Tolkien's Secret Hidden Code
 

From Amazon.com : a new book is available that exposes the answers to his greatest mysteries - "Breaking The Tolkien Code". Quoted verbatim from the web-site:

Nigh on sixty years have passed since the publication of The Lord of the Rings. Finally the answers to its greatest mysteries can be revealed. This is probably the most controversial book ever published on Tolkien's 'Great Work' and possibly one of the most important. For revealed within is Tolkien's Master Plan and his Secret Code.

Learn how Tolkien played a riddle-game with the reader leaving no less than seven – yes seven encoded puzzles purposely hidden within the text. Follow a carefully laid out cryptic path, and discover how the Professor used a veritable arsenal of literary devices to test his most avid fans. Yes, a riddle-game with the reader that would end up revealing solutions to the most argued over matters from all his works:

(a) The origin of the enigmatic Tom Bombadil and,
(b) The physical make-up of his monster – the Balrog.

Though it may sound far-fetched, and though one might feel entitled to yawn at 'yet another' secret code – this time the revelations will surprise even the most skeptical critic. Even the most dedicated scholar is likely to be startled at the strength of the evidence. For if ever anyone had a reason to insert a secret code – it was Professor Tolkien. Learn how, where, why and when; and learn how there is so much more to the masterpiece than initially meets the eye.

If I saw this in the library I might give it a read, but paying money? Not planning on it.
I can't see Tolkien being the sort to use "codes" in his works. Nothing I know of the man suggests he had any desire to hide anything from his readers.

So, it's 'answering' the age old discussions of Balrogs having wings and Tom Bombadil?

Lies. We're not going to have enough evidence to prove anything.

The *really* fascinating thing here is that if one combines the thread title with the screenname Balfrog, the letters can be rearranged as "Detects a shill referencing odd book". Coincidence? Or a clever coded message?:eek:

Seriously, Balfrog- you have made two posts, both of which consist entirely of heavy promotion for this particular book. You're not by any chance... oh, maybe the author, are you? :Merisu: If you're *not* in any way connected with this publication, then I apologise for the above. However, I do feel it's reasonable of me to raise the question.

Quite, Nerwen. Don't recall anything in the relevant volumes of HoME or any of the letters referring to anything that might support this and since the foundations of Middle Earth were created for personalpleasure more than public consumption it seems unlikely in the extreme. Tolkien wasn't a Kit Williams. Why set a puzzle and not tell anyone? It would be insane. And either he didn't tell Christopher or Christopher has supressed it. Neither scenario seems probable to me given that CRT has been editing his father's works since he kept track of the colours of dwarven hoods in the nursery. And for all the bad press he gets, I don't think anyone has accused CRT of being a d8shonorable scholar.

Well, I suspect someone, somewhere has made that accusation, though I can’t at the moment find a case on the web. I had a very critical review of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Fall of Arthur published in Amon Hen and Beyond Bree, mostly covering Arthurian matters missed by Christopher Tolkien. But Christopher Tolkien has never claimed to be an Arthurian scholar and it was not surprising to find him here at the limits of his scholarship. Arthurian studies is a morass.

I still very much respect Christopher Tolkien, in part for his readiness to admit that he has made errors in other matters.

So if I had written Breaking The Tolkien Code, I think I would go with the theory that Christopher Tolkien did not know of these anagrams buried in The Lord of the Rings. But the real problem is how unlikely the supposed anagrams are. That is the killer.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply. I was aware of every piece of criticism rather that despite having read a lot of criticism, I couldn't recall an instance of an attack of that nature. Nor do I have any issue with critical reviews which are part of the cut and thrust of the academic world. As long as not fraudulently concealed limitations as a scholar are not dishonourable, more inevitable...even if capacity for understanding were unlimited, time is not and there are so many things in the world to be interested in... hey ho.

I was thinking more of the "Gaudy Night" scenario (ironically Tolkien père disliked the book), where the supression of a thesis shattering document and its consequences are the catalyst for the drama. The scholar has enough integrity not to destroy the document and is thus incriminated.

Christopher's openess about errors is one of the factors that convince me he didn't know of a code, scheme and if he didn't know then it seems to me that claims of secret messages are delusional. But I agree that the anagrams are inherently unlikely even without the editorial context. Yet knowing that made it seem hardly worth investigating the substance.

I am totally in agreement with your post. My intent was to indicate the feelings that arose when I read it. Any statement by anyone that they don’t think that they have read anything that makes a certain accusation tends to set me searching, when I have time, for something that makes that accusation, even when I disagree with the accusation. I have found such an accusation now. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Tolkien . The pertinent remark is under 8 Sources needed and reads:

Are there any verifiable and reliable sources that demonstrate that [Christopher] Tolkien is in fact editing his father's notes rather than writing stories himself? There's a lot of uncited assumptions in that regard.--otherlleft 13:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A good question, but it applies just as much to any writer, and also to those who have written material validating that writer, and to those who are validating them, and so on without end. Remember Åke Ohlmarks, Tolkien’s Swedish translator who believed, at the end of his life, that C. S. Lewis wrote most of The Lord of the Rings, not Tolkien. See http://white-eagle.tumblr.com/post/5...he-black-magic and https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...en/-M4MzZWNXHM for two sources. In the end all one can do is use one’s own intelligence and knowledge to evaluate writers.

I read the book blurb on Amazon:

Seriously? At 248 pages, I am wondering if the print is double-spaced and includes copious illustrations to flesh it out -- perhaps blank endpapers and a frontispiece as well. This sounds more like it should be a long, rambling post on a Tolkien forum. It certainly isn't a peer-reviewed academic work. Nothing I've read from Christopher Tolkien or any Tolkien scholar like Shippey or Flieger indicates cryptic codes or arcane anagrams hidden in Tolkien's work.

The question that seems most germane here is....why? To what purpose?

But the author made a serious mistake: If he/she wanted to sell more books, then he/she should have used anagrams to show that Tolkien was an Illuminati involved in a Templar conspiracy. I am sure Tom Hanks has another movie left in him. :rolleyes:

You all know Tolkien wanted to reveal to us the location of both the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, so he wrote an epic tale just to encode his knowledge to the initiate. :rolleyes:

No, no, no. Tolkien had a Nostradamus experience, and was able to impart to the reader that Peter Jackson would one day sully his great work.
See, the Witch-king is also the Lord of the NaZgûl: NZ-- Jackson is from New Zealand! The Nazgûl were servants of the One Ring, and Jackson serves the Film Industry, the Sauron of our time. It's all so clear! :D

Inzil, I think we've stumbled upon something important here:

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/25103267.jpg

I think it's finally been cracked, Andsigil. For further evidence, it's clear that New Line Cinema can be read into Necromancer's Love Child.