J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century

by Tom Shippey

A world-renowned Tolkien scholar presents readers with a fascinating companion to the major works of J.R.R. Tolkien, offering a critical analysis of The Lord of the Rings as a linguistic and cultural map--a reaction to the origin and nature of evil.

Genres: Biography, Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, History, Literature, Writing, Criticism

347 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Thomas Alan Shippey is a British medievalist, a retired scholar of Middle and Old English literature as well as of modern fantasy and science fiction. He is considered one of the world's leading academic experts on the works of J. R. R. Tolkien about whom he has written several books and many scholarly papers. His book The Road to Middle-Earth has been called "the single best thing written on Tolkien".

Shippey's education and academic career have in several ways retraced those of Tolkien: he attended King Edward's School, Birmingham, became a professional philologist, occupied Tolkien's professorial chair at the University of Leeds, and taught Old English at the University of Oxford to the syllabus that Tolkien had devised.

He has received three Mythopoeic Awards and a World Fantasy Award. He participated in the creation of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, assisting the dialect coaches. He featured as an expert medievalist in all three of the documentary DVDs that accompany the special extended edition of the trilogy, and later also that of The Hobbit film trilogy.

Also publishes as T.A. Shippey.

Reviews

[Francisco · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are ever interested in re-reading The Lord of the Rings, this book will add to your enjoyment. I say "re-read" because if you haven't read Tolkien, it is better to just dive into The Hobbit and then move on to his masterpiece. But re-reading a book you love is a different type of reading - a slower reading imbued with leisure where you can stop and smell the words, as it were. Tolkien was a philologist, a lover and a scholar of words and this book will show you how Tolkien took an Old English word like "wodwas" from the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and used it to create "woses", wild men of the woods. What I liked the most about this book is the behind-the-curtain look at the creation of one of the most enduring and complex imaginary worlds ever created - a world with its own languages even. Here you see that this creation was not "ex nihilo" but was rather the hard, hard work of combining existing elements into new forms. When you finish reading this book and you re-read Tolkien again you'll feel like a little scholar with a mini Ph.D in Tolkienism. Trust me when I tell you that this small expertise will not take away from your heart's joy. Finally, I admit that the grandiose title put me off a little but by the end of the book I didn't mind it so much. I've read Tolkien's works (and re-read them) with something like awe that a human being could invent as intricately and expansively as Tolkien did. This book diminished that awe in a good way. Yes, the man had an extraordinary talent, but he was also an ordinary man possessed with a powerful sense of purpose and great capacity for dedicated work. And in that, he's like you and I can be.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

When Harold Bloom is forced to address the title of your book when writing a literary critique of The Lord of the Rings, regardless of the entire content of your book, you have truly accomplished something.

I've recently started digging into the discourse which surrounds J.R.R. Tolkien as I slowly plow through The Lord of the Rings for the second time in my life. I picked this book up along with a small mountain of books at my local library and began reading this one. It was a bit of a slog at first, but after a while I found I could read long passages without pausing or needing a break. Tom Shipley's work is important for Tolkien studies, because it contextualizes the entire body of Tolkien's work, while also understanding how the book operate and where they come from.

Shippey explores Tolkien's fascination with languages and ancient texts, showing how the man constantly derived inspiration from such works. Looking into the man's approach to writing, the names of his characters, the origins of the various monsters and creatures he borrowed or crafted on his own, and of course tackling the epic monster that is The Silmarillion Shippey finds not only the relevance of Tolkien's book, he manages to find the art. The final chapter in facts places The Lord of the Rings alongside works such as Ulysses and The Waste Land in order to assess the first claim of the book, namely, that Tolkien is the Author of the 20th century.

This is obviously a difficult argument especially when one remembers the great body of writers that existed during that century, who contributed their voices and prose. That list includes authors such as Allen Ginsberg, Sylvia Plath, George Orwell, T.S. Eliot, Vladimir Nabokov, William Faulkner, and Ernest Hemingway just to name a few. I can't say for myself whether I would argue that Tolkien is the "Author of the century," however I do feel comfortable enough arguing for the fact that Tolkien established a universe that has been borrowed from, stolen from, parodied, and marveled at since it's publication in the 1950s.

Middle Earth has persisted in the face of critics, in spite of them, and the makers of the new technologies and innovations that have made this new age all owe a debt to Tolkien in some form or capacity. The "Old Professor" impacted the zeitgeist and we're still feeling it. So in the end Shippey does at least prove to his reader this.

[Beth · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of this book is not as overblown as it sounds; Shippey is making the case for Tolkien as "an author of the century, the twentieth century, responding to the issues and the anxieties of that century." He puts Tolkien in a group of influential "traumatized authors" who tended to write fantasy and fable because they were convinced that this was the only way to address their experiences. Shippey also discusses Tolkien's ancient sources. I'm familiar with a few of them (Beowulf, some other Anglo-Saxon poems, parts of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight) and there are some I'm interested in but haven't read yet (especially the Icelandic sagas).

The first section, on The Hobbit, is mostly an analysis of Tolkien's style and his sources. Several of the riddles from Bilbo and Gollum's riddle-contest can be traced to Old English and Old Norse. This section also examines the clash of of heroic and modern styles of language and ideals. Shippey points out that at the end, Bilbo and the dwarves say the same thing in completely different language:
"If ever you visit us again, when our hals are made fair once more, then the feast shall indeed be splendid!'"
"If ever you are passing my way," said Bilbo, "don't wait to knock! Tea is at four; but any of you are welcome at any time!"

The Hobbit is also where Tolkien introduced his ideas about courage. Bilbo's courage "is not aggressive or hot-blooded. It is internalized, solitary, dutiful - and distinctively modern, for there is nothing like it in Beowulf or the Eddic poems or Norse saga. Just the same, it is courage of a sort, and even heroes and warriors ought to come to respect it (28).

The Lord of the Rings section is divided into three chapters. The first, "Mapping out a plot," discusses Tolkien's writing process when he wrote LotR and some aspects of his writing style. Shippey looks at Tolkien's use of different modes of speech to suggest cultural variation between the different speakers at the Council of Elrond. He points out that Saruman talks like a politician: "There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means." Shippey writes: "When people say things like 'no real change' the mean there is going to be a major change, but they would like you to pretend it is minor; and too often we do. Saruman is the most contemporary figure in Middle-earth, both politically and linguistically" (76).

This chapter also discusses the culture of the Rohirrim. There's an interesting bit of etymology: Tolkien worked out what the natives of Mercia (a Latinized name) would have called their kingdom, and came up with 'Marc,' pronounced 'the Mark.' The Rohirrim "do not have the rigid codes of obedience of a modern army, or a modern bureaucracy. . . they are freer to make their own minds up, and regard this as a duty. They surrender less of their independence to their superiors than we do; and Tolkien makes us realize that even if they are relatively 'uncivilized,' indeed still at a barbarian stage of development, this is not all bad."

The second chapter on The Lord of the Rings is called "Concepts of Evil." Shippey points out that premodern societies did not have the skepticism of power present in Tolkien's work and that of his contemporaries: "people probably thought that evil possessors of power were evil by nature, and from the beginning" (115). This chapter also discusses the two views of evil that are in tension in Tolkien's work. The Boethian view holds that there is no such thing as evil. What seems to be evil is only the absence of good. The Manichean view holds that "the world is a battlefield between the powers of Good and Evil, equal and opposite -- so that, one might say, there is no real difference between them, and it is a matter of chance which side one happens to choose" (134). Of course, LotR would be simplified if this conflict were resolved; if the Ring were merely an absence of good, then it could only work on internal evil, and could simply be put aside. If it were only an external force, then anyone could have destroyed the Ring.

The "theory of courage" that Tolkien discussed in his 1936 Beowulf lecture. In Norse myth (and Tolkien believed something similar must have existed in Old English) it was believed that the world would end in a final confrontation between good and evil, as in the traditional Christian myth. The difference was that the Norse end of the world - called Ragnarok, the destruction of the gods - the forces of evil won.

Shippey asks: "If the gods and their allies are going to lose, and this is known to everyone, what in the world would make anyone want to join that side?" (150). The answer - what Tollkien called "the potent but terrible solution" of Norse myth - was that "victory or defeat have nothing to do with right and wrong" (150). In this way Northern mythology sets a higher standard than Christianity. Tolkien "wanted his characters to live up to the same high standard, and was careful therefore to remove easy hope from them" (150). Tolkien's hobbits have a cheerful attitude "which far from speculating about its chances on Doomsday refuses ever to look into the future at all." This is not optimism, since it keeps them going even when they have no real hope.

The third chapter on The Lord of the Rings is called "The Mythic Dimension." Shippey discusses some historical parallels to the events in The Lord of the Rings, but he also shows that it doesn't have anything like one-to-one historical parallels with WWI or WWII. He does point out the parallel between the status of Vichy France and what Sauron offers to Gondor and its allies if they surrender. Shippey also discusses the Scouring of the Shire episode as a critique of the drive for efficiency which is "not only soulless but also inefficient" (168).

This chapter also connects Denethor's resistance to change to contemporary fears of nuclear war. Denethor cannot tolerate the idea of things being different than they have been all his life, and if he cannot have what he wants he will 'have naught.' Shippey: "By the time The Lord of the Rings was published, of course, it was the first time possible for political leaders to say they would 'have naught' and make it come true" (173). He points out that Denethor represents "the major late twentieth century fear, leaders with a death wish who have given up on conventional weapons" (174).

The Silmarillion section starts by explaining how Tolkien found inspiration in some of the ambiguous details of Northern European mythology. Tolkien took the distinction between 'Light Elves' and 'Dark Elves' from Norse mythology and created Quenya as the language of the former and Sindarin as the language of the latter. The conflicts between different divisions of Elves recall the family feuds in Icelandic sagas. Shippey also discusses the story of Turin and the tension between his responsibility for his decisions vs the influence of fate. I've read The Silmarillion, so I knew this already, but Shippey provides a good introduction for those who haven't read it. (Verlyn Flieger's Splintered Light is on my TBR because I'd like to read a more in-depth examination of The Silmarilion sometime.)

Shippey writes that The Silmarillion's focus on the sins of possessiveness and power make it "less a mythology for England and more one for its own time, for the twentieth century: a myth re-told, with proper respect for what in myth is unchanging, because myths always need retelling." Ever since I first read The Silmarillion, I've felt that The Lord of the Rings is not quite complete without it. LotR has a (qualified) happy ending, and uses this as an argument for the belief that there is a grand plan in which everything works out, in the end. The Silmarillion also makes this argument, but without the happy ending; Tolkien holds nothing back here, even when it would make his position easier to accept.

There's also a chapter on Tolkien's shorter works, most of which I'm not really interested in. (Except Farmer Giles of Ham, which is hilarious, and makes a point about the value of old stories.) Some of these are the kind of allegorical stories that Tolkien usually avoided.

The Afterword, "The followers and the critics" discusses some criticisms of Tolkien and his influence on modern fantasy. Shippey points out that Tolkien uses several devices that are accepted as modernist, but his motives are different from other writers "because they are on principle *not literary.* He used mythical method not because it was an interesting method but because he believed that the myths were true. He showed his characters wandering in the wilderness and entirely mistaken in their guesses not because he wanted to shatter the 'realist illusion' of fiction but because he believed everyone is in a way wandering in a bewilderment, lost in the star-occluded forest of Middle-earth. He experimented with language not to see what interesting effects could be produced but because he thought all forms of human language were already an experiment."

The discussion of Tolkien's "followers" is sort of depressing; it confirms my suspicion that a lot of writers of epic fantasy are too close to Tolkien even when they claim to be doing something different. It's why I mostly read other kinds of fantasy. Some of the writers he mentions sound interesting though. I haven't read most of them, except Ursula Le Guin and a little bit of Jack Vance.

[Rachel Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic analysis of how Tolkien constructed the language, world, and characters of Lord of the Rings, with particular attention to word origins and connotations. Easy to read and fascinating.

Excerpt:

Tolkien also thought - and this takes us back to the roots of his invention - that philology could take you back even beyond the ancient texts it studied. He believed that it was possible sometimes to feel one's way back from words as they survived in later periods to concepts which had long since vanished, but which had surely existed, or else the word would not exist. This process was made much more plausible if it was done comparatively (philology only became a science when it became comparative philology). The word 'dwarf' exists in modern English, for instance, but it was originally the same word as modern German Zwerg, and philology can explain exactly how they came to differ, and how they relate to Old Norse dvergr. But if the three different languages have the same word, and if in all of them some fragments survive of belief in a similar race of creatures, is it not legitimate first to 'reconstruct' the word from which all the later ones must derive - it would have been something like *dvairgs - and then the concept that had fitted it? [The asterisk before *dvairgs is the conventional way of indicating that a word has never been recorded, but must (surely) have existed, and there is of course enormous room for error in creating *-words, and *-things.] Still, that is the way Tolkien's mind worked, and many more detailed examples are given later on in this book. But the main point is this. However fanciful Tolkien s creation of Middle-earth was, he did not think that he was entirely making it up. He was 'reconstructing', he was harmonizing contradictions in his source-texts, sometimes he was supplying entirely new concepts (like hobbits), but he was also reaching back to an imaginative world which he believed had once really existed, at least in a collective imagination: and for this he had a very great deal of admittedly scattered evidence.

Would anyone like to suggest further reading on the subject? I'd especially like to read something that delves into Tolkien and Lewis's war service and how that might have influenced their fiction.

[Círdan · Rating 5 out of 5]

作者和托老同为古典语言学家，从语言学的角度解析的地方很精彩，就像在破解托老藏在地名、人名还有特殊语言风格背后的暗码一样，但是在语言学之外其他领域就略显乏力了，在涉及形上学的部分尤其明显，不过毕竟术业有专攻。
里面有些论断我不同意，但我还是认为这本书应该作为托迷的必读书，要充分感受托老的作品，philology视角的解析是必不可少的，现在好像中译本正在翻译中了。
我读过的托老的作品至今仍然局限在中土世界这个体系内，但是看到里面剖析铁匠那一篇，Shippey用学术界的纷争来解读，然而根据Shippey转述的托老自己称故事里面的Great Hall隐喻Church，再结合这篇写作和出版时间，1965年，很难不让人联想到辣个大会2333。

[Anastasiya · Rating 5 out of 5]

ожидаемо прекрасный любовно-задротский опыт прочтения толкиеновского наследия с нескольких точек зрения (очевидных, но интересных) и в противовес одной установке (мягко говоря, неактуальной). очень внимательный и доброжелательный взгляд коллеги и любящего читателя. поэтичный язык местами: "Фангорна в нашем мире нет, но Саруманы здесь повсюду".

не читать нараспев, конечно, но запастись закладочками и вернуться не раз

[Jenna (Falling Letters) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review originally published November 2012 at Falling Letters.

I found much of the book to have a fresh perspective, particularly as I haven’t read too much analysis of Tolkien’s work (primarily just The History of the Hobbit ). For example, the passage about Baggins as bourgeois and the comparison between that word and burglar, and the description of the ‘modern business’ aspects of Bilbo and the dwarves’ deal, provided a perspective on those aspects of the stories I never really considered before. I also enjoyed the afterwards of the book, in which Shippey considers Tolkien’s imitators but also considers what they don’t imitate, such as language-building and the interlacing storylines. it’s easy to pick out what gets most often imitated (such as races) but I had never thought about imitators in terms of what they don’t imitate, and I think that’s a great thing to think about because it goes to show just how unique and skilled Tolkien was.

I did find the segment ‘The Ironies of Interlace’ about LotR very interesting. Because I had seen the movies before the books, I was familiar with the general plot and wasn’t too surprised my any of the major events while reading the books. However, Shippey examines how the different threads of the story are carefully interlaced and presented to the reader, so that, for example, the reader does not know if Frodo and Sam are alright when reading about Aragorn and co. approaching Mordor. There are even more subtle examples of this careful intertwining, where the characters do not know something but the reader does or one timeline is five days behind another timeline. I’m not doing a very good job at describing this, but Shippey does a great job at explaining this and how there is likely no author today who could pull off such grand scheming. I thought it interesting to consider – what would it have been like to read the books and not know how the plot went? It’s unfortunate that I missed that opportunity, but they still make for a great read! 😛

All in all, a good little read, especially for someone like me, who has enjoyed Tolkien’s works and wants to learn more.

[Kirsty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shippey, a renowned Tolkien scholar, brings a unique perspective to the table. Having taught the same syllabus and holding the same chair in Leeds as Tolkien he offers insights that few others could provide. This book isn't just a dry academic tome – it's a passionate defense of Tolkien's literary merit and a fascinating exploration of the man behind the myths. The book takes you through an analysis of each book and includes Tolkiens other writings outside the main oeuvre.

One of the book's strengths is how Shippey contextualises Tolkien's work within the broader scope of 20th-century literature. He argues convincingly that far from being mere "escapism," Tolkien's writings grapple with the core issues of modernity – industrialisation, war, and the loss of traditional values.

I was impressed by Shippey's deep dive into Tolkien's use of language, stemming from his interest in Philology and medieval texts. These complex topics are made accessible even to readers without a background in linguistics and medieval literature. I only did one lecture on linguistics and that was enough but I did study ‘Beowulf’ using Tolkiens’s translation, and the famous lecture on monsters, along with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, also reading Snorri’s Prose Edda for personal interest- so perhaps I have an unfair advantage over the average reader here.

The book doesn't shy away from addressing criticisms of Tolkien's work. Shippey takes on accusations of simplistic morality in Tolkien's writings, offering nuanced counterarguments around popular genre writing.

Rating: 5 out 5!

In conclusion, "J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century" is a must-read for anyone who's ever lost themselves in Middle-earth. Whether you're a casual fan or a dedicated scholar, this book offers new insights into the enduring magic of Tolkien's world.

[Rick Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shippey makes a powerful argument for the serious literary study of Tolkien, and he places Tolkien in the company of other recognized great authors of the 20th century. If you want a deeper understanding of Tolkien's work from a literary perspective, this is the book for you.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

While my 1982 first ed. of his (since two others appeared, as Tolkien's legendarium continued to be published, necessitating updates) 'Road to Middle Earth' remains a breakthrough interpretation that influenced my comprehension, I admit, infused with my own 'trained medievalist' background (my diss. adviser was among JRRT's final Ph.D. tutees at Oxford), that Shippey's philologist training and career (he's in the footsteps, literally, as he attended the same grammar school, and succeeded to the same chair that JRRT had occupied in not one but two universities) did court, as he admits, a specialized audience for that preceding book. In this 2000 version, he adapts his sharp scholarship for a wider readership. And he defends that bold subtitle, as fans/ populists win out over 20c literati.

Much to admire. Shippey, whom you'd hear reciting Anglo-Saxon in the Story of English PBS series, brings his ear and eye to bear. He asserts, and I'd agree amidst the greying remnants of those schooled before the erosion of traditional curricula in English lit, that bereft of these philological roots, those critiquing heroic fantasy--a genre all but invented by Tolkien--and producing a slew of series will never hereafter match the original (I second this judgement; LotR at the age of twelve ruined me for any imitators, even CS Lewis; see my review recently of T's Letters).

Sounds snobbish but consider a sample shard of evidence that Shippey's astute and learned enough to share. The Riders of the Mark='native' turf of T's maternal side, Mercia=West Midlands. Not West Saxons, for the names T. applies to troops and their horses are the former's dialect of Old English. Few in the T. industry, which has globalized since T. died, likely possess this acumen or parsing.

I respect how Shippey, not a Christian, accepts the framework of faith T. incorporated, to be fair in measuring its success, and also its shortcomings. Shippey's critique highlights temptations of top-down power transmitted to those who seek, like Saruman, to do good with its technological or ideal potency, more than tension between 'the Great Escape' from deathlessness Elves contemplate as in contrast with the mortality faced by humans and hobbits in Middle-Earth's Third Age. But this may be colored by my having trudged through the 2023 expansion of T.'s correspondence, where the balance on the latter which its creator (sub-creator too) tips may have weighed in louder, in steady, insistent explications, rather than in the original compilation out concurrently with the first 'Road.'

In both presentations, Shippey anticipates an impasse retarding or preventing progress in the fields he and Tolkien ploughed. For politicization and polarization within their academy has in hindsight sadly come to pass, by the pivotal point of the past millennium's passing. A quarter-century after 'Author' emerged, this shadows all of scholarship, as its proteges today control not only lecture-halls, but their online fora, offices elected or appointed, bureaucracies, PR, and mainstream media. It's a cliche to lament about falling standards, but medieval studies itself (I aver how I can speak from experience) has capitulated, since Shippey wrote this, to 'relevant' anti-DWM identitarianism.

Shippey emphasizes how few if any of T.'s successors inherit that discipline (I use this in double sense) to construct let alone conceive the maps, chronologies, world-building, art, theology (cf. Shippey's masterful excursion into how 'lead us not into temptation/ but deliver us from evil'= a Boethian concept of how evil is not 'real' ultimately vs. the Manichean insistence that negativity's perpetuated as a malignant force, and how both energies reify in the Ring itself), and the sense of how intricately but fragmented, fallen, and flimsy remain the threads tying a chronicle, mythology, and/or found treasure hoard of lore to whatever frayed scraps survive in the English tradition, which as Shippey notes lacks the teeming depths of Germanic or Welsh, Norse or Finnish troves.

It's one of many refreshing and briskly argued-despite the professor's understandable byways into burred thickets of exposition where he may ground his arguments firmly. This density invites those whose commitment to close readings does exceed my own enthusiasm; alas, I've never been able to submerge in every inked flurry of JRRT...My admiration for his legacy strives against my stamina. As with T.'s letters, I confess: my 'mature' attention span fritters away my 'suspension of disbelief.'

I wish Shippey's afterword had delved into hidden furrows deeper. But excavating their riches may be a task for those directed to this fertile terrain by his pioneering forays. For instance, the parallels and differences with Joyce's 'Ulysses,' the divide between derided masses (I hoist up 'baskets of deplorables' or any lit-crit parallel) who've snapped up LotR vs. the subscription which limited the first customers of that Dubliner's tome, sponsored by Parisian patrons and modernist elites) and those promoted in seminars now and drawing-rooms then. Plus failures by the burgeoning cadre of speculative fiction yarn spinners who can't rise to the level of their forebear. Shippey's prefatory framework placing T. within company of Golding, Orwell, Vonnegut, and 20c tellers of tales of similar imaginative power reverberates over his subtitle and his thesis, but he could have done with a return to this model, a follow-through wrap-up, given initiatives sparked which gaming, movies, spin-offs, and serializations, all the more in a generation since this emerged, do hyper-proliferate.

[Darby Hamann · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent dive into the North-European literature that gave birth to Tolkien’s life-work. Lots of philology, some philosophy, and some neat history! This book expertly reveals the amazing knowledge and learnedness of the well beloved author, Tolkien, and all the meaning in his work.

[Jeremy Johnston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tom Shippey is one of the world's foremost experts on Tolkien. This accessible and winsome book is essential reading for providing a foundational understanding of all of Tolkien's work. Outstanding!

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

One can't help but feel that a philologist is precisely the person to write a critical study of Tolkien.

This book examines the importance of Tolkien's academic background in philology on his fiction, as well as his attempts to reconcile or balance his Catholicism with the paganism of the world which inspired Middle-Earth. It is also something of a Tolkien apologia, in which the author insists that Tolkien belongs in the canon, and that it is merely the self-interestedness and snobbery of modern English-department literati which has seen him excluded.

I found the sections detailing how characters and plot-points evolved out of philological conundrums quite fascinating. For example, Tolkien concluded that the name 'Gandálfr,' sourced from the Poetic Edda, probably meant 'staff elf', an obvious name for a wizard. Yet if so, what was it doing nestled between the Bifurs and Bömburs of Dvergatal? Tolkien's guess was that this wizard must have been somehow mixed up with the dwarves.

And on the subject of dwarves and elves, Shippey points out that before Tolkien the accepted spelling was dwarfs and elfs. Why? Because only words of greater antiquity adopted the 'v' in plural cases, while words of more recent origin, e.g. 'tiffs', retain the 'f'. Now, Tolkien felt certain that dwarves and elves were old words, but that they had fallen out of use at some point and were only re-adopted in the 19th century revival of folklore collections. Hence he decided to set back the clock and restore to these terms their due venerability.

Also interesting is the discussion of the nature of evil in Middle-Earth and its Christian implications. Is evil, in a Boethian sense, merely the absence of good, an inner weakness? Or is it an external force? The latter Manichean view is of course, heresy. Yet it certainly seems as though the one Ring exerts a will of its own. Tolkien often speaks of it choosing to do things, as though it were animate. Yet why then does it have more effect on some than others?

These were the things that I most enjoyed. The apologia aspect I thought slightly underdone. Shippey never really gives the other side of the argument (asserting simple snobbery or claiming that the other side themselves never make an arguable case). As it happens, in this case I am on Tolkien's side, but many of the withering remarks attributed here to his detractors I would quite happily seen applied to other pop culture mainstays like Star Wars or comic book films, not to mention the vast majority of Tolkien's successors.

One final point. Shippey cites a critic calling Tolkien-fans 'anorak-clad' as being obviously class-motivated. Surely, though, the reference to anoraks is meant to signal the obsessed geekishness of the fantasy cohort - pointlessly fascinated, like trainspotters (whose preference for the anorak is the inspiration for the word's use in this respect) by mundanity. A strange lapse for a philologist!

[Pi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pisarz stulecia? Mój Pisarz życia!


Są takie książki, które otwierają oczy, są takie, do których będzie się wracać, są takie, o których się nigdy nie zapomni, a są też takie, które łączą to wszystko, tylko że tych jest naprawdę niewiele – większość z nich napisał Tolkien… jedną napisał Shippey i zwie się „J.R.R. Tolkien Pisarz stulecia”.
Wiedziałam, że ta książka ma ogromne szanse podbić moje serce, ale nie spodziewała się, że do tego stopnia. Nie jest to biografia, to raczej praca naukowa, wnikliwa analiza tekstów mistrza. Czytałam i ogarniał mnie coraz to większy i większy podziw dla Tolkiena, dla którego miałam już tego podziwu i tak rozległe oceany.
T.A. Shippey sprawił, że niezwłocznie muszę odświeżyć sobie „Władcę Pierścieni”, „Hobbita” i wszystko, co tylko jest możliwe do przeczytania, tego tytana słowa. Tym razem jednak czytać będę z tą właśnie książką u boku, która wesprze mnie w chwilach, w których zawiedzie mnie moja wiedza, będę więc czytać ze zrozumieniem, bo okazuje się, że widziałam tylko skorupę, a cały skarb, wnętrze pozostawało ukryte – Tolkien pewnie by napisał – „w cieniu”.
To pozycja obowiązkowa dla fanów mistrza, ale nikomu nie zaszkodzi jej przeczytanie, zwłaszcza tym nieprzekonanym do jego twórczości (o ile to w ogóle jest możliwe, choć Shippey niestety udowadnia, że to nie tylko możliwe, ale i bardzo realne – zawsze z „bzdurnych” powodów, uprzedzeń religijnych, zawiści, zazdrości – jednym słowem, a raczej dwoma, ze śmiesznej furii).
Jestem prawdziwie wzruszona tym, co przeczytałam. Nie jest to tekst prosty i nie czyta się tego łatwo i szybko. Wręcz przeciwnie, to wyjątkowo wymagająca lektura, przy której ważne jest skupienie i zastanowienie, lecz czy to ma być minus? Ależ oczywiście, że nie! To jest właśnie jej wartość.
T.A. Shippey z wielkim szacunkiem i pochyloną głową analizowała teksty tego, który wymyka się „zwykłym umysłom”. Wiedza Tolkiena, jego pasja i zaangażowanie we wszystko, co tworzył - żyje w tej książce. W odróżnieniu od tendencyjnego filmu - pseudo biografii, który ostatnio wszedł do kin, ta książka nie kłamie, nie tworzy „swojego Tolkiena” zgodnego z „poprawnością polityczną”, ona uczciwie oddaje mu należne uznanie i – odważę się to napisać – chwałę, na którą bez wątpienia zasłużył całym swoim życiem.
Tolkien był nie tylko Wielkim Pisarzem, „Pisarzem Stulecia” (choć ja sądzę, że wszechczasów”), ale był też, a może przede wszystkim Wielkim Człowiekiem… nieskromnie napiszę, że również moim autorytetem.

POLECAM każdemu!

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book and really the place to start for non-biographical secondary sources on Tolkien. My only major gripe is the stuff about Boethian vs. Manichaean views of evil in Tolkien. What Shippey sees as a Manichaean presentation of evil in Tolkien is only superficially so, and I think if he had a better understanding of Christian theology he wouldn't have gone so far down this line of thought. For Christians, even when speaking of a "totally evil" being such as Satan, there is an understanding that his fundamental nature and the fact of his existence is good. Evil is still understood as negation, not as something with positive existence. We may have an experience of evil as something that "exists" in the same way as we experience darkness, the absence of light. I can't think of a single example of a truly Manichaean presentation of evil in Tolkien except for the orcs (which, strangely, Shippey takes as the opposite). The orcs are beings, seemingly with intellects and free will, which nonetheless are presented as entirely evil and without any choice of being otherwise. Still, even the orcs as an entire species are a corruption and negation of something good, though the problem of their will still exists. This is something Tolkien regretted as a flaw in his work. The only other possible example I can really think of is the Ring, but that depends on whether you think of it as a being in itself or a manifestation of the evil will of Sauron.

[Jared Cook · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well worth reading. Any fan of LOTR or the Hobbit will likely enjoy it. Shippey's unravelling of the distinct speech patterns and linguistic elements in the council of Elrond is fascinating and illustrates how much thought Tolkien put into what are the largely unseen (or unnoticed) details of his epic in order to make it as authentic as possible. Shippey's treatment of the mythic images of the eternal stars seen through the tree-tangled canopy of middle earth is interesting as well. His answers to Tolkien's critics are amusing. I thought his analysis of the problem of evil was a bit lacking in that it was oversimplified. It read like an unbeliever looking in at the world of religious belief, trying respectfully to understand it, but not getting past the surface, while to truly understand where Tolkien was coming from with his vision of morality as presented in the books, I think you have to know something in depth of religious experience and religious faith. I particularly enjoyed Shippey's analysis of the relationship that the language and images of the books have to the land, not just in a archetypical sense, but on the regional and even local level, the way old Mercia and Warwickshire in particular are woven into the books. All in all, having read this exposition, re-reading the books will be even more enjoyable.

[Martine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tom Shippey is a Professor of Philology at Oxford, specialising in Old English and Old Norse. So he was well placed to explain what made J.R.R. Tolkien, himself a Professor of Philology at Oxford, tick. By analysing the texts Tolkien himself read and translated, Shippey introduces the reader to Tolkien's literary and linguistic sources of inspiration, many of which can be traced in The Lord of the Rings and other Tolkien works. Other chapters focus on historical, political, ethical and religious influences, as well as Tolkien's influence on later authors, all with an eye to proving that far from being an overrated writer of fairy tales, Tolkien was in fact a master of his craft. The result is a highly insightful, erudite and interesting book, which is remarkably accessible, given the nature of some of the subject matter. Highly recommended to anyone who wishes to deepen his/her appreciation of Tolkien's works.

[Harry Connolly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book 13 in #15in2015

It's deeply pleasing to read about the language Tolkien uses in his work. Not the one he created, which this book barely touches on, but the old words, names, and place names that he drew on when he wrote.

Having studied in the same field at Professor Tolkien, the author is well-placed to talk about the complexities, structure, and foundation of Tolkien's work. It's clear he's irritated at the literary critics who dismiss Lord of the Rings as having no value at all, but in his effort to prove them so completely wrong that they've missed the greatest work of the 20th Century, he presents an excellent argument for the artistic merit in Tolkien's work.

Is Tolkien the "Author of the Century"? Well, no. Is his work powerful, complex, and of literary value? Absolutely. If you can bear to read through Shippey's gripes about the literati and can skim through some tedious analysis of the professor's lesser works, this book is a source of sublime pleasure.

[Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to not read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the first time in 10 years! (Not sure this was a good idea; I missed it!) I wanted to read something Tolkien-related though. This was a great choice. It was incredibly interesting and incredibly dense. It took a long while to get through, piece by piece, but was worth it.

I particularly enjoyed the exploration of Tolkien’s apparent views on evil. Fascinating, relevant, and inspiring.

The author knows so much about the topics; he’s a clear expert without having to say he is. He is also clearly in love with everything Middle-earth. It made the reading enjoyable even when I couldn’t follow it exactly.

[Ann Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book, but a little too serious for light reading in bed. I gave it up a quarter of the way through. I thought it was a biography, but it is an examination of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, showing how Tolkien developed the plots and where he got the names from. It looks at folklore and literature from Anglo-Saxon, Old English and Old Norse sources in particular. I am interested in words and their history, and this is a very readable book, but just too much for the moment.

[Anisha Inkspill · Rating 3 out of 5]

{more 3.5 stars}

I am still left with a better understanding of JRR Tolkien’s phenomenal imagination. And throughout, Tom Shippey did not let me forget that JRR Tolkien was a philologist first and a novelist second. Tom Shippey continuously gave examples with explanations of the root words of the vocabulary (ranging from character to place names) that makes JRR Tolkien’s Middle Earth adventures.

It’s the sort of read that if you didn’t start of as a Middle Earth nerd then you’ll end up being one :)

[Julie Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is finished only in that I went through and read the parts of interest to me, such as Shippey's commentary about Tolkien's representations of evil in the book, etc. I read some of everything but wound up skimming parts because it would delve into scholarly levels that were beyond my interest. An excellent book, but a bit deeper than I wanted ... for the moment anyway.

[Gregory Amato · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was J.R.R. Tolkien really the author of the century? Considering Dr. Tom Shippey wrote this book and published it before the recent film adaptations ever existed, I think it's fair to say that he was both right in his argument, and was quickly proven even more right than anyone would have guessed.

This is the book to read if you want a deep-dive into Tolkien's work. What he was doing was so much more complicated than writing a "good vs evil" story in Lord of the Rings. And it will clarify many of the most commonly-argued Internet one-liners, about his liking and limited use of allegory, about what he was doing with language, about how he viewed fantasy literature as getting along with his religious beliefs.

It's also got an incredible set of dumbfounding quotations by critics who, failing to understand Lord of the Rings as anything but "not like what we write," are mostly now more memorable for this failing than for their own work.

I've shared a few choice quotations from this book separately. This one below, I think, deserves particular attention:

"Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them…or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish. Sinners of this kind, of course, hate all those who appear to have ‘got a life’, in the revealing modern idiom; it is essential that they persuade others to join them in their dreariness and despair."

Remember that Shippey was writing this prior to 2000, and Tolkien was writing far before that. Despite the lack of specific words, I think it's impossible to read this passage without it bringing to mind the "dreary flickering" of smart phones and doomscrolling on social media. Impossible, as well, to read "persuade others to join them in their dreariness and despair" without bringing to mind incels and other Internet trolls.

This is far from the only example that brings to mind things unnamed or unknown at the time of the writing. Like Lord of the Rings itself, Author of the Century finds itself more applicable as time goes on. So much so that if anything, the conclusion might be extended: That Tolkien was not just the author of the 20th century, but also of the 21st.

[Cormac Healy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a biography of Tolkien in any real sense as much as it is an attempt to understand the truly phenomenal success of LOTR and The Hobbit. It essentially reads as 6 essays on different aspects of the works, and I would definitely recommend for anyone who is a Tolkien fan, although I can't imagine there is much in here that would interest someone who hasn't read the books several times.

It felt to me that the main point of this book was to prove the Tolkien's literary critics, of whom there are many, that they are wrong to dismiss it, and are guilty of high-minded literary snobbishness, which certainly seems plausible to me. I would say the most interesting sections are the analyses of the different speech patterns of characters, and the truly impressive plot management created by Tolkien.

I don't agree with everything in this book, mainly because I don't think Tolkien is flawless, which the author seems to. For me, in any book or series where the 'bad guy' is just pure evil who wants to take over the world, the inevitability of the good guys winning is a flaw, and the way Tolkien portrays certain characters as perfect and one-dimensional is a flaw, which I didn't find the explanations of particularly compelling.

That being said, it was an interesting read, and something I would recommend for anyone who wants to learn more about Tolkien and Middle Earth.

3.5/5

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you have read 'The Hobbit'/'The Lord of the Rings' and want an accessible next step to learn more, this is a very good book.

Despite the title, it's only the Forward and Afterword that discuss Tolkien in the context of twentieth century culture. The main body is an informed and enjoyable commentary on each of his books. The most space is given to 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit', probably because those are the ones that the most people will know. But it does give decent attention to 'The Silmarillion' and Tolkien's shorter, less-known books like 'Smith of Wootton Major' and ' Leaf by Niggle'.

It's in-depth enough to be rewarding but stays easily digestible. I particularly liked the focus all the way through on etymology which revealed a new layer of meaning to me.

[Gretchen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Have you ever read Tolkien and wished that you had a guide through Middle Earth, to see all the things that are going on with the story and the world? Maybe wondered what people see in this series? Look no further—Tom Shippey is your man. While I love, love, loved this book, I fully recognize that it is one of the nerdiest things I have read in a while and that not everyone will appreciate it. Click below for more thoughts.

https://thatladywhoreadsalot.wordpres...

[Naomi Bowen · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book for fans of Tolkien's works.

Shippey explores many aspects of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings & The Silmarillion- such as language, themes & inspiration from religion & other old English tales.

Unlike a lot of literary criticisms, this book was actually easy to read & understand (except for a few bits that dragged - like passages on the Silmarillion).

This book certainly made me appreciate even more the skill Tolkien showed in creating such complex & brilliant books.

No wonder many (including myself) wish they could imitate his genius.

[Tim Deforest · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent and indepth analysis of Tolkien's fiction and poetry, making a case that he should indeed be considered the "author of the century." Shippey traces Tolkien's inspirations for world-building in ancient languages such as Old English and the surviving literary works in those languages--primarily Beowulf. He points out Tolkien's skill in interweaving different plot threads together in Lord of the Ring, keeping everything in line with a complex chronology and how he used different styles of speech to help give characters depth and personality. (Such as Elrond's archaic word choices/syntax to show how long-lived he is or Sam's prosaic diction to represent his background and social class). This book helps you to appreciate Tolkien and the depth of his world-building all the more.

[Relstuart · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a lot more academic than I expected based on the description. Probably not for the average reader and not really a biography. I expected a lot more comparative analysis between the work and person with other candidates for Author of the Century and more analysis of Tolkien criticism. While there was some of the latter there was little to nothing addressing the former.

[Gavin McGrath · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding. Magisterial. Encyclopaedic. Shippey is essential for reading and understanding (but do I?) Tolkien. I agree with others: TLOTR deals thematically with the nature of evil and Shippey brilliantly expounds Tolkien’s bifocal insight.