Tolkien scholars
 

Which scholar do you think is the best? I am very impressed by Micheal Martinez, a great scholar, but I m FAR less impressed by David Day. His maps of Arda are innacurate (especially of Valinor) to say the least and sometimes his information is false, and his pictures are poor.

Me.

Be your own Tolkien scholar. Don't read Tolkien 'companions' or 'guides', because they're almost all supplemented with conjecture or, in some cases, shameless fabrication.

Oh, and Michael Martinez' ego is enormous.

Michael Martinez is RUDE. I don't read anything that he writes just because of that.

The best Tolkien scholar is JRR Tolkien, the second best is Christopher Tolkien. Don't bother with anyone else.

Voronwe, sweetie, if I take your statement to its logical conclusion, then why bother reading the "Books" section here on the downs?

Tolkien and Tolkien, Sr. and Jr., are most certainly and obviously in a class by themselves. But there are other people who are worth listening to... at least once in a while. Even burra. Even when burra isn't being polite.

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Having ranted thus far, allow me to suggest that if you don't already have a copy of Tolkien's Letters, I highly recommend them. They're well indexed so you needn't read them start to finish (I never have. I skip around and browse.)

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

I totally agree that many of the guides have inaccuracies and can not be relied on. I have the ones by Day, Foster, and Tyler, but have found mistakes in all of them. The most reliable, in my mind, is not a print guide but the on-line Encyclopedia of Arda.

I recently subscribed to the Tolkien Collector and was surprised to receive a personal note from Christina Scull that she and her husband Wayne Hammond are now working on a guide which will take into account not only Silm and Hobbit and LotR, but also UT and HoMe. They are long time scholar/librarians and I am really looking forward to seeing that book when they finish.

But when you talk about Tolkien scholars, you should be looking at a lot more than guides. I do agree that no scholar can replace the perceptions that you personally have when you read the books, but I think it is equally short sighted to dismiss all insight that you can get by hearing what others think. Isn't that what we do hear at the Downs? Put forward our own opinions and ideas, and also try and learn from the perceptions of others.

I am not particularly enamored with either Day or Martinez. Any list of "best" scholars is totally subjective, but here are my favorite picks: Douglas Anderson, Wayne Hammond, T. A. Shippey, and Verlyn Flieger. If you're into languages, which I'm not, I would also add Carl Hostetter. And for a Catholic perspective, see Joseph Pearce.

Douglas Anderson has done a lot of bibliography and, more recently, did an updated edition of the Annotated Hobbit. The marginal comments are both amusing and illuminating. I really would recommend this.

Wayne Hammond is a librarian by profession (yeah, librarians, I'm one too!). His most recent publication is J.R.R. Tolkien, Artist and Illustrator, which I really love. The illustrations are gorgeous. He makes the argument that Tolkien's work as an illustrator has not been appreciated enough, and that it is an integral part of the storyline in all of his books.

T.A. Shippey did Tolkien, Author of the Century, which analyzes not the man but his works. My favorite, however, is his earlier volume, The Road to Middle Earth, where he pinpoints many of Tolkien's 'sources' in he original Norse/Celtic/Finnish legends. What makes Shippey unique is that, like JRRT, he is a philologist, so there are things he can see and understand in the texts that I could not, since I don't have that kind of background.

Finally, I really enjoy reading Verlyn Flieger, an older scholar who is a professor at the University of Maryland. I have found Flieger's two books fascinating--one analyzing the concept of light, and the other the concept of time, in terms of LotR and Silm. Flieger talks about the Silmarils and Galadriel's Phial in such a way that it throws enormous light to me (pardon that pun!) on my own favorite character, that of Frodo Baggins.

There are tons more scholarly folk out there, and it would be possible to give you a long list of names, but the real questions are these: what are you interested in, and what are you looking for? What's interesting to one individual can put the next one to sleep!

One last word of warning--don't be put off by terms like 'Tolkien scholars or critics'. All it means is that you have read the books, and that you have some kind of an opinion you want to put forth about what's in those books. Everyone who 'publishes' a thoughtful post on the books thread qualifies as a scholar under that criteria.

So-called scholars tend to have some kind of academic credentials, although even that varies. Hammond, for instance, just has a library degree from the University of Michigan, Flieger and Shippey have doctorates, and I don't know about Anderson. If you were to post a thread on this site in the Barrow-Downs thread and ask about the so-called 'academic credentials' of some of the older posters here, I think you might be surprised at the diversity of backgrounds. We also have our share of doctorates, and masters, and bachelors, and professional degrees. So don't be put off by "Tolkien scholars" but also don't be cowed by them. Some of the most insightful writing I've seen on JRRT has been right here at this site!

sharon

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

A person gets to a certain point where you know the story and the history eonough you begin to appreciate other points of view. Its all about readability and what you are interested in studying at the time. Canon is canon... and I like Martinez [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

I think what Voronwe meant is not to listen to anyone unless they're backing up what they say with quotes from the father and son.

In the years when the world was young, Tar Elenion owned Michael Martinez.
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin...c&f=1&t=000542
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin...=1&t=000538&p=

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

I don't think Tar Elenion owned MM. They had a long discussion , and both parts had some good points (just read most of the thread(s), but had to skip a part, due to dinner [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])

Well, personally, even though he is the only person I have ever had to edit as a moderator, I find many of his articles at suite 101 incredible, especially those on the second and early third age, Gondor and Arnor.

He has an ability to take 15 disparate facts given by JRRT and draw 10 more very likely conclusions.

He does not always hit a home run to be sure, but who does?

As for his personality, as it may have undergone a radical transformation since I last posted with him, why would I bother to judge what well may be 'the old MM' ?

that of course could be applied to everyone.

Why bother to reinforce and possibly be responsible for perpetuating [by mentally reaffirnming their weaknesses] someone's least desirable characteristics?

I see no reason to ignore great work in any field because it's creators were not Saints.

That being said Saints often have the most interesting things to say about that which is most important.

I will confess however that one of the gerat joys of the Legendarium is that JRRT is able to feed our mind, hearts and souls at the same time and on several different levels, it truly will, if you are open to it, leave you changed from when you entered in.

This is the hallmark of someone whose mind, heart and will, have a degree of integration, and it is most pleasant to encounter this here at times at the downs Forums, in the form of gracious and wise posts about worthy subjects.

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

I have no personal opinion on Micheal, since I have never met him, but his Suite101 articles are brilliant.As for day and co. ,I will never ever fritter my money on a 'Tolkien Companion' again, due to the inaccurices of a lot of the things, the shortness of the character bios, and not meaning to sound arrogant, but I knew most of the things they talked about anyway.

P.S, I have always pictured the Tolkien Scholar's (Day etc.)as being quite old men. Am I right in assuming this?

well told lindil and 'nuff said
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I don't know any specific Tolkien scholars, but I have read some books written by people who studied it. The books I read did not really have any specific opinions about Tolkien or his writing, they just kind of explained everything a little more clearly (No, I did not read Cliff notes). I did actually enjoy it. I like the books that explain the world of Middle Earth more, not ones that critcize the way it was written or anything like that.

You guys, seriously, me.

Thomas Aquinas.

I know, I'm shameless.

And you asked why I laugh. Honestly, where's the insanity graemlin when you need it? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] And yes, I like your new sig.

[ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]