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

[Huorn]

Day did OK on races like the Ents and Huorns, but he really messes up on Dragons. He draws a lot of assumptions not found in Tolkien's work. I haven't tried his chapter on Orcs yet. Wonder how bad that one is? Authors that compile Tolkiens information or write using information Tolkien uses would be good reading.

Fork Beard wrote:

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

That is practically a flame. People are entitled to their opinions here without getting shouted at.

[brownjenkins]

It's also important that "what the author intended" was something that changed throughout his entire life. Many people canonize certain Tolkien works; most often the Hobbit and LoTR. But this is only because they were the first published. He had wanted to publish his "lost tales" much earlier, and if he had, he may have found himself locked into a much different history than what the LoTR and appendices spell out, and later the Silmarillion.

Basically, all right or wrong has to be put in the perspective of the Tolkien's lifetime, or, better yet, see the whole story is an evolving tale with nothing really set in stone. Plus, it's become a mythology that's even bigger than the author, so there is really no "wrong" as long as it's enjoyable. It isn't the bible, I hope.

As far as what to read, Val's suggestions are good as well as Fork's and anything else that interests you.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I would add Tom Shippey's books:

The Road to Middle-Earth

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

Hey ho GM! I would too. I didn't mention them or some other really good ones last night because it seemed Gil was interested in something even more basic in terms of a guide. But I do think Shippey's books are must reads as well.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Entwife_Oak

Fork Beard wrote:

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

That is practically a flame. People are entitled to their opinions here without getting shouted at.

No it isn't. I'm sorry if you've taken umbrage but it certainly isn't a flame, not anymore so than your own comment. And as one of those who has published on Tolkien, I hope you don't mind if I take a little offense at being characterized as "unreliable" and not worth reading because I'm not CT without you actually having ever read what I've written.

[brownjenkins]

Don't feel bad, some people call CT "unreliable".

In the end, it goes back to what I said eariler, Tolkien himself is "unreliable". By fictionally presenting his story as somewhat of a "real" fantasy history of the world, he set himself into a corner where he lost the ability to reinterpret parts of his story after some of it was published, even when he came up with better ideas later in life.

But that's what keeps the discussion going.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Don't feel bad, some people call CT "unreliable".

In the end, it goes back to what I said eariler, Tolkien himself is "unreliable". By fictionally presenting his story as somewhat of a "real" fantasy history of the world, he set himself into a corner where he lost the ability to reinterpret parts of his story after some of it was published, even when he came up with better ideas later in life.

But that's what keeps the discussion going.

Excellent points Brownjenkins, and points I certainly agree with. But I think it goes beyond Tolkien not being able to be consistent in his back stories for LoTR and Silm etc. He never quite got down the nature of evil. He is pretty good on the nature of evil beings like Sauron, Melkor, and Saruman; but never quite so sure about how to explain orcs as a purely evil race, nor their origins (though the orc characters tend to be some of the more interesting in many ways). Nor how to explain the nature of an evil THING. Some of these things simply do not fit with Tolkien's stated Catholic world view, and its up to us interpreters (by which I mean all of us who write on Tolkien whether in print or on a forum such as this or who make films or write fanfic) to try and figure questions like this one out: and we can not simply boil it down to "using what TOlkien wrote".

FB

[brownjenkins]

That's very true, especially if you read his early versions of the backstory in lost tales. It was very much based upon Norse mythology and motivations. When he returned to it much later, he tried to "christianify" the story to a large extent, but there were certain incompatible features he could never quite work out, like the responsibility issues involving the valar and middle earth. Originally they were more or less godlike participants in arda. Later they became something like angelic guardians, but it didn't quite mesh with the storyline he had already put forward with evils like Melkor and Sauron being allowed to exist in middle earth.

[Butterbeer]

well the legendary entwife is kinda correct ..it is "almost" a flame ...
though i have no particular instinct towards it one way or t'other personally i think the "almost" is fair enough.

hey, so what have you published Forkbeard?
I'd be interested to read it one day!

I always recommend farmer giles of Ham personally for the serious learned Tolkienite ...

often overlooked this little gem in my book...



Evil eh? Well, at best Forkbeard that is a tricky premise from day one, but again i refer to someone else who said (probably somewhere else ) that the LOTR as the real foundation block to it all, was written very much as a translation from the hobbit Red book of Westmarch.

I also agree in the main with BJ ... how can it be seen as a thing alone, when it was and indeed in us ( as he points out - rather like the works of Shakespeare) still IS, evolving.

But that of course is the greatest compliment, a work living on and growing.


I respect the knowledge of others, but i always come at it from this perspective, quotes and whatnot are fine in themselves, as BJ says ..like to the BIBLE, yet like that there are many equally challenging or debatable counter quotes etc... else why would the world be so rich?

A dead end is a dead end, is a dead end but a world rich in detail and questions to shape and envisage respectfully drawn from the works of the original author .... and new theory and new perspectives are ours to shape and question.

they will always be to a degree up for debate, and we should not be arrogant in our arguments thus, but it is now ours to grow and enrich

and long live that say i!

best, BB

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

well the legendary entwife is kinda correct ..it is "almost" a flame ...
though i have no particular instinct towards it one way or t'other personally i think the "almost" is fair enough.

Thanks for your comments below, with which I largely agree. But I don't see it as even in the same universe as a flame, but rather as an accurate description of comments such as the following:

"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..."

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

"Non Tolkien sources are unreliable "

I can not but see this comments as AGAINST (anti) scholars who write books and articles on Tolkien, like Robert Foster, Tom Shippey, Karen Fonstad etc: these scholars and their works have been dismissed as "unreliable", "unreadable", and unnecessary, Are you and the fabled entwfe arguing that these are endorsements of such scholarship? Or perhaps neutral statements somehow? I don't see how they can be anything but taken as against those who write on Tolkien: the advice given by 2 of the 3 respondents was don't bother to read anything but JRRT and CT. How is that in favor of Tolkien scholarship? How is it less a flame of Tolkien scholarship and scholars as a class than my comment. Neither was aimed at a particular individual, both were addressed to a class of activity. Sorry, I just don't see my comment as either "kinda" a flame or "almost" a flame or anything in the flame category.

hey, so what have you published Forkbeard?
I'd be interested to read it one day!

I always recommend farmer giles of Ham personally for the serious learned Tolkienite ...

ME TOO! Love Giles!! And Leaf by Niggle!

FB

[Butterbeer]

er... well for me it went no further than pointing out the "almost" ... to me that was the important part!

'pends how ya read it in tone i guess ... but i really don't see it as an issue at all

thanks for the pm ... me damn box is full again ..otherwise i'd reply!


busy huh?

Sure, send me a copy .... there's been talk of a mini series on Tolkien for ages anyway ... which is your best side?

best, BB

[Earniel]

I wouldn't immediately advice to avoid the Bestiary by David Day altogether. In effect all books not written by Tolkien himself have to be read with some caution, for while only Tolkien knew his own mind and stories best, as is said even he made mistakes in remembering the vast tales and details. And so perhaps the Bestiary's main point of interest should not be the correct detail of the text, but rather the art in it.

The Bestiary was my very first encounter with Tolkien's work and filled me much with wonder, both by art and text. Even while it wasn't until many years afterwards that I read the Hobbit and LoTR that I made the connextion about which world the Bestiary was, it still holds a special place for me. It even inspired me and served as a reference for my graduation piece about dragons in saterday art school.

True, much of my argument is sentimental but I wouldn't let the number of filled gaps determine the worth of the book. For it still holds a lot of information and it did have the first complete map of Arda I ever saw (regardless of the wrong shape of Númenor in it.)

I would certainly recommend The Atlas to Middle Earth by Karen Fonstad, which is a gorgeous book. I haven't encountered any errors yet, but I haven't inspected the book to such a degree. In any case, it does provide lovely visuals (yes, art, here I go again) to places, battles and whatnot.

[Butterbeer]

is that the yellow Tolkien's bestiary with ..er.. a dragon on the cover?

yeah, don't take it as the bible, but some great artwork ... worthy for that alone ...


...it's like any media or source

*winks at Jammi and Doc*

[jammi567]

I'm supprised no-one mentioned the 3rd edition of 'The Complete Tolkien Companion' by J.E.A. Tyler. I've just got it today, and have read a very small bit of it, but it's very informative and complete.