<story><title>W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring</title><url>https://lithub.com/read-w-h-audens-1954-review-of-the-fellowship-of-the-ring/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>wolverine876</author><text>Tolkien wrote the essential story - &lt;i&gt;for our time&lt;/i&gt;: An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them up, reminding them of who they are and their strength rousing them to action (the scene with Theoden is a great example).&lt;p&gt;How could Tolkien, in the 1940s and 1950s, write a book for the post-2016 era? Remember what he saw as he wrote it: An evil force that heavily used propaganda to spread their horrible ideas, and masses of people not only in Germany or Italy, but the rest of Europe and the US, refusing to acknowledge or oppose the reality of the evil, the grim future; and many even supporting it.&lt;p&gt;Tolkien arguably turned it into a myth for future generations, like the real-life Trojan War was turned (eventually) into the Iliad and Odyssey.</text></comment>
<story><title>W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring</title><url>https://lithub.com/read-w-h-audens-1954-review-of-the-fellowship-of-the-ring/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>zabzonk</author><text>I had not read this review before, and I was surprised how positive it was. I can&amp;#x27;t imagine Auden and Tolkein would have got on well. But they both loved countryside, and so maybe I am wrong.</text></comment>