While a few of the painting included are quite nice, none are breath taking or even exceptional. As long as the artist sticks to landscapes or panoramas the works are okay, but as soon as characters are added the pieces take on a very unrealistic cartoony feel which I doubt is consistent with how most fans visualize Middle Earth. Tolkien's Word: paintings of Middle-earth is a much nicer work, still for a collector of all things JRRT, you may want to pick it up if you can find it cheap.

Wonderfull paintings of the LothR. The artist followed Tolkiens descritptions faitfully. The paintings are mainly sweeping landscapes, giving us Rivendel, Minas Tirith, the Balrog, Helm's Deep and Issengard, to name a few. The paintings are beautifully done and compliments the books nicely. Some of the best Middle Earth artwork I have ever seen.

These paintings are absolutely gorgeous! Someone should put them on the Internet.

Lin Carter, Tolkien: A Look Behind the Lord of the Rings (Ballantine, 1969)
availability: out of print

Forget the title. Carter's book has about as much to do with Lord of the Rings as Silence of the Lambs actually has to do with lambs. They get mentioned now and again, but are really quite unnecessary to what's going on.

Carter's interesting little tome is actually more of an encapsulated history of fantasy literature up to the time of Tolkien-- the sources from which Tolkien got his ideas. LOTR serves as a convenient linchpin and a good jumping-off point, but Carter is truly in his own when he's discussing the Elder Edda or the epics of Homer and his contemporaries, and tracing how the stories got from the ancient texts into Tolkien's hands. It leaves behind a wealth of wonderful reading material for the interested fantasy reader to track down (assuming most of it can be found; Carter laments that many of the works of which he speaks have been lost to the ages), and this is its chief strength. As for weaknesses... well, there really aren't any. Carter spends too much time summing up LOTR when he could be telling us about Egyptian legends, and he makes a number of guesses about things in LOTR, since The Silmarillion hadn't been published yet (and for all its annoyances, The Silmarillion did answer a whole lot of questions about the First Age), but it's impossible to count that against Carter and still remain fair. I'd just liked to have seen more of the old stuff, and less of the new. ***

This book is a fascinating inquiry into the process of making of the greatest fantasy epic of our time. Along with the analyses of Middle Earth's different trends you will find a wealth of fantasy lore about other authors of the time and their works. This is an enchanting book that will make you see fantasy in a completely different light.

It may be difficult to diggest if your are not into Tolkien, and more specifically, if you are not a die-hard fan of The Lord of the Rings. But if you are a fan, not only you will find this book very informative, but you will devour it from cover to cover!

This is the kind of book that gives college textbooks a bad name. .... Let's see, that's, uh, 17 cents a page. To boot, the writing is lousy, bold-face definitions spoty and buried, and included disk basically worthless (you'd think they'd spend some of their profit on a CD that all computers can use, but they didn't...). As for the 5-star reader, how much you want to bet it's the author?

Freund's Mathematical Statistics remains an utterly fantastic book for the seriously motivated learner of statistics! I'd recommend it in a heartbeat to anyone who wants a good intermediate-level introduction to mathematical statistics. Although it seemingly lacks a CD ROM and solution guide (if there are any, please inform Amazon.com), I find it most challenging, and, quite frankly, exciting. A great source of information!

I found that this book was excellent in covering all the matierial that is required in order to pass the 101 course in stats for the institute and faculty joint exams. Everything is easily digestible with the right amount of examples. Especially for a person with no stats background.

I glanced through "...Compass" just today. I was particularly interested in the chapter on "The Scouring of the Shire." To make it short, that particular author's arguments went in a totally different direction as my own thoughts on the significance and meaning of The Scouring. To me, Tolkien was making a general, overarching slam of industrialism and technology, to be sure, from an angle rarely heard today. In my opinion, Tolkien blended the oppressive methods of both capitalism and communism in fairly equal parts, although on the surface it would seem he meant only communism. I consider myself a "neo-Luddite" similar to Tolkien, and as I back up to view the issue, I do not see but superficial differences between the "big C's" in the Scouring chapter. The true issue is industrialism itself, in contrast to the cottage industry-based Shire. The issue was industrialism, not the brand of syringe with which it was being injected. In fact the Shire was being colonized and cold-dunked into industrialism just as in real life the entire world has been, and the methods used by the imperialist, Stalinist or "free market," differ little in the long run. I believe the "...Compass" author missed this angle entirely.

What on earth am I talking about? Tolkien was a genius at keeping his hand out of philosophical discussions; hence, the ferocity of all of us latter-day "Besserwisser." Still, some of his quotes make clear at least a significant part of his underlying belief system. Here's my favorite:

"Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic 'progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil."

This is my Tolkien speaking. And if you can fully grasp what he is saying here, scales of immeasurable weight and opacity will fall from your eyes. In this day and age it is all but impossible to fathom such topsy-turvy Ludditism, yet as extreme as the quote may sound, it affords a very peculiar philosophical angle.

Don't believe me? That's your right. I've scanned a few books which purport to perform "deep analysis" on Tolkien, and I find most of a few, if not even more, lightweight and pseudo-intellectual. Perhaps "...Compass" is worth a read, but after its Scouring analysis, sorry, I won't be reading anymore of it.

Fans of Tolkien and his fantasy will thrill to A Tolkien Compass, a handbook which provides reflections on his political, religious, and psychological principles. Ten writers explore these concepts, offering very different backgrounds of expertise and approaches to Tolkien's art. The result is a literary analysis excellent in its scope.

Reviewer la solinas complains that the new edition fails to include Tolkien's "Notes on Nomenclature," which the 1975 edition offered. A glance at page 157 would have explained why. The Tolkien Estate would not permit its reprinting, because the Estate plans to republish it another book. "A Tolkien Compass" is a splendid book. Jared Lobdell appreciated the depth of Tolkien's genius long before most Americans.

This book contains no-holds barred debate among advocates of 3 answers to the question, "Is Jesus the Only Savior?" John Sanders defends the inclusivist belief that conscious belief in Jesus is not necessary for salvation while another author claims that salvation is possible after physical death. Ronald Nash defends the belief that Jesus is the only Savior, a position he defends in greater detail in his book titled "Is Jesus the Only Savior?" also available from amazon.

Three differing views of the fate of those who experience physical death without hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is fascinating, but limited. Again, as it seems to be, not all Christian views are presented.

Certainly, we who hold the Lutheran confession would side with Nash, who easily out of the three represented does the most exemplary job of using God's Word correctly. Nash is correct in his chastisement of his two opponents for not lack of good exegesis of the Bible. It is truly sad but commonplace to find such poor, hurried exegeis as exemplified by Sanders and Fackre.

It would have been good to have one argue: univesal grace, grace alone, the means of grace, and the mystery of why some saved and others not? This would have given the complete Biblical picture. This is not demonstrated by any of the three in this book.

However, as exemplary as Nash is with his defense of restrictivism by not only showing the proper exegesis and hermeneutic of the other two sides, he has some glaring weaknesses himself. As those of the Reformed are bent to do, they always want to let logic and reason dominate, rather than letting God's Word suffice.

Or as Luther would say, "What is not spoken of in God's Word must be left to the heavenly academy for resolution." We do not have all the answers to all mysteries in God's Word!" As Moses said so profoundly on his deathbed, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever." (Deut. 29:29)

Nash suffers, as Sanders catches him, on Double Predestination. Calvinists cannot say that Christ died for all, but only for the elect. This is the classic error of Calvin. As well, they hedge the truth of God's Scriptures of the Real Presence in the Sacrament. Sanders does not confess the B.C. Means of Grace as St. Paul does in 1 Cor. 10:1-11, that Christ was present with them, but most did not have faith and were disallowed into Promised Land. This typology extends throughout OT, allowing OT saints the same (Romans 4) as we NT saints, faith in Promised Messiah (Christ).

However, to deny infant sin (Age of Accountability) that Nash puts forth is unbiblical (Ps. 51:5) Furthermore, Nash is wise to attack inclusivism on premise that grace is with all until rejection of Christ and Gospel, and he shows forth Biblical attack to destory this false teaching.

Nash certainly is far and away the more faithful Biblical presenter, aside from the errors already identified. Further, he does not profess Christ's descent into hell as for what it was: Christ's victorious announcement of victory over the demon angels, nor is he correct is declaring Luke 16:19ff as being a parable. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted as parabolic, see Art Just's Commentary, Volume II, pg. 630ff.

Cudos to Nash for calling the other two's hand for not showing the Biblical evidence for their positions, while discounting his opponents Biblical proofs and offering restrictivist passages, Nash has provided the debate with the sure foundation of what God says about this controversial topic.

Contrary to Sanders and Fackre, Nash did an excellent job refuting both inclusivism and PME, and presented his case for restrictivism well. Though I don't agree totally with Nash's restrictivism (since I hold to unlimited atonement), he does a good job presenting a very persuasive case for the traditional evangelical understanding of the destinies of the unevangelized. Sanders' inclusivism leads to the heresy of works-salvation (unbelievers who positively respond to God's light and walk in His ways will be saved even without knowledge of Christ). Such heresy leads to another heresy: that Christians also must do good works to earn or maintain their salvation. His interpretation of Romans 2 on pp. 46-7 is horrible (he follows the interpretation of the "new perspective" that Paul was not opposing Jewish works-salvation but Jewish nationalism). ... Overall, a good book for those who want to be convinced of the truthfulness of restrictivism.

This biography succeeds in its evenhanded portrayal of John Wayne. No doubt some will criticize it because Davis doesn't spend his time eschewing Wayne's politically incorrect opinions, but neither does the author lionize Wayne the man. What you have left is a concise and readable 400 page biography that covers all the movies and all the wives. Davis gives his opinions as to why the Wayne legend still survives, and what his fellow actors thought of him way back when.

Interesting is the story behind the making of the ALAMO, a film he produced, directed and starred in, the subsequent Oscar campaign, and the aftermath. Also interesting is Wayne's relationship with director John Ford, whom he loved, and their disagreements.

Though very in-depth in explaining each movie John Wayne appeared, the book lacks somewhat in explaining who John Wayne was. In comparison, Donald Dewey's recent biography of Jimmy Stewart gives the reader a more detailed examination of Stewart than Ronald Davis does of Wayne. Ronald Davis also relies too much on the self-centered Pilar Wayne, the third Mrs. John Wayne, for anectdotal information. Davis's use of interviews with Harry Carey, Jr. are quite valuable and illuminating. It's a shame that Davis didn't thoroughly interview other actors who shared the screen with Duke, including Ron Howard, about whom Duke thought highly or Kim Darby (Mattie in True Grit), who didn't like the Duke (remember, True Grit was filmed in 1968). Mr. Davis does an excellent job explaining Duke Wayne's desert years in the thirties doing one-reel westerns. One has to admire Wayne's persistance. One note Pilar Wayne reveals through Ronald Davis that puts Wayne in a very bad light and has changed my personal views toward him to the strongly negative, was Duke Wayne's insistance that a pregnant Pilar get an abortion. The baby was inconvenient as Duke was in the divorce court with number two wife Chata in a highly charged divorce battle. The baby was killed but Duke Wayne received a fairly good divorce settlement. A conservative icon, when the chips were down, was capable of a selfish, dishonest, sordid, dirty act. The Duke was a great actor and icon but was not a good person. He was not a great American.

--Derek Leaberry

This is a richly detailed bibliography of J.R.R. Tolkien's writings. (Keep that in mind-- this is not a bibliography of Tolkien criticism or scholarship-- only of Tolkien's own works). Each edition of each work is described in careful detail-- subtle distinctions in the cover, title page, etc. are noted as are variations in spelling, typography, errata and corrections. To be honest, I'm not sure how relevant this work is for the average Tolkien fan-- or even for the Tolkien scholar. It will certainly be useful for book collectors, used/rare booksellers, book appraisers, and others who are interested in the book itself as a physical object)-- but I think there's very little of interest here fans interested in broadening their understanding of Tolkien's fiction or for scholars interested in writing about it. Because of its very limited, very specific utility, I can't really justify a high rating for this. Don't get me wrong-- for what it is, it's thorough and quite excellent. But, I just don't think it's all that *useful* of a book to anyone but a small handful of bibliophiles

Although this rather pricey work is intended for booksellers, collectors, and librarians rather than for the general public, I believe that just about anyone who is interested in the writing and production of Tolkien's great works will find much here that is both informative and interesting.

I don't really know how many stars to give this book. When it was originally published, it would have deserved four or five stars. Now, to be frank, it only deserves one star if you are interested in Tolkien's languages as such. Well, let's make it two stars, shall we?
When this book appeared in the late seventies, it was about as good as it could be. The authors were competent and tried to analyze the entire available corpus. However, TONS of new material about Tolkien's languages would be published in the eighties and the nineties. Why, this book even predates the Silmarillion!
The real revolution in Tolkienian linguistics occurred in 1987, about a decade after _Introduction_ was published. Then Christopher Tolkien published the all-important source document "The Etymologies", his late father's main listing of Elvish vocabulary, in the History of Middle-earth book _The Lost Road_. Almost every analysis of Tolkien's languages predating this publication was rendered instantly obsolete.However good and plausible the theories set out in _Introduction_ were when this book first appeared, almost everything has now been obsoleted. Even in the cases where the theories actually turned out to be correct, a present-day student would want to know that this info is indeed "Tolkien fact" and not post-Tolkien speculation. At least 80 % of what we now know about Tolkien's invented languages was quite unknown when _Introduction_ was written and published. I maintain a Tolkien-linguistic web-site, Ardalambion, attempting to present more up-to-date analyses. But even now, very much of Tolkien's linguistic material remains unpublished, and it will probably be decades before all the sources are available and any "definite" presentation of Tolkien's languages can be attempted. I, for one, would be very hesitant to publish anything on paper in the meantime.
Just about the only part of _Introduction_ that has not been hopelessly outdated is the discussion of the two main writing systems, the Tengwar and the Cirth. Yet the info in this section is merely a rather more readable presentation of the very dense descriptions provided by Tolkien in Appendix E of the _Lord of the Rings_ itself. Even this section of _Introduction_ is no longer a "complete" discussion, since much material about yet another Elvish writing system -- the Sarati of Rúmil -- was published only this year (2002).

this text is very interesting. it covers the linguistics of the languages of tolkien very well, and is trade-paper published. i like it a lot. however, as the other reviewer pointed out, it predates silmarillion and needs to be updated drastically.

Not for the general reader, this is a collection of essays written by American linguists on the languages of Middle-earth and their history, as can be deuced from TLOTR. It's often degree-level stuff and will go right over the head of anyone without a keen interest in philology. Although it's truly astounding how much detail is uncovered and the standard of scholarship is always rigorous (even despite the odd nutter insisting that TLOTR is actual, literal history), it predates the Silmarillion and all the subsequent books so an update or a new work is desperately needed. Anyone?

This author tried, but I'm afraid the book is now somewhat obsolete with the publication of new linguistic information in Christopher Tolkien's editions.

I faithfully copied down the tengwar (in my rather bad handwriting) and the Quenya conjugations, though I have no conception if the latter are really right. I noticed that mutation (the change of an initial letter, as Balrog -- i Malrog) isn't ever mentioned, that I could find. In addition, of Elvish languages, only Quenya and Sindarin really get mentioned -- again, some of the more obscure languages were unknown to the public until the History of Middle-Earth was published. Interesting issues, such as the existence of Exilic Noldorin (I'm a believer in this!) weren't available yet for the author to discuss.

I was interested to find that the language of Rohan is really Anglo-Saxon letter for letter.

Because it's dated, this is hard to recommend, though one has to appreciate the work the author did.

It's a pretty good dictionary if you want to find out what somthing is in the lord of the rings books or somthing similar, but if you want to find out about the language and how to write it or speak it, you might as well pick up the Return of The King Appendix E and look at that. If you want to know good info about the language, search the internet. A good middle earth dictionary is the Complete Guide to middle Earth by Robert Foster. All in All, this is not a very good book.

The languages of Tolkien's Middle Earth is a great book. I was particularly impressed with the Elvish to English and English to Elvish dictionaries. It tells a lot about Tolkien and the early formations of his ideas. It's a worthwhile book.