Jason Fisher

This is, I think, a tale of the good, the bad, and the ugly. In the spirit of charity, let's start with the ugly want work upward to the good.

So what's ugly? In a phrase: Thompson motifs.

This book, as its subtitle says, is a series of essays on the sources used by J. R. R. Tolkien in his writings. Now it should be said that source criticism is a very complex thing, covered briefly in the first couple of essays in this book. These are basically sound but hardly sufficient to understand the field. For there are many ways to use a source. You can simply quote it at length, as Livy quoted Polybius or or the gospels of Matthew and Luke quote Mark. You can paraphrase (at any of several levels) or epitomize, as the books of Chronicles paraphrase and epitomize the books of Samuel and Kings. Or you can simply take particular elements from various sources and assemble them together, as one makes a collage out of tiles or a bridge out of girders. In such as case, the result uses the smaller elements but is of different kind. A bridge is not a girder!

Similarly, a fairy tale is not a motif, but it is made of motifs. Motifs are such things as a dragon, or a king in disguise, or a magic ring.

And, guess what, folks: There is an index of these things. It's by the late, great Stith Thompson (expanding on an earlier work by Antti Aarne). The index of motifs alone is almost 900 pages. So Dragons are motif B11 and following; the King in Disguise is K1812, and so forth. All of these are based on actual folk material.

And if you're going to look at the writings of a folklorist -- and J. R. R. Tolkien was a folklorist, even if it wasn't his profession -- before you get all wound up in looking for literary sources, you need to look for the folklore motifs. And nowhere in this book do we see that. Folklore is Tolkien's biggest source, and instead of studying that, we get silliness about the history of Constantinople and the like.

As I say, UGLY.

If you set that aside, and relabel the book "Tolkien and the Study of His LITERARY Sources, even though they're not as important as his folklore sources" (which would be a good title), then the quality is mixed. Librán-Moreno's attempt to squeeze out parallels from Tolkien to the history of the Byzantine Empire is more forced than a high-pressure water hose; every parallel it adduces is found in folklore, and the chronology doesn't work. I eventually stopped even trying to read that essay. (It's probably the worst written as well as the most wrong-headed.) I wasn't too impressed by the links to the "Golden Legend," either -- the parallels are there, but the Golden Legend is itself folklore, so is the Legend the source, or the folklore? I'd guess the latter.

On the other hand, Thomas Honegger's look at the Rohirrim strikes me as good work, and Kristine Larsen's "Sea Birds and Morning Stars" brings out some classical legends that I wouldn't have thought of. John Rateliffe's look at the works of H. Rider Haggard is clearly valuable if perhaps pushed a little too far (I'm far less sure of Mark T. Hooker's link to John Buchan's works; again, that all looks as if folklore could be the common element).

So: If you don't know anything about source criticism, this might lead you to bigger and better things. And if it doesn't, there is still useful material here. But some of it shouldn't be included, and this is pitifully far from being a study of all of Tolkien's sources. Bottom line: I learned several useful things from this book. But I spend about as much time being irritated as being enlightened. Your patience may vary.… (plus d'informations)

I found it slightly ironic that, in view of Tolkien's expressed views on source criticism, the editor found enough genuinely enthusiastic scholarly Tolkien fans to compile this book. I was pleased to find this dilemma directly and, I judged, validly addressed. Putting that out of the way, I felt free to enjoy the book and I enjoyed it a great deal. Most of the essays were quite insightful, which I found a refreshing change from other Tolkien criticism I have read in the past. My favourite essay was Thomas Honegger's "The Rohirrim: Anglo-Saxons on Horseback?" which was extremely enlightening and very readable. The essay on Rider Haggard was also excellent; I have promised myself to reread all the Rider Haggard books on my shelves as soon as possible. Although I'm neither a completist Tolkien fan (I've read LotR many times but very little of what was published after the author's death) nor in any sense a scholar (BA in Classical Chinese with a minor in linguistics, 1980, marked the end of my formal education), I found the book as a whole quite accessible and, as I hinted in my comments above, it is an inspiration to further reading - which is one of the best things a book could be.… (plus d'informations)

This is not light reading. If you've only seen the movies, or read The Hobbit and the trilogy, you'll probably be lost. I thought I was fairly well read in Tolkein material, but some of the essays assume a familiarity with The Silmarillion and the Book of Lost Tales which I don't have. (It will also help if the reader has at least a superficial acquaintance with the history and languages of Early Medieval Europe, the ancient Middle East, and the British Empire.) That said, I enjoyed some of the essays, and learned a good bit about Tolkein and his work.… (plus d'informations)