Christopher Tolkien

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I'm not of that opinion. I am especially not of the opinion that just because someone can't understand the point of something it must be a shameless cash-in. Unfinished Tales fills in blanks, The Silmarillion as a complete published text is a fulfillment of J.R.R. Tolkien's lifelong dream, but The History of Middle-earth is not meant as something to fill in the blanks in a fan's knowledge. It is intended to give the reader an insight into how the legends developed, what inspired them, and the amount of time that J.R.R.T. spent developing and refining his mythology and languages. Some of the writings in the HoME were unknown to C.R.T. when he published the Silmarillion in 1977: this wasn't a small collection of papers that he was editing together, but sixty years of constant invention, revision and composition, which had been kept in an extremely disordered condition. There were bound to be omissions from the final edited work, and the HoME is intended to lay before the reader a lot of excellent writing that couldn't be included in the Silmarillion or was still sitting at the bottom of a box of documents in 1977. If this writing is of no use to someone who wants a definitive final version of the legends of Middle-earth (as possible and likely a thing as there being a definitive version of Hellenic or Norse mythology), it is still of use to someone who is interested in J.R.R. Tolkien's creative process or who doesn't care how many times something was superseded as long as it's an enjoyable read.

I am currently reading The History of Middle-earth, and so far it has been a fascinating journey through the mind of a truly remarkable man. The Silmarillion by its very nature cannot explain how and why it came to be written, or what inspired its author: the creative process is hidden by a complete and finished narrative. However, Christopher Tolkien was unhappy with the editorial work he had done, so he laid as much of the material he had used before interested readers as he could. The Revised Silmarillion project on the Downs is only possible because of this later work of CJRT's.

Even if the publication of HoME was superfluous, why can we not assume that it was a love of his father's writing (of which he was one of the first fans) that kept Christopher Tolkien editing his way through his father's works instead of devoting his time to his own professorial career? I and many others have found that the HoME have enriched our appreciation of the Tolkien corpus and deepened our understanding, not to mention made available some of his best writing, dropped because a newer version came along or because it was lost in his notes. As Terentianus Maurus pointed out in the quotation I gave above, it's all down to the reader. Go looking for something that tells you 'this is what happened at this point in LotR' in HoME and you will be disappointed. Go looking for an idea of just how fecund was Tolkien's mind or how he approached creative writing and you will find a wealth of information; go looking for good writing, previously unpublished because it failed to fit in with some grandiose all-embracing mythological vision and you will find it.

Again I would like to point out that with Christopher Tolkien people always assume that he's on the make, trying to squeeze as much money and mileage out of his father's work as possible. Not only do I not agree (although I can imagine that I might want to get paid for twenty years of work as well), but I am also mystified at why people are always assuming the worst of Christopher Tolkien, but giving the makers of the recent films the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me to be a completely wrong-headed double standard that profits no-one.

[VanimaEdhel]

Again I would like to point out that with Christopher Tolkien people always assume that he's on the make, trying to squeeze as much money and mileage out of his father's work as possible. Not only do I not agree (although I can imagine that I might want to get paid for twenty years of work as well), but I am also mystified at why people are always assuming the worst of Christopher Tolkien, but giving the makers of the recent films the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me to be a completely wrong-headed double standard that profits no-one.

Now you see I never saw HoME as a "cashing in" of any sorts. I saw it as Mr. Christopher Tolkien's way of remembering his father and also giving his father's fans a bit more insight into the development of the genius invention that was Middle Earth. Yes, he does include his own comments as to what he thinks, but, in my opinion, he makes it absolutely apparent that what he writes is his interpretation. The reader, upon discerning Tolkien's own writing, can make their own opinions on the subject.

On the other hand, I also tend to just let the movie-makers be. From what I've seen - which I admit is not a lot - Peter Jackson at least seems to be a genuine fan of Tolkien's works. I'm not sure you can say that it was a completely selfless attempt to carry Tolkien into the next generation, but his heart was somewhere in the general viscinity of the right location. And while it is fun and frequently merited to gripe about the introduction of Elves at Helm's Deep or the lack of Tom Bombadil, ultimately this was still a movie and not a book. If they wanted to even get the money to make the films, they couldn't very well tell New Line, "Well, look, yes, each movie will be about eight hours, but you see how accurate it is?" Firstly, the shorter the cinematic release, the more showings in one day. Also, the simpler the story, the more people will come to see it. Ultimately I think the movies did wonders for Tolkien's popularity. Yes, there are many people who love to think that the movies are the "real" version, and that the books are too "long" and "tedious," but look at how many new members the Barrow-Downs, for example, has obtained. Many of them either picked up the books again after not reading them for a good many years, and others read them for the first time, were fascinated, and determined that they were going to come here to find more about the world they stumbled across. It's easy enough to ignore the more annoying people who claim to be Tolkien fans, and I think that many of the newer members are precious to the board and to the Tolkien "fandom," as some people call it.

This is of course, my personal opinion. Very few people share it, from what I've seen.

[The Saucepan Man]

... but I am also mystified at why people are always assuming the worst of Christopher Tolkien, but giving the makers of the recent films the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me to be a completely wrong-headed double standard that profits no-one.

Squatter, I agree entirely with the points that you make concerning Christopher Tolkien's efforts and the value of what he has done in compiling and presenting his father's works. But it seems to me that there is little basis for comparing him with Peter Jackson (either favourably or unfaviourably) as they were both striving to acheive entirely different things. As far as I am concerned, they both greatly succeeded in what they set out to acheive (and were justly rewarded for doing so).

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I'm not trying to turn this into a thread of Peter Jackson complaints and rebuttals of them. I only wanted to point out that it's hypocritical to call HoME an unnecessary cash-in when there are three films out that made more money in a couple of years than Christopher Tolkien and his father have made out of their combined work since the 1930s.

I don't want to start throwing mud at Peter Jackson, particularly as I'm fairly sure that his motives were similar to Christopher Tolkien's. All that I wanted to do was to show that he's made a lot more money out of his undoubtedly enthusiastic and genuine tribute to Tolkien than Tolkien's son will ever make out of his work. However, if anyone thinks that everyone involved either in the making of the films or in the publication of Tolkien's works is an altruistic devotee, then they're sadly mistaken. I just think that C.R.T. is motivated by genuine enthusiasm for the subject and not just how much money he can make out of it. I only wish that I could say that about everyone.

[Snowdog]

How in the hell did those movies get into this? Oh well.

...as long as it's an enjoyable read.

Exactly. I'm not one to want to 'get into the mind' of Tolkien, or any author for that matter. I have browsed through Lost Tales 1 while sitting on a bookstore floor, and I've browsed the Lays of Beleriand another time in a store. These are the two that seem to be on every store's shelf around my area, and the content did little to inspire me to buy them, or pursue finding any of the others. I got more from reading Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle Earth.

I guess I think of Christopher as an individual, not an extension of his father. Therefore what he writes is his, not his father's, though he uses his father's notes.
I have to hand it to Simon Tolkien, for he writes his own stuff.

[HerenIstarion]

it seems only we down here are altruistic devotees , than

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

it seems only we down here are altruistic devotees

And maybe not even we. I know I expect to be paid for this.

I guess I think of Christopher as an individual, not an extension of his father. Therefore what he writes is his, not his father's, though he uses his father's notes.

I think that's where you're going wrong, Snowdog. The Silmarillion combines J.R.R. Tolkien's writing with C.R.T's so that it's very difficult to tell who wrote which parts without some knowledge of the original text. HoME, on the other hand, is clearly divided into J.R.R.T's unedited writing and C.R.T's academic analysis of each piece, each clearly presented as such.

HoME are not new compositions from J.R.R. Tolkien's notes, but collected writings by him with editorial commentary on the presented work, much like an edition of a medieval document. The irony is that C.R.T. came to regret a lot of his changes to the Silmarillion material, which is why he later published as many of the original texts as he could bring together. I think that his confidence in his ability to compile a truly definitive Silmarillion waned as he read more of his father's notes and drafts, so that in the end he felt that he had to present the incomplete material as he had found it rather than in a complete and finalised form. I value his comments as those of someone who knew the author personally and shared much of his learning and professional experience.

CRT was also involved in the production of his father's two main works of fiction. His earliest involvement with JRRT's writing was proof-reading early editions of The Hobbit, which was a task that his father set him when he was confined to bed with a juvenile heart condition; and JRRT also set him the task of drawing the maps for LotR. You will see the initials C.J.R.T. in the corners of all of these except in some new editions, for which the maps have been redrawn to fit on a smaller page. There are hints in the Letters that father and son had some very in-depth conversations about the Legendarium as a whole after JRRT realised that he would never be able to finish The Silmarillion, so I doubt that anyone living is more qualified to comment on the work than he.

Actually, one small part of The Lays of Beleriand isn't by either of the Tolkiens: C.S. Lewis made some textual comments on the manuscript of the Lay of Leithian when J.R.R.T. asked him to read it, and those are published with the poem itself, also clearly labelled. Lewis' comments are worth reading in themselves, since he presented them as though he were analysing a medieval poem, 'quoting' a number of fictional critics in support of his points.

Personally I enjoyed the Lost Tales and the Lays, particularly the alliterative verse Lay of the Children of Húrin, but that's a matter of personal taste. I even enjoyed reading quotations from one of JRRT's lectures about Beowulf in HoME 5, so mine's probably dryer than most.

[HerenIstarion]

It would be nice to get paid for hanging around this place. Let us form a trade union, sort of, than