AJP Taylor's "War Lords" divides each into his own chapter, including Mussolini, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, FDR, and a back section for Tojo, etc. I first read Taylor's book in college, and upon re-reading it, i noticed it is full of his own opinions, verging on egoism. The best thing about the book is actually the photos and captions; it is also divided well and easy to read. The rest is fact sprinkled throught Taylor's opinions, which he quotes his opinion as being "the right one." Don't waste your money on this, check a library first.

I'm very disappointed in this book. The author is wrong about basic facts on which she bases her theories. To wit:

Frodo does not, as the author claims, use the Ring "to test resistance to institutionalized power and the power of others within the community." He doesn't "use" the Ring at all; if anything, it uses him. Gandalf's Elven ring does not save Frodo from the Nazgul at the Ford on the way to Rivendell; at that point in the story, we don't know that Gandalf has one of the Elven rings. "Mordor" may mean"murder" in Anglo-Saxon, and that may have been in the back of Tolkien's mind; but "Mordor" mean "black-land" in Sindarin, and that's the meaning Tolkien wanted for the land. Durin's Bane is not mithril or greed (though that is an issue), but the Balrog.

Dr. Chance does makes several interesting points, and for that reason I might, albeit with much hesitation, recommend this book to those who are familiar enough with LotR to avoid the pitfalls.

Not really much insight here. Noteworthy and interesting points are scattered throughout, however they are certainly not helped by the general skimpiness of developed argument or sustained elaboration for a convincing case. All in all, the ideas are never explored to their fullest extent, and the general tone is that of a graduate student's thesis. In part this may be due to the decision to retrace the entire plot-line, rather than to develop particular themes in depth. Also, the academic liberal arts jargon is just bad.
Prof. Chance approaches LOTR and its mythology of power by way of a purely political hermeneutics, applying the theories of (mostly) Foucault to mythopoetic material that rises beyond explanation via mere politics. This Foucault influence is central, but at no point is it seriously questioned or demonstrated how it is even relevant or useful to the topic at hand - rather than, say, the concepts Tolkien drank in from epic poetry, fairy stories, world mythology, the Bible, or a thousand different philosophers (for example, how is Foucault more revealing here than Augustine, or Hobbes, or Rousseau?).
Somehow, it all fails to grasp the very personal, psychological, and metaphysical aspects of Tolkien's masterpiece, which speaks to us not primarily through the rationalism of politics but via the art of wonder: the magic of the journey, the crucible of morality and fellowship, innocence and experience, and the passages of life in relation to its underpinning wholeness.
It's disappointing and at times hilarious, though, when Prof. Chance sees LOTR as rather more concerned with "the political problem of the intellectual (22)" and "liberation from hegemony... A novel that mythologizes power and the problem of individual difference... the problem of individual and class difference within the social body or construct, the heroic power of knowledge and language in the political power struggle, and the ideal of kingship as healing and service, in a unique inversion of master-servant roles (23)". One gets the sense that it all boils down to "the role of understanding and tolerating differences within the community (24)", to "giving voice to the dispossessed of the twentieth century (25)". But interpreted this way, squintingly, the tale only seems to diminish into triviality. It becomes merely "a drama of the symbolic value of language (45)", wherein the Ring is a "challenge to [Frodo's] civic and political education (48)", and where "name-calling and hostile language...wound more than the...voice of an enemy like the Black Riders or Sauron (58)".
Admittedly, such platitudes are more than the pure baloney evoked here, and may well contain very important ideas, but they are, in the end, only tangents to the tale that Tolkien set down.

Jane Chance's discussion includes some valuable insights and a useful review of research, however it suffers from three main problems:

a. The discussion of power is one-sided and focuses too much on the power of language, while neglecting issues such as the power of vision and the gaze, which are just as prominent. This makes the application of Foucault's theories - a good idea in itself -superficial (The author refers to one book of his out of a vast corpus).
b. Any discussion of the structure of The Lord of the Rings cannot disregard the vast work that Christopher Tolkein has done on the various layers and stages of the volumes of the book.
c. Chance's book is marred by many errors: for example, how can Germany have blockaded England in 1946, a year after the end of the war? In this context, the author should have mentioned Tolkein's own discussion of the relationship between his work and the Second World War.

Like Harold Bloom's "Lord of the Rings: Modern Critical Perspectives", De Koster's "Readings on J.R.R. Tolkien" is a compilation of previously printed articles and book excerpts about Tolkien-- and about Lord of the Rings (LotR) in particular. Also like Bloom's book, it's nothing to get excited about. Most of its contents are old and whiskered, filled with passe comments and observations. A few articles are a half-century old book reviews written when LotR first appeared. Many of the older articles (like Auden's and Wilson's) have also been reprinted many, many times before in other compilations. (Strangely, though, a lot of the older articles have had their names changed from the original...)

There are also articles here that were penned more recently... mostly from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but, to be perfectly honest, only a few of these are genuinely insightful... and many of those insights are, in fact, based on critical methods that are no longer current (e.g. psychoanalytical readings). Only one article was written in the 90s, a defense of Tolkien against charges of racism, taken straight from Patrick "Defending Middle-Earth" by Patrick Curry. Curry's defense is passionate and polemical, but he's preaching to the choir on this point, and this excerpted article is not a particularly good example of Tolkien scholarship in the past decade.

On the whole, it's tough to see what value this book has for either a Tolkien fan or scholar. So much of its content is outdated, and a lot of it just isn't all that substantive to begin with. Moreover, the fact is that all of the stuff included here can easily be found (in full, not excerpted) in any good public library or half-decent research library, and de Koster doesn't really add anything in the way of editorial comment or organization to make this edition any better than the sum of its parts.

I can't, however, say the book is wholly without merit, as a few articles, like Shippey's are decent (although folks should just go and read his books, rather than the brief excerpt here), and the old reviews are of importance to those interested in the history of Tolkien criticism) Still, I'd recommend that folks avoid this collection of old and mediocre material and instead take a gander at some of more insightful (and more current) Tolkien criticism and scholarship that's out there...

While this slim volume is definitely superior to Harold Bloom's recent collection of 30-year-old essays that most Tolkien students are already familiar with, nevertheless, "Readings" disappoints in much the same way. There is only one short piece written recently (the one on whether LOTR is racist); the rest are all retreads (important ones, to be sure) from previous volumes and periodicals. Any student seriously considering LOTR for a thesis or paper will be dismayed. All but one of these essays were written before 1983 (i.e., before today's crop of college freshmen were even born).

Why wasn't a chapter from Norman Cantor's superb book "Inventing the Middle Ages" (1991) included? Why wasn't the trouble taken to track down essays written in the 90s? Can it really be because there just isn't any serious Tolkien scholarship?

This deck's symbolism makes sense if you are familiar with Tolkien's the Lord of the Rings, however it does not have any traditional Tarot symbolism in its pictures. I don't agree with most of the interpretations in the sketchy booklet. I can't get detailed readings from this deck, although I can get accurate general readings. The cards are good for telling the atmosphere of a situation, but little else. As for the artwork, the pictures are beautiful, but small. Most of the scenes are of landscapes, and people are not usually the focus. However, I LOVE the Queen of Swords card - Eowyn is perfect!!!! If you are a deck collector or want a Tolkien novelty, then this would suit you. A serious reader should look for another deck.

If you're a serious student of the tarot, you may be disappointed with the cards (they double as a card game and therefore have extraneous symbols on them that may distract during a reading, and the prominent captions do little to open the intuitive mind to symbolic meanings beyond the surface). Still, the artwork is fine, if too small (another artifact of the gaming aspect), and the choices of characters and situations is well-thought-out. If you approach this set as a Tolkien fan FIRST, and a tarot afficionado second, you'll probably find it delightful. But don't buy it as a primary (reading) deck--buy it as a collectible.

Wow, has this deck gotten slammed!

I am a 'new' Tolkien fan. After seeing the Lord of the Rings movie and loving it.. I decided I had to read the books. The characters / story just fascinates me. I also enjoy the Tarot quite a bit - so when I remembered that there was a Lord of the Rings Tarot - I got excited... Until I read the reviews. OUCH!

I am not in any way saying the reviews are wrong. From what I understand, there are a lot of "technical differences"... and ALOT of questioning of why certain people / things were chosen for the cards they depict. I understand and agree with most of this... which is why it took me a long time before I broke down and purchased the deck...

I realized the reason I like the deck is because I am approaching it differently. 1. I like the artwork. Some of the pictures are quite intuitive to me - irrespective of the story. 2. I find the sentences on the cards helpful in remembering some of the aspects of the card meaning. 3. I like seeing the characters I enjoy on the cards - It helps me relate better to the deck as a whole.

While I realize there is a lot wrong with this deck, personally, I find that if I approach it loosely, it can be fun and I can get a lot out of it. I find that I just enjoy using cards that remind me of a story I love - I read the cards as they make me feel when I look at them - and I don't take the rest of it too seriously.

This deck may or may not be for you. Take all of the reviews / information into consideration, look at the cards yourself, and then make your own decision.

I was very disappointed by this self-indulgent, self-engrandizing piece of pulp. Mr. Ferry obviously wrote this as an antidote to his insecurity and it expresses a poor attempt at both self-examination and historical analysis. This product is an insult to the reader's intelligence; a grand waste of time to read. I don't think the Anglican church got rid of Mr. Ferry for the reasons he would have us believe. I think it was his apparent obstinacy, and inability to subject himself to the authority of the church! There are many gay priests in the Anglican church who have not left their lovers (of which the church is aware). Mr. Ferry was obviously looking to grand stand at the time, and to create a name for himself! This is a sad testament and not worthy of a major motion picture.

I for one was not interested in his vanity, misrepresentations, half-truths, and rantings.

There are three parts to this book: Anglican (Episcopalian) priest Jim Ferry describes his spiritual and personal journey, and his attempts to find fulfillment as a gay Christian while active as the rector of a Toronto-area parish, and an ecclesiastical trial to remove him from his parish. He describes how a homophobic parishioner reports him to the Bishop of Toronto, and the ensuing complicated ecclesiastical trial (the Courts of the Lord, of the title). Parishioners' reactions to his situation range from the homophobic to the fearful to the affectionate and supportive and we see how this diversity of opinion both distresses and comforts him. We also see how the stress of the canon-law process destroys his relationship with a man and places him under much strain, without destroying his personal faith. While it is, perhaps of necessity, a self-centred document (some might even say self-serving or confused), it is a measured and thoughtful exposition of a situation in which many clergy have found themselves. For them's of us who are into canon law, it is an indictment of a basic weakness in Anglican practice and approach, confusing the bishop's role of pastor of pastors, and judge, and prosecutor. One can have very different (indeed, warring and contradictory) opinions of Fr Ferry, and the issues of gays in the clergy, homesexuality and Christianity, but still benefit from reading his perspectives. This is Food for thought stuff, and an important document in a debate which is far from over.

Clear as crystal, I can remember the hug goodbye I got from Jim at his farewell 'party' in some fellow St. Philips-on-the-Hill Church-goer's backyard. It was the last I was to see of him, and at the age of ten, found the reasons for his departure from the church to be thoroughly incomprehensible. Some years later I stumbled across his book on my parents' bookshelf and sat down for a good, long read. Giving little regard to the usual technicalities your average book critic sits and festers over, I was able to embrace the book from a unique perspective, enabling me to travel in the passenger's seat through Jim's life and through the catastrophe that was to be his forced removal from our church. While disappointed with the lack of reference to his friendly, Old English Sheepdog, "Maybe" (and his understandable failure to mention me!) I still highly recommend this book to anyone who's willing to open their eyes (and hearts) for an encounter with a touching story of a priest's battle with a belief system that guided him, yet at the same time, prosecuted him.

As numerous people have mentioned, Tolkien was a Catholic, but I don't think that would have anything to do with why he wouldn't like this deck, as the Tarot was invented and primarily used by the Catholic culture of medieval and Rennaisance Europe. As a historian, he would have appreciated that. This deck makes a mockery both of the ancient symbolism and complex history of the Tarot, as well as the beauty and mythic scope of Tolkien's works. The symbolism is all wrong, the artwork is mediocre at best, and all of the meanings of both Tolkien's works and the Tarot cards are completely twisted and taken out of context. If you are a serious Tarot reader or collector, or have any respect for the venerated author, don't buy this deck.

Okay, I completely agree with the other reviews on this book in that it is completely garbage. I wouldn't buy it if you gave me $100. It's just totally out of the question! I don't see how anyone could publish this(word that I won't write). Just because Tolkien isn't living anymore, doesn't mean people can take advantage of his woks! Pathetic. Thats all I have to say. Pathetic.

Those who have read biographies about Professor J.R.R. Tolkien would know that if he were living he would be absolutley abhorrent of this book. Tolkien was a very religious person, and his religion was Catholic, which is completely against tarot cards. This is the kind of thing that would make him turn-over in his grave. I'm sure that a lot of Tolkien fans would agree with me in saying that Tolkien Enterprises has stooped pretty low in using Tolkien tarrot cards. If Tolkein were alive and knew about this he would be greatly angered. So, please, to all you fans of Tolkien out there, and those who respect his ideas, DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK! IT IS COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT TOLKIEN STOOD FOR! There are many other good Tolkien books so go check it out for yourself.