http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/tolkienbehind.htm[return][return]This book, originally published by Ballantine in 1969, has now been updated by Adam Roberts and republished by Gollancz, billed as "The companion to The Lord of the Rings". Unfortunately, it isn't. Tolkienology has come a very long way in the last thirty-five years, and very little in this book will be new to anyone who has read Humphrey Carpenter or Tom Shippey.[return][return]Even in 1969, the Tolkien-hungry reader could not have been completely satisfied by this book. Fully a quarter of it is taken up with a synopsis of the plots of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, material that would surely have already been familiar to the average Tolkien reader. There is a chapter asking if LOTR (as Carter repeatedly abbreviates it) is satire or allegory. (Conclusion: it is neither.) A third of the book is taken up with a survey of other works of epic fantasy, the genre that Carter argues Tolkien's writing belongs to; completely coincidentally, Ballantine - for whom Carter worked as an editor - was publishing or about to publish many of the authors who are namechecked here at the time this book was first published.[return][return]Carter identifies epic fantasy as a tradition including Homer, the chansons de geste, Spenser (who is mentioned often), William Morris, Lord Dunsany, E.R. Eddison, Fletcher Pratt, and Mervyn Peake. He makes no attempt to demonstrate the influences of the earlier writers on Tolkien; indeed where he does identify Tolkien's sources directly, he ends up appearing to argue that The Hobbit is a rip-off of Walter de la Mare's The Three Mulla Mulgars (aka The Three Royal Monkeys) or that the whole of Middle-Earth is based on Wagner's Ring. (Tolkien himself, of course, famously retorted that the only similarity between his ring and Wagner's was that they were both round.)[return][return]A single, though long, footnote describes the Swords and Sorcery genre, including the works of Robert E. Howard, L. Sprague de Camp, Henry Kuttner, Fritz Leiber and indeed Carter himself, but concludes without further discussion that these are "not strictly speaking epic fantasy in the Morris-Dunsany-Eddison-Tolkien tradition at all." This is simply unconvincing. Carter actually reports Tolkien as saying that he was influenced by H. Rider Haggard's She (and one can see that Mount Doom owes something to the climactic scenes of Haggard's novel) and that he enjoyed Robert E. Howard's Conan books; do we know if he actually read Dunsany or Eddison, and if so if he liked them? Carter's distinction between the two types of fantasy is then blurred still further by placing Alan Garner, Lloyd Alexander and Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea firmly in the Tolkien tradition.[return][return]Adam Roberts, given the impossible job of updating this rather messy book, sensibly did not try very hard. He has added a chapter on The Silmarillion (confusingly placed before The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, which fits the internal chronology but not the way in which most readers will come to it) and updated the section on more recent fantasy writers. But the gaps are rather obvious: the foreword, for instance, begins by referring to the 2001-3 film trilogy (presumably a note by Roberts), and then describes the sub-culture of Tolkien societies and fanzines in affectionate detail (presumably Carter's original text), with no reference to the medium through which you are reading these words. He shouldn't really have bothered. The original book may well have been the high water mark of Tolkienology at its time, and should certainly be on the shelf of any committed completist. But it's difficult to see why anyone should buy this edition.

Very mixed feelings about this book.

Let's start with a short chapter by chapter summary. The first three chapters provide a short biography of Tolkien, how he wrote "The Hobbit" and LOTR, and the impact they had after becoming popular. The following four chapters summarise the four books plus a short summary of "The Silmarillion". Intended for the readers of this book who haven't read any of the topical books. Then follow two chapters on satirical and alegorical elements, and Tolkien's theory of the fairy story. After that four chapters on fantasy elements through literature history (classical epic, chansons de geste, medieval romance, and 19th century fantasy). The final three chapters deal with analysing Tolkien's basic sources for names and story elements.

The problem of this book is that half of it is unneccessary. The topic is Tolkien and what's behind LOTR. I fail to see why would anyone who hasn't read Tolkien decide to start with this book. Which makes the three summary chapters pointless.

Then come the four chapters of literature fantasy elements. In and of themselves they are quite interesting and well presented and analysed. Especially the one about 19th century fantasy which introduced me to information and writers I hadn't known and am interested to learn more about. However, as later chapters show, Tolkien's direct influences and sources came primarily from works NOT mentioned in these chapters. That's about 80 pages now that can be omitted or don't have direct relation to the topic of the book.

The final chapters finally give us what was promised. But it's important to note that all the connections for Tolkien's sources are hypothethical. A point the author does not hide. They are also very logical, researched in great detail, and probably true for the most part. But at no point made factual by quoting Tolkien himself or any other research.

Finally there is the problem of the author himself. Its is clear he loves what he is writing about and had done extensive research. But it seems like he writes about some things just for the sake of producing words. Two examples. In the 7 page chapter on allegory he discusses the possible hidden meaning behind Tolkien's books, concluding there is none by citing Tolkien's foreword to LOTR CLEARLY SAYING SO. Second example is spending three pages on deliberating what Gandalf is. Is he a man, elf, god, Valar? Then finally citing "The Silmarillion" clearly saying he is a maiar and describing what a maiar is in two sentences. The worst thing for me was, when summarising the books, he said TWICE that Eowyn was Theoden's daughter.

And finally an oddity about the book itself. Lin Carted died in 1988. Yet the book mentions the LOTR movies and later authors and books that came out after his death, like the work of Tad Williams, Robert Jordan, Steven Erikson, and George R.R. Martin. Without saying who wrote those additions.

All in all, this is not an uninteresting book. Just one that doesn't feel like it gives the reader what it promises in the title.

EDIT: became aware that the book was published in 1969, when LOTR was fairly new and not well known among the wider public. So the summary makes sense in that context.

видавництво "баллантайн" славилося своєю серією дорослого фентезі та огидними обкладинками. в принципі, з обкладинками для фентезі таке часто бува.
злі дизайнери мучили не лише авторів художньої прози, які все одно були далеко (або мертві) – від їхнього мистецтва не вдалося врятуватися й ліну картерові, який на видавництво працював, укладав антології оповідань і навіть написав кілька критичних текстів. у цього, про толкіна, і зокрема в цього видання сімдесятих років, дизайн іще нічогенький (якщо забути, звісно, про кумедну річ на задній обкладці: те, що мало виглядати як "symbol and allegory", написали "symbol and allergy"); є інший том, про фентезі загалом, і там узагалі ахтунг.
утім, після такої ініціації до самого тексту починаєш ставитися поблажливіше: який би він не був, дорівнятися жахливістю до обкладинки йому непросто. а лін картер ще й доволі непогано пише.
може, сьогодні його книжка не пропонує ніяких особливих цікавинок, але вона сама по собі цікава як документ, як фіксація епохи. "толкін" з'являється на хвилі популярності "володаря перстенів", і перший наклад виходить, коли сам толкін іще живий, а до серйозного сприйняття жанру фентезі різними академічними колами лишається років 15. ще нема визначень, генеалогій і поділів на піджанри, тому, з одного боку, картер цілковито вільний вигадувати своє, а з іншого, йому весь час доводиться вигадувати своє. наприклад, розповідь про фентезі як жанр він починає з античного епосу, проводить через середньовічні гести і ренесансні романи (підхід не прижився), зате в розділі про "отців" сучасного фентезі нічого не пише про джорджа макдональда. причина може полягати в тому, що толкін заперечував будь-які впливи макдональда на свою творчість (маленьку приміточку про це знаходимо наприкінці, у списку рекомендованої літератури), – але, зрештою, толкін узагалі любив заперечувати впливи інших авторів на свою творчість.

This survey of the history of fantasy storytelling opened up a lot of worlds for me, functioning as a sort of reader's guide to the amazing run of republications Carter edited for Ballantine Books. It gave me a much deeper appreciation for Tolkien's achievement in LOTR and the inspirations he'd drawn upon, and turned me on to a bunch of great writers, amongst whom, I suppose, James Branch Cabell would stand tallest... except for Lord Dunsany, of course... or perhaps E.R. Eddison...?

Soy monotemático.

Lo tenía un pensamiento recurrente y di con este libro que trata precisamente de las influencias de Tolkien.

Cosas muy oportunas, cosas menos. Debería ser MUCHO mas corto, al final todo se circunscribe a tradición mitológica clásica, los Eddas y Snorri, leyenda artúrica, cantar de gesta, Ariosto, libros de caballerías... hasta William Morris y otros pocos.

Desdeña referencias que creo importantes y tengo que comprobar si las citas del Quijote están bien hechas porque no me lo parece.

3.5-3.75. Interesting book when he stays on topic, but too often he goes down rabbit holes that have almost nothing to do with LOTR. Also he spends VERY little time discussing the influence of Biblical literature on Tolkien. Maybe the most interesting thing about this book is that it was published in 1969 before The Silmarillion, so there was speculation about what new info would be revealed when that would be published. Fun read.

To be fair to Carter's book, this was the first--or almost the first, anyway--book about Middle-earth that didn't come from Tolkien, and coming as it did while the author was still alive and yet without his assistance, and thus before so much material about Middle-earth came out. There was no Silmarillion or Biography--let alone the The Letters or HoME. Given what he had to work with, Carter did a reasonable job, but it has been utterly eclipsed by more recent work.

Todas las fuentes de donde “bebió” Tolkien para sus libros. Un libro claro y conciso, destaca sus recomendaciones literarias.

*review to be posted soon*

Es un buen estudio sobre la Obra de Tolkien, nada maravilloso y bastante introductorio. Esperaba más, le falta profundidad y tiene algunos datos que podría discutir o sobre los cuales tengo serias dudas. Es un buen manual básico,y como saben, me gustan los manuales cuando empiezo las investigaciones.

It was really interesting and eye opening to see some of the inspirations and learn some of the workings around Tolkien’s works. However. It was extremely outdated in the mindset of only male writers and characters/heroes, plus some other few instances of funny outdated language.

Libro lleno de erratas e incorrecciones de contenido. Traducción también con fallos.