Isaacs and Zimbardo assembled this earlier criticism of Lord of the Rings in 1968, essays gathered from 1955 - 1966, including explorations by C. S. Lewis, W. H. Auden, and Marion Zimmer Bradley. For this reason alone, the historically first looks at Tolkien are worthwhile reading: as an historical moment in what would soon become a cultural phenomenon.

That said, however, don't go looking for high insights or close examinations of the trilogy. Instead, each critic approaches his or her topic with broader strokes, offering "safer" claims that to many of today's readers and fans will feel completely unenlightening. Patricia Meyer Spacks spends too many pages explaining how the story is a quest for power with the Ring at its center (she goes on to say that the the reading is weak in its literary merit). W. H. Auden tells us that the trilogy has a large Quest pattern similar to many myths. 

No, I was entertained by these quaint takes on the Master of Middle Earth, reading fairly quickly through the most obvious of passages. More, though, I was satisfied to have visited an era where criticism still struggled to make sense of a work fairly new to literature, a fantasy which echoes deeply.