books to read and books not to read

[Gil-Galad 2.0]

I have had some people tell me that some books not writen by tolkien himself are unreliable. some of the books that came to mind were; The complete guide to middle earth by Robert Foster, the Illistrated guide to middle earth by David Day, the Atlas of middle earth, the Lord of the rings weapons and warfare by Chris Smith, and Middle earth for Dummies.
thanks for any help.

P.S. if these books are unreliable than what books should I be reading?

[Valandil]

Hi Gil-galad 2.0 - and welcome to Entmoot.

I would probably turn the question around and first ask you what you have already read.

I think if you read as much of Tolkien as you can first - you'll be able to pretty well distinguish what is reliable from the rest.

Some of these authors are trying really hard to work out what Tolkien intended. Others are trying to make a handy reference book. Others are more intent on capitalizing on the interest and making money.

I have not read books about Tolkien's works - other than by JRRT himself, or his son Christopher. At some point I may - but I find little need to right now (and little time).

Of those you mention though, I've heard others say things that I could summarize with the following:

The prevailing opinion seems to be that Robert Foster got a lot of things right (for one, I believe he came out with a First Age timeline before anything else was published - that was VERY close to what Christopher Tolkien later published from his father's notes).

The things I've read here about David Day (and seen from perusing some of his books - OK, I've perused!) - indicate that he took some things a little too far - and "filled in some gaps" with his own imagination (or maybe an outright mistake). That might be OK if he would state that he was doing so - but I don't believe that he does.

Is this helpful?

Oh yes - I do have "The Atlas of Middle Earth" - but mostly look at the pictures!

[The Telcontarion]

I would say reading the books not written by Tolkien, are unreadable indeed.

I suggest "Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-Earth," I loved that one.

Loved that one.

[Gil-Galad 2.0]

Thanks for the help I'll try to stick to J.R.R. or his son. Exept for the Atlas of middle earth pictures.

[Huorn]

Non Tolkien sources are unreliable because it is that person interpretation of Tolkien's work. Often the writer looks at Tolkien's work through a 'different lens' then what the author intended. Stick with JRR and Christopher Tolkien.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Entwife_Oak

Non Tolkien sources are unreliable because it is that person interpretation of Tolkien's work. Often the writer looks at Tolkien's work through a 'different lens' then what the author intended. Stick with JRR and Christopher Tolkien.

Wow, I come back for a quick check at the ol' Moot and I find anti-Tolkien scholarship abounding!!!!!!!!!!!! How very very sad.

While I agree that reading Tolkien's works first is important (and here I assume you are interested in LoTR and related materials) and I would read them first. Here is my suggested order:
The HObbit
LoTR AND APPENDICES!!
Humphrey Carpenter's Biography
The Letters
Silmarillion
Unfinished Tales

I can not recommend the HoME series for casual reading; it is all very interesting and worth reading, but only if you intend to become a seroius Tolkien geek.

By the same token there are some excellent books on Tolkien and his works out there, as well as some great journals that publish solid articles on aspects of Tolkien's works. I would highly recommend some of them. (Besides, isn't reading someone's post here at Entmoot or any other Tolkien forum reading someone else's interpretation? Why discuss and argue and explore the things we do if its all just useless and we should only read Tolkien and CT? Seems a contradiction to me....)

Robert Foster's Guide came out in 1974. 5 years before the Silmarillion and before UT and long before HoME. Some of what he said in 1974 was shown to be incorrect because he had access only to what was available to him in 1974 and subsequent publications have shown that Tolkien thought differently. But its still a good book.

As Val said about Day, he often fills in gaps with his own imagination of what should be there, but doesn't bother to tell you that this is what he thinks...i. e. he presents his ideas as Tolkien's ideas, and even changes some of the things Tolkien wrote. If you're a serious Tolkien scholar wannabe, Day is one to avoid.

The Atlas to Middle Earth by Karen Fonstad is a fine piece of work. I don't know that she got much wrong, she made good guesses in some cases, but the maps and pictures are excellent and well worth spending some time with.

I haven't looked at the other two you mention, so can not comment.

But if you want a "guide" to Middle Earth that is excellent and up to date, I would get myself a copy of Wayne Hammond and Christine Scull's Reader's Companion. I don't agree with everything in there either, but its a solid and sometimes inspired piece of work and very helpful I think.

Best!

FB

[GreyMouser]

I would add Tom Shippey's books:

The Road to Middle-Earth

J.R.R. Tolkien:Author of the Century

[Curubethion]

By the way, the Smith book you mentioned in the first post (Weapons and Warfare of Middle-Earth) is definitely not Tolkien canon. They took the movies and drew a lot of assumptions from them. However, the book is a very interesting read, so read it with that one caveat in mind.