pulp writer's estimations of tolkien. perhaps has a charming introductory value for bucolic virgins.

She looks at how the Lord the the Rings trilogy was written, what inspired it, things like that. Book best read by a college English major or a real Tolkien geek.

Lin Carter isn't a particularly good critic, which is why I find his other book "Imaginary Worlds" to be so boring. Fortunately, this book isn't a critical analysis. Instead, Carter talks about the possible effect of Lord of the Rings may have on the fantasy genre (which is interesting because this came out not long after LOTR was published), about the sources Tolkien drew from to write LOTR (which is revealing and thought-provoking), and about the history of the fantasy genre in general. Sometimes his statistics and facts are incorrect, but Carter's love for the Fantasy Genre, a genre he revived as an editor for Ballantine Books, really shines through. As a truly expert look on LOTR and the fantasy genre this isn't much good; but it's perfect as a tongue-in-cheek, lively, and fascinating account of a topic which the author obviously loves: fantasy literature.

This book was written only a few years after Lord of the Rings was published. It is like a little historic peak into what people thought of Lord of the Rings in the beginning, before it was established as the colossal modern classic we know it as today. Before the modern genre of fantasy was really defined, the Lord of the Rings was difficult to classify. It was like the epic stories of the Greeks and Romans, and some people called it "super science fiction" or a "giant-sized fairy tale".

The author begins with a few chapters about Tolkien himself, his writings, his education, and his family. At the time, Tolkien was still alive and "hearty" at the age of 76, and retired in a "modest house" near Oxford.

Then come several chapters which offer a lengthy summary of the entire plot of The Hobbit and LotR with massive spoilers. The author assumes that some of his readers have not read LotR and will need some information about the plot to continue. This seems really weird to me. What reader would pick up a book about LotR if they had not read it? Why would anyone be interested in reading a book about a book that they haven't read? Why wouldn't you go read the actual book first, then read the book about the book?

I was grieved to see that the author gets a couple of things wrong in his summary of the LotR. He states that Eowyn is King Theoden's daughter, when she is in fact his niece. Little mistakes like this made me wonder what other facts the author might have written incorrectly elsewhere in the book.

Another chapter discusses why LotR is definitely not an allegory or satire, since Tolkien despised both. But any story can be "applicable" if the reader so chooses. We also explore Tolkien's philosophy of "subcreation" and his belief that all mythology contains a grain of truth.

The author then proceeds to give a history lesson in the origin of the fantasy story, going back to the Greek and Roman epics with heroes, wars, quests, gods, and monsters. The next chapter shows how the Anglo-Saxons imitated the Greeks in developing their ideas of epic heroes such as Beowulf. Then medieval poets imitated their predecessors in the popular "Romance" adventure tales of their day, but adding more magic, wizards, ghosts, and sorcerers.
(I found out an interesting tidbit of history; the "Romance" genre used to mean simply an epic adventure, and "Romances" were so called because they were written in the Romance languages.)
Then we dive into Renaissance through Victorian literature where a few great fantasy adventure writers stand out from the crowd as redefining the genre. And finally we arrive at the modern idea of the fantasy genre where a handful of fantasy writers attempt epic stories, the immediate precursors to Tolkien.

There are several chapters detailing old Norse mythology where Tolkien got many of his ideas and some names. The names of most of the dwarves from the Hobbit are found in an old Scandanavian poem, Voluspo, part of the Elder Edda. Gandalf's name is found in the same poem, and is also the name of a King in the Anglo-Saxon tale of Halfdan the Black.
Earendal is the Saxon name given to a star, which means "splendor" in Old English. The name "orcs" can be found in Beowulf, "...monsters of all sorts were born: etins and elves and orcs, worst of all, giant folk also..." Theoden means "chief or ruler of a tribe, prince, king" in Old Anglo-Saxon.

There are a few things in the last chapters that I thought were interesting insights into the characters of LotR. The author says that while a classic hero like Aragorn is obviously destined for greatness, Frodo is a humble character who "has greatest thrust upon them." The reader identifies more with Frodo because he is ordinary in the beginning and grows through his suffering.

My favorite insight is about Sam's character. The author says that Sam is not really a comedic character. He is not a clown, but the juxtaposition of his common sense and plain-speaking manner contrasted against the more formal speech of highly educated people who surround him creates a humorous element. I love that Sam is taken seriously, but we can also acknowledge that, without meaning to, he does bring humor to the story. It's the contrast between who Sam is and the extraordinary circumstances around him that makes him as funny as a fish flopping about out of water. Poor Sam! And yet, all the characters around him respect him, admire his good qualities, and value the common sense approach that he brings to the group.

This book was published before The Silmarillion, so the author has to guess about many things that were revealed in Silmarillion. For instance, the author guesses that perhaps Gandalf is actually one of the gods of Valinor and not a mere mortal. As we now know, that was a good guess!

Overall, this is an interesting book about LotR and gives some great history of the fantasy genre and the myths that Tolkien drew from to create Middle Earth.

Interesting reading. The sources of the fairy tale, place names, Gandalf, the dwarfs and even Frodo

A fascinating look at the history of fantasy writing and stuff about Tolkien. =)

A more accurate title for this book would be: Tolkien, C.S.Lewis, Shakespeare, Homer, H.P.Lovecraft, and perhaps all Fantasy/Romantic Epic authors of the 20th century: A speculation behind The Lord of the Rings' possible inspiration and sources in fairy tales.

Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's the way Lin Carter keeps going on long tangents explaining each faery stories in great depth (there are a lot of examples in this book) rather than critically analyzing Tolkien's work; I can't say I enjoyed reading it much.

I have very conflicting opinions about this book. First, I thought the author was a woman (oh yes, it makes a huge difference for me to know the gender of the author), and it got me excited because wow! a female tolkien fan in the 60's writing about Prof Tolkien's great work!! I can relate! And the opening chapters (1-3) were fabulous. This book was published in 1969, only a decade after the official publication of LOTR which means first-hand accountant of the rising popularity of the trilogy, and the reflection/feedback to Tolkien at the time. Carter delivered that, and even provided detailed report of Tolkien (where he was, what he was doing) in the 1960's; it's exciting to read about that in 2014, to be reminded that tolkien was real and lived through his flash of fame in the distant past.

The summary of the trilogy provided in chapters 4 to 7 was a worthwhile read; Carter's concise and eloquent style functioned both as a way to educate new readers and to re-introduce old readers to the world of middle earth was, in my opinion, very effective. Chapter 8 and 9, where Carter lays out the foundation of his exploration and the topic of this book was a nice touch to focus the readers to the critical points of Tolkien's story (character, setting, history, narrative).

Then everything kinda went downhill from there.

Again, I think a part of the tediousness was to blame on myself. I don't know ANYTHING about european folk lores and fairy stories (aside from the standard Red Riding Hood and Peter Pan), much less Norse mythology (The Elder Edda, for example, which Carter mentions multiple times in his book)such as the Siegfried and his adventures. Although Carter does makes some credible links to LOTR in his extensive ramble about his favorite norse/germanic/icelandic/anglo-saxon mythologies, it was tough reading between the lines when he starts retelling the story of these myth in great detail.

Sometimes, he doesn't even acknowledge Tolkien in his analysis, which I find absurd! Isn't the focal point of this book The Lord of the Rings and /Tolkien/? Weak conclusions at the end of chapters, by which he merely insert the word Tolkien and LOTR in to validate his points, were frequent and very irksome.

Reading this book made me felt like I am simultaneously reading five other thesis paper at the same time, each discussing their own myth/fantasy/novel. It was too much to take in.

Quite dense at times and bogged down with unnecessary detailed summaries of works that are only distantly connected to Tolkien, Carter’s work nevertheless does provide some good insight into to the sources that inspired Tolkien’s world. Some of it is more clearly seen in hindsight as grasping in the dark, and some of it very much feels that way. One more critique: a book like this need not provide a chapter-long summary of each of Tolkien’s most famous works… if you’re reading this, you’ve clearly read and enjoyed the others.

However, if you enjoy the prospect of exploring the evolution of fantasy from the epic poems of Homer through the 20th century gold standard of LOTR, you may find the analysis quite interesting. Carter has clearly done his homework and makes every effort to create meaningful connections to Middle Earth. It’s made me interested in taking the time to indulge more in pre-Tolkien tales. One point on which we must differ: Lloyd Alexander’s work is highly derivative from Tolkien and received far too high of praise from Carter: I couldn’t make it past more than a few chapters of The Book of Three.

Great companion to the trilogy and the Hobbit. This is an in-depth look at writing and inspirations of Tolkien’s masterpieces.

Muy buena opción si ya has leído El hobbit pero te da tedio entrar de lleno a la triologîa del SDLA. Contiene resumenes de la obra de Tolkién, además de ofrecer un panorama general de sus fuentes, motivaciones y posibles significados.

I believe I picked this up, new, on a paperback carousel at, of all places, Harding's Supermarket in Bridgman, Michigan. I'd read 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' and wanted some sort of background to the material and its author. Carter provided just that.

This book won't change your life. The second half has little to do with The Lord of the Rings but instead serves as an overview of the literature that may have inspired Tolkien. In the first half, however, Carter paints a portrait of an author who despises overanalysis of his work, which renders the second half somewhat of an abomination--at least Tolkien would consider it such. I personally think there is MUCH to be gained from an analysis of The Lord of the Rings from several perspectives, including socially, politically, and spiritually, and I think Tolkien was being a bit of a humbug for denying biliophiles and fans of his work this right. Let your readers gain from your work what they will. Yes, of course, on one level it IS "just a really good story," but this really good story has brought me to tears before, and you should allow readers to respond that way.

But I digress. Again, as I said, Carter's book does not shake the foundations of the earth. It does provide interesting background on a lot of these works, from ancient sources to more comparatively recent ones and gives one an appreciation for Tolkien's literary heritage. It cements The Lord of the Rings as the most important and detailed work of fantasy in the modern era. I just wasn't into it. I like approaching Tolkien's work from the standpoint of metaphor and (Tolkien hates this) allegory, but that's the way I roll. If research and survey interest you, knock yourself out.