This book is a good start for those interested in the basics of Tolkien's mythological influences. It is simply written and easy to understand for the average reader. However, for those who are looking for a more in-depth analysis of Tolkien's use of myth and relation to the more obscure texts the Professor worked with, this very well might be a rehashing of already known material. Some attention is, appropriately, given to the universality if certain mythic themes, characters, and occurences.

This is not, as the reviewer below suggests, a book for "die-hard fans". Rather, it is a book for Tolkien *scholars*. Most Tolkien scholars, of course, are fans-- and a good number of fans are also scholars-- but the two sets are not identical.
Essentially, this book consists of the proceedings of (i.e. the papers presented at) the 1992 Conference on Tolkien that took place at Oxford on the 100th anniversary of his birth. It comprises several dozen short papers on a variety of Tolkien related subjects. The papers are divided into ten major sections: 1. Recollection and Remembrance, 2. Sources and Influence, 3. The Lord of the Rings, 4. The Silmarillion, 5. Linguistics and Lexicography, 6. Response and Reaction, 7. Tolkien Studies, 8. Middle-Earth Studies, 9. The Inklings, 10. Flights of Fancy. Some sections are much longer than others, and a few papers that were presented are not included because no written copy was submitted.

Of the various papers, a few are by renknowned scholars of Tolkien-- philologist Tom Shippey, bibliographer Wayne Hammond, literary scholar Verlyn Flieger, etc. There are also a few other 'surprises' by folks who are clearly among the up-and-coming crop of new Tolkien scholars. There is, however, some non-scholarly material mixed in here. Most of really kooky stuff is in the last section, butto be honest, quite a few of the purportedly scholarly articles in the other sections have an amateurish character to them-- both in style and substance (And, of course, the reminscences in part 1 aren't especially scholarly themselves... although they are still valuable to the Tolkien scholar for their anecdotal/historical value)
Of the various papers here, the most successful are those in the sections on Sources and Influences and on Linguistics. Of these, the most insightful are Chris Seeman's article on Tolkien's relation to, and reconceptualization of Romantic literary theory (a very astute piece of intellectual history) and T.A. Shippey's discussion of Tolkien and the Gawain-poet (i.e. the author of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"). Sadly, those works which address Tolkien's fiction directly-- i.e. those in the sections on the Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion sections-- tend to be on the weaker side., while those in the rather vaguely defined sections (i.e. "Tolkien Studies" & "Middle-Earth Studies")are very weak indeed. The two exceptions to this are Hammond's "Tolkien and the Critics" (which perhaps ought to be called "Tolkien and the Reviewers" since he's really speaking about reviews that appeared in newspapers), and Anders Stenstrom's "A Mythology? For England?" (a careful piece of analysis that shows that Tolkien never appears to have really used the phrase 'mythology for England' to describe his fiction, but rather indicates that this overused catchphrase seems to be the result of Humprey Carpenter's conflation of some other references). A big disappointment here, though, is Shippey's paper on "Tolkien as Post-War Author", which just seems somewhat thin and vague-- a real surprise considering the strength of his other article here and his book _The Road to Middle-Earth_.

This conference took place nearly ten years before the time I write this review-- but it does reveal several things about the state of Tolkien studies then and now. The first of these is that Tolkien scholarship is still strongly rooted (peraps too strongly?) in a biographical approach. As one looks at the footnotes in this volume, one discovers reference after reference to Tolkien's letters, to Carpenter's biography, and to works like "On Fairy Stories", in which Tolkien outlines his theories of literature. There are very few footnotes for references to The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. (Also, I think it is no accident that those sections on LotR and the Silmarillion happen to be the shortest and the weakest ones in the book-- or that there is no section devoted to _The Hobbit_ at all!_) This seems to me to be a bit of a shame-- as Tolkien's literary legacy is far more important and profound than his thoughts on philology or his theories of authorship, or his trip to Holland... and it also seems to me that more effort ought to be spend discussing Tolkien's fiction on its own terms, as works that can stand on their own, without such an overwhelming focus on matters of authorial intent and self-interpretation.
When all's said and done, this is certainly a worthwhile book for the Tolkien scholar-- or a research library-- to acquire. Not everything in it will be equally useful, but it's certainly better than a lot of other collections of Tolkien scholarship.

(actually, 3 and 1/2 stars)

A somewhat dated book. This is much more a portrait of the man than a critical assessment of the then unpublished Silmarillion. Kilby states he didn't believe it will be completed. That turned out to be true. There was a chapter Kilby wrote for the book, but it was cut because Christopher Tolkien thought it gave away to much plot of the book, and Kilby, wanting to maintain cordial relations with the family, abided by Christopher's wishes. This book probably had a short publication life, mainly because it was published in 1976, and The Silmarillion was published in 1977. This was mainly cashing in on the anticipation of The Silmarillion. So if you buy this expecting a critical work of The Silmarillion, don't buy it. If you are looking for a charming, thin book on Tolkien, buy it.

Not, by any means, that it is a bad book. A very notable feature is it also talked about the then unpublished C. S. Lewis short story about a man born blind and then getting his eyesight back by surgery, he doesn't understand the concept of light, thinking it a solid substance. It sounds something of a tribute to MacDonald's musing on lights as emphasized in his faerie tales. Or perhaps it was insipiered by that (I just reread his short tale of Nysteris and Photogen in The Day Boy and the Night Girl). It is different than the story in some respects, and Hooper felt that Tolkien probably was told a version and had not read the story. The story is "The Man Born Blind" in THE DARK TOWER AND OTHER STORIES. This book also has contains comments on Smith of Wootten Major. It is a good source of information, and a charming book in its own right. It provides a "distant glimpse of that promised work", referring to The Silmarillion, as the blurb would put it. If you are a Tolkien admirer, it is worth a read

This book is one of the worse I ever see representing the mathematics for physics, the mathematics and the physics both was not explained as it should, the authors are not familiar at all with the concept of physics make their material in the book related to this subject unclear and vague. The book has too many gaps as I see it has too many jumps when a physical phenomena represented using mathematics. Physical concept was most of the times not even mention, and I believe that the author should stick only with mathematics since they try to explain physics they don't really familiar with.

The book skip too many steps and most of the time, the equation is presented without explanation...Don't waste money.

The book contains an introduction to a variety of topics in applied partial differential equations presented from the modern perspective. The emphasis is on classical equations of mathematical physics and their applications. The authors succeed in blending general results, like existence, uniqueness, and regularity, with various methods of constructing explicit solutions. Among the highlights is the lucid introduction to free boundary problems. The book is invaluable for any practitioner using PDEs to solve real world problems.

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.

Neimark's "Myth Maker: J.R.R. Tolkien" is a biography of Tolkien the man, and makes no serious attempt at literary criticism or interpretation. That's fine, of course-- but the problem is that it's not a very *good* biography by any measure. Certainly, Neimark makes no points, raises no issues, and consults no sources that haven't been used in the much more insightful biographies by Daniel Grotta-Kurska (an unauthorized biography and Humphrey Carpenter (the Tolkien estate approved bio). Really, this seems seems to be a watered-down version of those biographies (more Carpenter's than Grotta-Kurska's, actually), briefly summarizing Tolkien's life and writings and doing so in fairly simplistic language. The low level of the prose, the simplistic presentation of Tolkien's life, and the presence of several illustrations inclines to be believe that this is a book intended for children (I'd say it was aimed at kids between 10-14... those who are old enough to read the Hobbit and Tolkien's other fiction on their own.). I'm not really sure what even Tolkien fans of this age will get out of this book though-- and I think any kids who are seriouslyinterested in Tolkien enough to want to read about him as a man would much prefer to find out *real information* in one of more substantive biographies.

Tolkien's life was great and this shows how he spent his free time. It shows his life from beginning to end with hardly anything missing.

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.

The cover art represents a scene in which a hobbit like myself would find comfortable. That is where the pleasure ends.

Hobbits of the Shire (and of Bree) owe a great debt of gratitude to Professor J.R.R. Tolkien for allowing Big People to see and appreciate our world and our lives. This volume shows no respect to the Professor at all, and by extension, shows us no respect as well.

Hobbits understand family and family life. Hobbits understand privacy. Mr. Grotta apparently understands neither, preferring to denigrate the Professor and his family for not providing access to family papers. I'm sorry, Mr. Grotta, the Professor's family has chosen an authorized biographer -- and you are not it. Accept that fact, and make contributions (if you have any) in other areas of Tolkien lore.

I urge all hobbits to stay away from this volume, and suggest that the purchase of Mr. Carpenter's books "JRR Tolkien", "The Inklings", and "The Letters of JRR Tolkien" would be a wiser use of money.

Mr. Grotta is definitely NOT invited to tea.

I must say that as a college student I would like to have my 15 dollars returned to me from the purchase of this book. Although there are some interesting "facts" in this book, it is largely not credible. I believe Grotta used questionable resources in compiling this biography which Tolkien himself refutes in many of his letters. i.e. Grotta writes of Tolkien's garage work shop on Sandfield Rd., which in "The Letters of..." Tolkien himself states that he "...had never written any literary matter in it..." and that the room was only used by his secretary. Grotta was clearly perturbed at his lack of "access" and seemed to want to portray one of the most prolific writers in history as a "lazy" individual. Obviously Grotta has never balanced a teaching post at Oxford, an ill wife, several children, along with creating one of the most fully imagined "secondary worlds" ever created. Hats of to all things Middle Earth and Grotta back to the drawing board.

I'm ordering a second copy for a dear friend. It's an easy read but is perfect for introducing someone who knows little of JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, others. I paged through the "authorized biography" (Grotta is not the "authorized" Tolkien biographer) at the bookstore and my first impression was that the "authorized"version was a bit verbose and certainly not as elegant; I also appreciate biographies by authors not given special access by the family -- one always wonders where allegiances lie. If you are already quite familiar with "Tolk" this book probably has little to offer; but as a first book for someone who has been caught up in the recent movie trilogy, this is where I would start.

This is the third full-length biography of Tolkien, after Humphrey Carpenter's and Daniel Grotta's. Carpenter's is accurate, well-written, and insightful. Grotta's is none of these, and White's reminds me much of Grotta's. The writing is abysmally clunky, and the text is riddled with completely amateur factual errors on every level, from confusing Dorothy Sayers with Dorothy Parker to inflating Tolkien's discomfort with Charles Williams's work into a seething personal hatred for which there is no contemporary evidence: rather the opposite. White's task, as the title suggests, was to analyze Tolkien's work as well as to recount his life, but there is no literary criticism as such in this book. White starts off his analysis badly by declaring that "the published letters relate almost nothing of his private life," which could only be thought true by someone disappointed at not finding the "personal demons" and "inner drives" (his words) that he thinks Tolkien ought to have. Accordingly, he supplies them. For instance, White reduces Tolkien's motivation for writing his mythology into a simple Freudian longing for his lost mother, and then adds insult to injury by claiming that this oversimplification takes nothing away from Tolkien's achievement. White shows no understanding of what made Tolkien tick, and replaces him with a textbook psychological construct.
Parts of the book are not this bad. White is less digressive than Grotta, and he shows at least a minimal knowledge of Tolkien's posthumously-published works. He concludes with a rousing defense of the value of Tolkien's work, but doesn't really engage with the criticisms. Against elitists who half-believe that popularity is a sign of worthlessness, it's no reply to emphasize Tolkien's popularity.
At one point White criticizes Tolkien for objecting to errors in a publisher's blurb. Tolkien didn't understand the publisher's publicity needs, White says. But no publisher needs to be factually inaccurate, and neither do Tolkien's biographers. This book is likely to be a source of factual and interpretive error for years to come. It adds nothing useful to Carpenter's biography, the one book all persons curious about Tolkien's life should read.

Michael White's new biography of J.R.R. Tolkien is a competently written book and people who are just now discovering Tolkien and his works will most certainly find his book most useful. BUT everyone who has read e.g. Humphrey Carpenter's landmark biography from the late 70s or the ground-breaking studies of Tom Shippey will find nothing new in it. Unfortunately, White only uses second-hand sources and has no new conclusions to offer. Moreover, his book is flawed by some truly sloppy research mistakes, such as calling Dorothy Sayers an "American" and making the Habsburgs the rulers of the "Prussian Empire" (he is clearly confusing Germany with its neighbor Austria-Hungary).
Carpenter's biography although some 25 years older is the far more substantial biography, and although White introduces more historical background material than Carpenter, his background explanations (e.g. about the First World War) are never above schoolbook level. Recommend only for Tolkien newcomers.

After seeing the movie "Lord of the Rings" I wanted to find out more aboout the man who had authored such an ambitious work of fiction. I remember for years hearing that the writing and the story were so spectacular that it was impossible to translate to the screen. I found Mr. Tolkien to be a very interesting subject and would recommend this book.