It was written before the Silmarillion so he just made some guess which turned out to be really wrong. Thank goodness because Tolkien wrote the better story. I also think his chapter on Aragorn isn't great. The chapter is fine, but I think his assertion that Aragorn is the true hero of LotR is off base. He's a hero, sure, but those books are about Hobbits and have hobbit heroes. You didn't need the Silmarillion to figure that out and subsequently Tolkien's letters support that.

The final chapter, was a strange inclusion to a book about Middle Earth. It was a hard way to end this book.

The finest discussion of the works of Tolkien up to 1973 when this book was published. Very well written, insightful and a tribute to scholarship.

Wow! I wouldn't have thought there was more to say about Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings after Shippey's structural analysis and Stratford Caldecott's brilliant essay, "Over the Chasm of Fire". But the measure of a great work of art is how many facets it has. Mr. Kocher writes clearly and respectfully, and his analysis opened my eyes to aspects I hadn't considered before. I hadn't been aware of "Imram" or some of Tolkien's other short poems, for example. And Kocher's analysis of Aragorn and his role in the story is masterful--so much so that I wondered if Viggo Mortensen had read this chapter before taking on the role. There's also intelligent discussion of Eowyn and Arwen, of the races of Middle Earth, of free will, and much more. If you love Tolkien's world and have any taste for literary criticism, you will enjoy this book.

Published in 1971, while Tolkien was still alive and long before the release of the many volumes of Tolkien's unfinished writings, so some of it is a bit outdated. Good insights and analysis of some of Tolkien's then-published work.

Didn't tell me anything new.

“Tolkien was an ecologist, hater of ‘progress,’ lover of handicrafts, detester of war long before such attitudes became fashionable.”

Extraordinary literary criticism. I wish I read this book forty years ago. (Published in 1972, before many of Tolkien’s extended Middle-Earth stories, like The Silmarillion.) Though I have read most of Tolkien’s canon and many books about him, I gained many insights.

“Probably every writer making a secondary world … hopes that the peculiar qualities of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from reality or are flowing into it. The peculiar quality of ‘joy’ in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth.” Tolkien

Kochler explores the story behind the stories of Tolkien. Helpful without being didactic. Many insights into Tolkien’s worldview and the development of his fictional setting. His discussion of Tolkien’s concepts of “glimpses” and “recovery” will aid all readers.

“Anyone who uses coercion in even the best of cause is using an evil means to a good end and thereby corrupting the end—and himself.”

Recommendation: before you read The Hobbit, or There and Back Again or The Lord of the Rings again, read this book and read Tolkien’s’ essay “On Fairy-Stories,” found in The Tolkien Reader. This book is out of print, but available. (For a certain generation a Brothers Hildebrandt cover is de rigueur for Tolkien books, and the original Star Wars poster.)

“Tolkien is not hopeful about our age. The elves have left us, and we have not mourned to see them go.”

An excellent collection of essays for the thoughtful LOTR fan.

I'm a Tolkien fan, but not a Tolkien buff. I'm working on it, though. I've read various Norse and Old English sagas over the years, and when teaching Beowulf, I can casually refer to Professor Tolkien's groundbreaking essay on it, the essay that launched the poem from obscurity into the English canon (all without mentioning that I haven't actually sat down and read the damn thing yet). So when I came across this title, I ate it up.

I've always had the same problem with Tolkien that I've had with writers like Robert Howard and H.P. Lovecraft: their stories and worlds are fascinating, but yeesh! look at how they write! But Kocher points out quite a few things about The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings that I must admit never occurred to me. He refers to the religious themes of the novels as pre-Christian, which suits me--I never did like adding to the plethora of Christ-reference arguments piling up all over the English canon--but that's just the beginning. He points out geographical and astronomical data to pinpoint a timeline for the events of Middle Earth, and then explains why to investigate too closely makes the entire work fall apart. He raises the question of Free Will over Fate (a must for the Anglo-Saxons), and goes even further when asking whether or not orcs are really evil, since they don't seem to have any further say in the matter. He traces the lineage of Free Peoples and plays them off each other thematically. He makes an argument for the beginning of the world. He points out how the character of Aragorn is neglected overall, partly due to bad writing on Tolkien's part, partly due to the hobbit-fixation of the 1960s. He ends with a discussion of Tolkien's other works (which I but browsed). Good literary criticism. The best part about it for the casual reader: it doesn't even look like literary criticism.

Great book, if you consider it was written well before Silmarillon or Letters were published.
Most of the analyses are great (such the one about Aragorn) but there are some mistakes, usually becouse of the few data avaible in 1973. In 1973 I would have given a full 5 stars

Definitely has great parts and some nice insights. Other bits may be a bit moot now since this book was written before the Silmarillion and several other stories were released. (And of course no movies in sight at the time either, which to modern readers may make for uncommon points of focus.) Then again, nice to see things from this perspective too. And a whole chapter on Aragorn, who's after all my favourite Tolkien character (next to Fëanor that is) so I'm not complaining!

4.5 stars

https://blog.hennethannun.net/2019/11...

My first introduction to literary criticism, rather young, and a painless one that taught me a great deal about literature in general. I'm rereading it now to shake loose some thoughts about writing fiction.