Not quite what I was expecting, but still interesting. Looking forward to revisiting LoTR again :)

Well, it took me less than a year. Lots of great insights in this...probably many more that were over my head as well!

Reread September 2016 - Liked it more the second time.

This was very eye opening and insightful. Several times I put the book down because my mind was so blown. This book depended my love and understanding of The Lord of the Rings. It was engaging to look at LOTR from a philosophical perspective rather then merely in terms of setting, plot, characters etc. The part I found most fascinating was the part where Kreeft explained the philosophy behind the One Ring and the desire for it. Also it made me want to re-read the trilogy- I’ll have to do that soon.

In this book, Kreeft tries to extract the underlying philosophies in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I found some chapters much more worth while than others. A few of the chapters gave brief overviews of basic philosophical principles (like the idea of Plato's "forms"), while others touched on traditional philosophies only very, very briefly. The highlight of the book, in my view, is Kreeft's chapter on anthropology. Profound ideas about death and man's discomfort or alienation from the world were explained with beautiful and poetic examples from Tolkien's corpus.

My chief complaint about the book is Kreeft's reliance on C.S. Lewis's writings to make his points. I understand why he did this: Tolkien and Lewis were great friends and likely shared the same mind regarding certain basic philosophical assumptions. Tolkien also wasn't as explicit about his viewpoints as Lewis was. However, Kreeft's reliance on Lewis at times over-whelms the analysis of Tolkien's work, making me wonder if a better suited title for the book would be "The Philosophy of the Inklings" instead of "The Philosophy of Tolkien." No matter, it was still a joy to read and I learned a lot about Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings.

Philosophy and Fantasy together! A really thought provoking read. I am a big fan of Kreeft and how he brings truth to the front of all things.

The Philosophy of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind The "Lord of the Rings" by Peter J. Kreeft (2005)

(4.5)

Excellent insights on every page.

Compelling Argument

Bereft makes a very compelling argument for a theological/Christian foundation for many, if not all, of J.R.R. Tolkien's, writings. Allegory they are not!! He loved languages, but he loved The Word, or Jesus Christ more.

I was always scared of philosophy. I thought it too advanced for me, and that I would never be able to understand. The way Kreeft broke this book into sections and questions and then used examples from the LOTR, made these advanced concepts accesible to me. I learned so much. My only critique would be that I occasionally felt like Kreeft left some questions insufficiently answered - now maybe I just missed his point, so I did not account for that in my review.

Gives fresh insights on LOTR that you will want to look for in your next re-reading. I like the way the author makes you see things in a different way, and at the same time encourages you to explore the themes yourself. My only complaint is that the book is a bit inaccurate on some details.

I'm disappointed to rate this as I did: I was excited to read this book. Of course I love Tolkien... and I also love Peter Kreeft, regularly recommending his lectures (on a podcast under the channel www.peterkreeft.com) to anyone who might be interested. His apple argument against abortion is incredibly compelling, and everyone, whether pro-life or pro-abortion, should engage with it.

This book, however... For the few friends who are interested or the (possibly slightly) more who are interested in reading me when I'm annoyed...

First of all, as other reviewers rightly note, the title is misleading. In most sections, what is on display in this book is not the philosophy of Tolkien, but rather a philosophy 101 course by Peter Kreeft, in which he shares what HE thinks about various philosophical subjects and then uses one or at most two Tolkien quotes (mostly picked from the Letters) as a finale to the section. The Tolkien quotes were the best parts of each section, but I could have just as easily gotten to all of them by just reading Letters again myself. Thus, I often felt I was not picking up anything new.

The fact that Kreeft also used Lewis quotes to end each section adds to the growing feeling that this book is not very interested in a robust treatment of Tolkien's philosophy at all. If, in your book about Tolkien, you have as many Lewis quotes as Tolkien quotes in many subsections, sometimes MORE Lewis quotes than Tolkien quotes... something is off with the presentation.

Added to this is the fact that some major claims lack support; he assumes agreement where there is none. Poetry is fallen music, he says, and prose is fallen poetry. Ehhh? First of all, are we talking about Tolkien still? Secondly, from where did you pick up that idea? Is it biblical or from Tolkien maybe or Lewis or... oh, you're not going to talk any more about it at all? This sort of claim-dropping happened so many times that I began to have frustrated visions of a smart philosophy professor who can rattle off this sort of thing in lectures because his intimidated/overawed freshmen are being carried along by his style and force of personality alone. "Well, I AIN'T A FRESHMAN," was my increasingly cynical response.

This tendency was even more frustrating because sometimes he was just plain wrong. At one point he says Bilbo defeats Smaug. (???) At two points he makes the gigantic claim (without one word of support) that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are actually the Valar Aule and Yavanna. As a lay-Tolkien scholar myself, I can NOT think of any evidence for this claim, but I CAN very easily think of many strokes against it. This is sloppy. If you have a claim, don't just lob it out there and dance away before any of your freshmen have a chance to disagree with it. It's irresponsible and smacks more of bluster than truth.

The reason this book got taken up to two stars is that when Kreeft actually does literary analysis, he is very good at it. I would even call some sections "soaring." Among those are the Anthropology chapter, the section in which he analyzes the use of promises in Lord of the Rings, and the very convincing section in which he links the symbolism of the Ring to Nietzschean philosophy. I read these with delight and a rather blown mind... and I made copies of them to keep, because, with my disappointment at the rest of the book, it will not be staying on my shelf.