[Bêthberry]

There's lots I could say but I'll leave that for later.

For now, I will say that I think Ordway slams Carpenter way too much. He was, after all, controlled in what he could say by the family and the Tolkien Estate, who, as Boro suggests about the letters, were highly selective in what they wanted to be known.

First biographies rarely offer the final or best word on an author. They are a starting point. The problem is that with Tolkien there have been so very few subsequent biographies based on new scholarship and studies, John Garth' on Tolkien and WWI and Raymond Edwards, who focuses more on Tolkien's academic work and ideas. Compare that to about 10 biographies on CS Lewis.

There is very little in Ordway's book that scholars like Hammond and Scull and Dimitra Fimi haven't already uncovered, although she does offer some new insights. There has been much written on Morris and MacDonald and Tolkien previous to her claims. Ordway simply maps it, so the info is all in one place. She too is also highly selective and prone to hunches.

I would also say that her rhetorical stance is heavy handed and for me immediately raises questions about her methodology.

"Nuff said for now.