Scan barcode
leesmyth's review against another edition
4.0
Dr Flieger is lively and interesting, as always. I did find myself strongly resisting her take on the scene at Mt Doom where Sam sees Frodo as "the dear master of his sweet days in the Shire." She says: "This is wishful thinking. The view is through Sam's eyes and Sam is blinded by love and hope. Frodo is not what he was. He is not the same, nor will he ever be." She focuses on Frodo as failure, broken and maimed, and diminished, broken and broken down.
There's truth to this, for sure, but it's not the whole story. Frodo has been restored to something much more like his prior Shire self, in many respects (even if only temporarily). Sam is not wrong to notice that Frodo has regained a large measure of peace (his inner struggle with the Ring has ended, his burden has been relieved, and he is peacefully resigned to his assumed imminent death); of virtue (he is no longer a stage villain seeking domination of others); of human warmth (he is no longer monomanically fixated on the Ring and can now remember and experience ordinary emotions of affection and gratitude); and of broader perception (again, he is no longer obsessed with the Ring to exclusion of all else). In all these ways, he is much more himself than he has been.
Of course Frodo is not unchanged, and Dr Flieger is correct that he is permanently broken. Sam cannot see that Frodo is broken and will never be whole again -- but not necessarily because he is blinded by love and hope. It's the kind of thing that manifests itself over time, and it's just too early to know the long-term effects. Sam also cannot see that Frodo's peace is only temporary, but he's right if he sees Frodo's current peace.
But then again, in some ways, Frodo has changed for the better; he is wiser, more virtuous and more compassionate, and more humble. And I'm not sure Sam sees this either at the moment of recognizing him as the "dear master of the sweet days of the Shire."
There's truth to this, for sure, but it's not the whole story. Frodo has been restored to something much more like his prior Shire self, in many respects (even if only temporarily). Sam is not wrong to notice that Frodo has regained a large measure of peace (his inner struggle with the Ring has ended, his burden has been relieved, and he is peacefully resigned to his assumed imminent death); of virtue (he is no longer a stage villain seeking domination of others); of human warmth (he is no longer monomanically fixated on the Ring and can now remember and experience ordinary emotions of affection and gratitude); and of broader perception (again, he is no longer obsessed with the Ring to exclusion of all else). In all these ways, he is much more himself than he has been.
Of course Frodo is not unchanged, and Dr Flieger is correct that he is permanently broken. Sam cannot see that Frodo is broken and will never be whole again -- but not necessarily because he is blinded by love and hope. It's the kind of thing that manifests itself over time, and it's just too early to know the long-term effects. Sam also cannot see that Frodo's peace is only temporary, but he's right if he sees Frodo's current peace.
But then again, in some ways, Frodo has changed for the better; he is wiser, more virtuous and more compassionate, and more humble. And I'm not sure Sam sees this either at the moment of recognizing him as the "dear master of the sweet days of the Shire."
lizshayne's review
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
It's always fun when you can't decide whether to tag something theory or theology.
I really appreciate Flieger's work as a scholar of Tolkien and what she does here in unpacking the way that Tolkien uses light in particular as many things ranging from enlightenment to brightening the world to the methods by which we see and are seen and how that shapes the Silmarillion.
It's really good. I'm not sure how it lands if you aren't also reading Silm alongside it or if you aren't constantly thinking about the world through the lens of Tolkien's dualisms.
Anyway, when someone gets bored, write me a paper on Rebbe Nachman, the Rav, and Tolkien because there is definitely some theological *there* there in the use of polarities.
I really appreciate Flieger's work as a scholar of Tolkien and what she does here in unpacking the way that Tolkien uses light in particular as many things ranging from enlightenment to brightening the world to the methods by which we see and are seen and how that shapes the Silmarillion.
It's really good. I'm not sure how it lands if you aren't also reading Silm alongside it or if you aren't constantly thinking about the world through the lens of Tolkien's dualisms.
Anyway, when someone gets bored, write me a paper on Rebbe Nachman, the Rav, and Tolkien because there is definitely some theological *there* there in the use of polarities.
nwhyte's review
4.0
http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2494949.html
Flieger's Tolkien analysis was recommended to me last year, and this is her most popular book (also seems to be the only one available in ebook format). I found it very interesting. I was less convinced by her strong thesis, that Tolkien's core message is to do with splintered light v darkness, but rather more so by her incidental detail, that when choosing words Tolkien was very aware of their Indo-European roots and some of his choices of phrase particularly need to be understood in that light. She does have some good evidence, notably the Silmarils and the undoubted intellectual and personal links between Tolkien and Owen Barfield who had ideas along the lines, but I think there is so much going on in Tolkien's work taht it can't really be reduced to just this theme (and I thought her treatment of Tolkien's own personality was a bit awkward).
It's rather dated - the first edition is from 1983, and perhaps is an attempt to explain the Silmarillion; the second edition, from 2003, draws rather less on the History of Middle-Earth, which had all been published by then, than I would have expected. Also absent is any mention of how the light/dark good/evil dichotomies might be read in terms of Tolkien's attitudes to race, which feels like a big omission.
Flieger's Tolkien analysis was recommended to me last year, and this is her most popular book (also seems to be the only one available in ebook format). I found it very interesting. I was less convinced by her strong thesis, that Tolkien's core message is to do with splintered light v darkness, but rather more so by her incidental detail, that when choosing words Tolkien was very aware of their Indo-European roots and some of his choices of phrase particularly need to be understood in that light. She does have some good evidence, notably the Silmarils and the undoubted intellectual and personal links between Tolkien and Owen Barfield who had ideas along the lines, but I think there is so much going on in Tolkien's work taht it can't really be reduced to just this theme (and I thought her treatment of Tolkien's own personality was a bit awkward).
It's rather dated - the first edition is from 1983, and perhaps is an attempt to explain the Silmarillion; the second edition, from 2003, draws rather less on the History of Middle-Earth, which had all been published by then, than I would have expected. Also absent is any mention of how the light/dark good/evil dichotomies might be read in terms of Tolkien's attitudes to race, which feels like a big omission.
More...