic, I'm a vastly healthier person than I was when I began this book.
Want to read
December 27, 2012This one's for my hubby, not for me!
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews